Chapter Seven

On entering marriage and life within marriage (1–9). On the dissolution of the marital union, on circumcision and slavery (10–24). Should virgins and widows enter into marriage? (25–40)

1 Cor 7:1-9. In the Corinthian Church, as a reaction against the former pagan license in morals, some Christians had begun to champion the idea that it was improper for a Christian even to enter into marriage, and that those already married should live separately — husband apart from wife. Such opponents of marriage had probably arisen among the Christians converted by the Apostle Paul, who was himself unmarried and, as is evident from the present chapter, gave preference to celibacy over marriage. The Apostle was now called upon to determine how a Christian should view marriage, and he does so in this section. The main thought he develops here is that although celibacy has its own inherent advantage over marriage, in practice the contracting of marriage should be the most ordinary occurrence. Likewise, those who have married should live as husband and wife.

1 Corinthians 7:1. Now concerning what you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. ‘Now concerning what you wrote’ — until this point the Apostle had himself raised the questions. Now he turns to resolving the questions put to him in the letter sent by the Corinthians. — ‘Good’ (καλόν). Some (e.g. Jerome) understand this term in a moral sense (‘good,’ that is, pleasing to God) and therefore conclude from it that to touch a woman as a wife is generally bad and immoral. But such an interpretation stands in direct contradiction to the lofty view of marriage that the Apostle Paul gives, for example, in the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 5:25-33). Others understand the term as pointing to a simple practical usefulness of celibacy (‘good,’ that is, convenient and beneficial in many respects). Although a comparison of the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 5:29 and Matt 18:8), where in one instance the word ‘good’ (καλόν) appears and in another ‘beneficial’ (συμφέρειν), may suggest the plausibility of such an explanation, it is nevertheless doubtful that the Apostle Paul understood the word καλόν to mean only external convenience or external advantage. Among the Greeks the concept of καλόν signified something beautiful and becoming — something by which true virtue is invariably adorned. The Apostle likewise, in all probability, uses it in this sense — for he was writing to Greeks! Celibacy was for him a fully fitting and honorable state, one in which no offense was done to the moral ideal. The Apostle could find the basis for this assertion in the example of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in Whom we have the highest realization of moral beauty in human form, as well as in Christ’s words that in the life to come people will not enter into marriage (Luke 20:34). From these latter words it is clear that the Christian ideal is realized even more fully and vividly in the person of the unmarried than in the person of the married. And even though the Book of Genesis contains the words: ‘it is not good for man to be alone’ (Gen 2:18), those words were spoken at a time when man was literally alone. In the present age, however, this solitude does not have the character it had for Adam: around the unmarried man there are always other people in communion with whom he may live, and above all — the Christian man stands in close communion with his brothers in the Church and with the Head of the Church Himself — the Lord Jesus Christ. But it must be noted that the Apostle does not say at all that celibacy is in itself more sacred or holy than life in marriage. He wishes only to say that it contains nothing indecorous or unbecoming to a Christian. — ‘To touch a woman’ — to unite with a woman or to enter into marriage (Chrysostom).

1 Corinthians 7:2. But because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. However honorable the state of celibacy may be in itself, it cannot be a common occurrence or a general rule of life. — ‘But because of sexual immorality’ (τάς πορνείας). This plural (from πορνεία) is a reminder of the many temptations and sins of this kind that existed in Corinth. — ‘Each man — each woman’ — naturally with the exceptions noted in verse 7 (a special gift for the celibate life) and verses 25–28 (concerning virgins). — Some commentators see in this passage a degradation of marriage, which, according to the Apostle, seems to have only a negative significance — as a safeguard against various manifestations of immorality. They say that according to the Apostle, marriage turns out to be an evil, though a lesser one, which one must enter into only to avoid a greater evil. But in reply to this objection it must be said that the Apostle had no intention here of presenting any theory of his about marriage: he was only answering the question put to him by the Corinthians. And verse 14 of the chapter under consideration and verse 3 of chapter XI (1 Cor 11:3), where marriage is placed in correlation with the relationship between Christ and humanity, and then between God the Father and Christ, clearly testify that the Apostle Paul had a sufficiently definite conception of the moral side of the marital union.

1 Corinthians 7:3. Let the husband render to the wife what is due to her; and likewise the wife to the husband. 1 Corinthians 7:4. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 1 Corinthians 7:5. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer; and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But for marriage to achieve its purpose, it is necessary to live within marriage in a manner that corresponds to the very nature of this institution: each spouse must fulfil the marital duty (the majority of ancient manuscripts read only this word — ‘duty’ (τήν οφειλήν) — and not ‘due goodwill’ (τήν οφειλομένην ευνοίαν)): both spouses are obligated to sacrifice their personal independence to one another. It is for this reason that celibacy is ‘good’ (καλόν). — ‘Do not deprive one another.’ Interrupting marital relations is permissible, according to the Apostle, only: 1) by mutual consent; 2) for a limited time; and 3) for the practice of works of piety — specifically prayer (the addition ‘for fasting’ is found in only a very small number of manuscripts).

1 Corinthians 7:6. But I say this as a concession, not as a command. 1 Corinthians 7:7. For I wish that all people were as I am; but each person has their own gift from God, one in this way, another in that. What the Apostle said in verse 2 might appear to readers as a strict injunction to enter into marriage without fail. But in reality the Apostle expressed this as a ‘concession’ (συγγνώμη), not as a ‘command’ (επιταγή). The Apostle evidently does not wish to issue a strict command regarding the obligation of married life. He gives only advice — because he cannot but condescend to the pardonable weaknesses of the Corinthians (according to Ephrem the Syrian: indulgene, non imperane) — advice or permission to marry and enter into matrimony. Indeed, on the contrary, if he wished to express his personal attitude toward marriage, he would sooner have proposed the observance of celibacy: ‘for I wish that all people were as I am.’ But what does ‘as I am’ mean? Does the Apostle thereby point to the desirability of celibacy? Hardly could the Apostle in this case have better said: ‘as Christ.’ It is most likely that with these words the Apostle expresses the wish that all Christians were so free from sensual desires that, like the Apostle, they would not feel any particular deprivation in remaining celibate. At present, however, they are not so, and the Apostle, for example, is forced, in view of the Corinthians’ condition, to advise what actually contradicts his personal views. Through such a change in the disposition of Christians, marriage would not, however, lose its significance in life — the only motive for contracting marriage that the Apostle designated by the expression ‘because of sexual immorality’ would fall away, and the Corinthian Christians would begin marrying freely, in accordance with the requirements of their Christian state. That this desire of the Apostle is, however, unattainable, that it encounters an obstacle even on the part of God on its way to realization — of this the Apostle speaks as follows: ‘but each person has their own gift from God, one in this way, another in that.’ ‘Gift’ (χάρισμα) is an ability given by God to a particular person for some special action (1 Cor 1:7 and following Rom 12:6) — here it is freedom from sexual temptations or continence (εγκράτεια). This freedom is not given by God to all; others in its place receive gifts of another kind, which for their manifestation require a different field besides the relation to marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:8. To the unmarried and to the widows I say: it is good for them to remain as I am. Here the Apostle draws a conclusion from the proposition that celibacy is ‘good.’ Both unmarried men (i.e., those who have never married and those who are widowed) and widows would do well to remain in such a state. — Why does the Apostle not mention widowers separately, yet does mention widows? The widowhood of a woman places her in somewhat different, less favorable conditions than that of a man — it is harder for her to live, and therefore the Apostle found it necessary to say that he does not exclude even such unsupported persons as widows from his counsel. Moreover, a widow could arrange her own fate, which was not permitted to a maiden. This is why the Apostle did not mention virgins here.

1 Corinthians 7:9. But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. Here is a conclusion from the general rule that married life should be the norm. If a person, remaining celibate, cannot avoid sin, let him marry, because sin is an evil and marriage is not. 1 Cor 7:10-24. In this way the Apostle has resolved the main question — whether or not to enter into marriage. Now he resolves questions connected with the main one — and first of all the question of the permissibility of divorce. In his view, to divorce is sinful, even in the case where the party one wishes to leave belongs to the pagan community. Only if a pagan spouse desires a divorce should the Christian not oppose this. Along with this the Apostle gives supplementary instructions (vv. 17–24) on how, in general, a Christian should regard his external condition — his circumcision, if he was previously a Jew, and his slavery, if he came to faith while a slave.

1 Corinthians 7:10. To the married I give this charge — not I, but the Lord — that the wife should not separate from her husband, 1 Corinthians 7:11. but if she does separate, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband — and that the husband should not divorce his wife. Here, evidently, the Apostle has in mind spouses who are Christians, for whom alone the commandments of Christ held significance. — ‘Not I, but the Lord.’ Christ the Savior did indeed give such a commandment. It is preserved in the Gospels (see Matt 5:32; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18). At that time, of course, believers could acquaint themselves with this commandment through the oral preaching of the proclaimers of the Gospel. — But why does the Apostle make a distinction between his own commandments (v. 12) and those of the Lord? Does he not thereby diminish the authority of his apostolic prescriptions? It may be thought that the Apostle wished by this distinction to differentiate the direct, definitive commandments of the Lord, which Christians must observe without any deliberation, from his own instructions, which held significance only for the churches founded by the Apostle Paul himself. Moreover, he considered it necessary, when offering his own instructions, to support them in one way or another (cf. vv. 14 and 16), which was not required in presenting the Lord’s commandment.

Matthew 5:32. ‘The wife should not separate from her husband.’ The Apostle here omits the addition made by Christ: ‘except for the reason of adultery’ (Matt. 5:32), because he did not wish to allow for the possibility that such adultery could occur among Christians. — Why does he first address the wife? Because from the wife, as the weaker and more dependent being, a declaration of desire for divorce was most likely to come. (The Apostle has in mind here the custom of Greece, not of Judea.) — ‘She must remain unmarried.’ The Apostle by this teaching demands that the seriousness of the marital union be acknowledged. It cannot be entered into carelessly and then dissolved with equal carelessness in order to contract a new one. A second marriage for a divorced wife — and of course also for a husband who has divorced his wife — the Apostle does not permit: either remain unmarried, endure all the deprivations connected with divorce, or return to the husband — these are the only two outcomes for a wife who has separated from her husband. Concerning the innocent party who is left alone after the departure of the guilty spouse, the Apostle says nothing, and thereby gives that party the possibility of entering into a new marriage. Thus, the state, by virtue of its own particular considerations, accommodating itself to the state of human morals (cf. Matt 19:8: Moses ‘because of the hardness of heart’ of the Jews permitted divorce), may allow even the guilty party in a divorce to remarry, but this arrangement will be purely a civil one and not an ecclesiastical one. The Church cannot bless such marriages by performing them in the name of the Lord, and all the concessions made in this regard contradict the direct commandment of the Lord, as this commandment is set forth by the Apostle Paul in verse 11. 1 Corinthians 7:12. To the rest I say — I, not the Lord — if any brother has a wife who is not a believer, and she is willing to live with him, he should not divorce her; 1 Corinthians 7:13. and a wife who has a husband who is not a believer, and he is willing to live with her, she should not divorce him. It could happen that in Corinth or elsewhere only one of the spouses would convert to Christianity, while the other continued to remain in paganism or Judaism. In this way mixed marriages arose. Christ gave no commandment regarding such marriages, and therefore the Apostle himself undertakes the task of giving guidance on such cases, drawing, of course, on what was known to him from the teaching of Christ. By this mention that here he is presenting his own, Paul’s, instruction, he does not of course wish to weaken its force (cf. v. 10). — How then does the Apostle resolve the question of such mixed marriages? The whole matter depends on the wish of the non-Christian spouse: if he wishes to continue living in marital union with a Christian wife, or if the non-believing wife with a Christian husband, then the marriage remains in full force. Thus, cohabitation with an unbeliever, according to the Apostle, places no stain on the believing spouse.

1 Corinthians 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through the believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. The reason for which the Apostle permits such mixed marriages lies in the sanctifying power of the Christian religion, which (power) not only does not allow the non-believing party to defile the believing one, but even exercises a certain sanctifying influence on the unbelieving spouse. — ‘Is sanctified’ (ηγίασται) — more precisely: ‘is sanctified’ or ‘is consecrated.’ The non-Christian party has already been sanctified through the Christian by his or her agreement to live with the Christian. This agreement is equivalent to faith in the relation of the believer to Christ. The non-Christian spouse has already been consecrated to God through inner and outward communion with the Christian spouse. — To prove the reality of such sanctification and consecration, the Apostle appeals to a fact universally known in the Church: ‘your children... are holy.’ The Apostle wishes to say the following by this: if a Christian mother acknowledges that her children are holy, though their father is a pagan, then all the more must she believe in the sanctifying significance she has in relation to her pagan husband. Children bear in themselves an innate impurity; they cannot yet express their consent to remain with their Christian mother, yet they are truly holy (ἅγια, a stronger expression than ηγίασται), truly sanctified and consecrated to God by virtue of inner communion with a Christian parent. All the more can adult unbelieving spouses be sanctified by virtue of their communion with their Christian spouses. — In all probability the Apostle has in mind here the sacrament of baptism, which, according to the testimony of Origen (comment. in epiet. ad. Kor. t. V:9), was administered in the time of the Apostles also over children. He does not, however, here ascribe ‘holiness’ to children by virtue of the baptism performed on them; rather, this very baptism, according to the context of the passage, was for him a sign and factual proof of that holy state in which the children of Christians existed. Similarly, the Hebrews did not become descendants of Abraham because they received circumcision; rather, their very descent from Abraham gave them the right to receive circumcision. The whole matter here consists in the close inner communion of children with their Christian parents, by virtue of which they stand in a gracious union with Christ.

1 Corinthians 7:15. But if the unbelieving spouse wishes to separate, let him separate; in such cases the brother or sister is not bound; the Lord has called us to peace. 1 Corinthians 7:16. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? In the case where the non-Christian spouse does not wish to continue living in matrimony with a Christian woman, the latter must leave him. — ‘In such cases not bound.’ The Apostle has in mind here, of course, the transitory character of all earthly relations compared with the eternal interests that alone have binding significance for the believer. — ‘To peace’ (εν ειρήνη) — more precisely: ‘in peace.’ The Apostle wishes to say that believers have been called ‘in peace,’ that is, they have received peace with God, and by virtue of this their entire earthly life should bear the stamp of peace. — ‘How do you know.’ The meekness and calm consent to divorce that a Christian wife gives to her pagan husband may perhaps incline him toward the Christian religion and toward a sense of his own guilt before his wife, even more than the wife’s stubborn insistence on her rights to live together with her husband.

1 Corinthians 7:17. Only, let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is the rule I give in all the churches. The Apostle views all national and social relations from the same standpoint from which he viewed marriage. In the verse under consideration he expresses the general principle that is decisive for all questions of this kind: every believer must remain in the same circumstances in which he found himself when he was called to salvation. — ‘Lead’ (περιπατεῖν) — more precisely: ‘walk, live.’ — ‘In all the churches’ — naturally, those founded by the Apostle Paul himself. — From this it is evident that the Gospel went forth into the world with complete confidence in victory, with the confidence that it was capable of gradually permeating every kind of life relationship with its spirit. It was far removed from all revolutionary strivings and designs...

1 Corinthians 7:18. Was anyone called after being circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 1 Corinthians 7:19. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God. The first example of Christianity’s attitude toward the external conditions of life is the Apostle’s instruction directed on the one hand to those called into the Church while circumcised, and on the other to those called while uncircumcised. To both the Apostle commands that they remain outwardly as they were before accepting Christianity — the circumcised should not be ashamed of their circumcision or try by any means to conceal its traces, and the uncircumcised should not get circumcised. As for the former, such persons existed even among the Jews during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:15). Those who had converted to Christianity from Judaism could naturally feel embarrassed by their circumcision, the traces of which they bore on themselves, and try in some way to efface those traces.

1 Corinthians 7:20. Let each person remain in the calling in which he was called. This verse is more correctly translated as: ‘let each person remain faithful to the calling (κλῆσις — call, vocation to salvation) in which (η) he was called.’ One must not forget, however, that in the concept of ‘calling’ are included all the external circumstances that gave occasion for it and that determine the very character or manner of the calling. How different was the conversion of the circumcised and the uncircumcised! And from this God-ordained state one cannot step away arbitrarily. This state did not prevent a person from hearing the call of God — on the contrary, it even facilitated his conversion, and therefore in subsequent life, after conversion, it can likewise serve him to demonstrate his faithfulness to God.

1 Corinthians 7:21. Were you a slave when you were called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you are able to become free, rather make use of it. A second example of the fact that the Gospel does not seek to abolish the existing external relations between people is the Apostle’s view on the permissibility of slavery for a Christian. It would seem that there was no institution so contrary to the Christian spirit — Christian holiness, dignity, and freedom — as slavery; and yet the Apostle exhorts slaves who have converted to Christianity not to be troubled by this inconsistency. Even in the case where a slave could free himself from slavery, he would do better to serve his master with even greater zeal. So, in our opinion, based moreover on the authority of the ancient ecclesiastical commentators under whose guidance the Slavic translators rendered the second half of the verse under consideration, should the words μᾶλλον χρῆσαι be understood — words that are rendered unclearly in the Russian translation by the expression ‘make better use of it.’ The Apostle regards remaining in slavery as a spiritual exploit undertaken by the Christian. The Christian slave must remember that he was called to Christ as a slave, that Christ found him worthy of His fellowship despite his servile condition — and therefore he should not strive to exchange this position for another.

1 Corinthians 7:22. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord; likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. 1 Corinthians 7:23. You were bought with a great price; do not become slaves of men. The Apostle regards it as all the more natural for a Christian slave to remain in slavery, since within the Christian community the distinctions between masters and slaves in reality do not exist. — ‘Called in the Lord,’ that is, called through the Lord Jesus Christ. If he responded to this call, he thereby became inwardly free, and slavery holds no terror for him. Conversely, the free man who was called feels that he has become a servant of the Lord, and this brings him not sadness but joy. Given that God has acquired Christians as His own servants at a great price — the sacrifice of His Son for the sins of humanity — Christians must serve God alone and must not enter into a relation of slavish submission to people — to various agitators who were apparently urging the Corinthian slaves to throw off their slavery by any available means, as something entirely incompatible with their exalted position as the elect of God (cf. 1 Cor 4:15).

1 Corinthians 7:24. Brothers, let each person, in whatever calling he was called, remain there before God. This is the conclusion to the thoughts set forth from verse 17 through verse 23. — ‘Before God.’ A Christian, remaining in his former external position even after accepting the faith, must at the same time place himself before the face of God, fulfilling his duties — however lowly they may be — out of devotion to God. The fulfillment of even such duties thereby becomes equivalent to worship. 1 Cor 7:25-40. Since in antiquity the fate of virgins was decided by their fathers, who themselves chose husbands for their daughters, the Apostle considers it necessary to offer special guidance to Christian parents. He advises that it is better not to give daughters in marriage, if this is at all possible (25–26), first, in view of the difficult times through which Christianity was then passing (27–31), and second, in view of the advantages that celibacy has over marriage when it comes to serving the Lord (32–38). Finally, the Apostle gives the same advice to widows (39–40).

1 Corinthians 7:25. Now concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. ‘As one who’ — more correctly: as one who by the grace of God is able to give you good counsel; or: to be a trustworthy guide for you. — The Apostle evidently speaks here with a certain irony. The Corinthians appeared to be asking whether there was any direct ‘commandment’ of Christ, as if not satisfied with his apostolic words. The Apostle reminds them that even if he does not have a direct commandment of Christ and gives only his own counsel, these counsels should still merit attention as those of a person who had penetrated, with a mind guided by the Spirit of God, especially deeply into the mysteries of the Christian faith.

1 Corinthians 7:26. I consider that, in view of the present distress, it is good for a man to remain as he is. ‘In view of the present distress’ (διά τ ενεστῶσαν ανάγκην). The Apostle here has in mind the entire period that must pass between the descent of the Holy Spirit upon believers and the Second Coming of Christ. This is a period of ‘distress,’ or constant struggle between the new life and the old (cf. Luke 12:51), a ‘present distress,’ that is, one that has already set in, already begun. Persecutions of Christianity by the pagan authorities were about to begin. All this impels the Apostle to advise those who are unmarried to remain in the unmarried state. — The entire verse is more correctly translated as: ‘I believe that, in view of the already oncoming difficult time for Christians, it is better to remain a virgin, because in general it is good for a person to remain so, that is, unmarried.’ Thus the first half of the verse contains a reference to a particular reason urging toward celibacy, while the second half gives a general basis for the same.

1 Corinthians 7:27. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be freed. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 1 Corinthians 7:28. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will face bodily trials, and I want to spare you. The Apostle now sets forth with greater detail the thought about the inconveniences connected with married life. Of course, there is no sin in married life, but in the present state of Christianity, a married man and a married woman will have to endure no little unpleasantness in life, which a person bears more easily when alone. — ‘Bodily trials’ — these are the external, physical hardships that were to afflict Christians with families especially during times of persecution.

1 Corinthians 7:29. This is what I mean, brothers: the time has grown short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 1 Corinthians 7:30. and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, 1 Corinthians 7:31. and those who deal with the world as though they were not absorbed in it. For the present form of this world is passing away. ‘The time has grown short.’ The moment when the present order of things must come to an end is not far off. We do not know how long the present phase of the Church’s life will continue (cf. Mark 13:32). In view of this, one must not plunge one’s heart and mind into earthly things; marriage, joy, sorrow, commerce and the general enjoyment of the world — all this is fleeting. Of course, the Apostle does not deprive Christians of all joy and does not forbid concern for worldly things, but only cautions against excess in either. — ‘Those who deal with the world’ — this expression encompasses marriage, property, and commerce, as well as every political, scholarly, and artistic activity. All such persons must, according to the Apostle, look upon what occupies them as temporary and fleeting, without attaching themselves to it with the full force of the soul. — Can this requirement be applied to Christians of the present day, before whom the specter of a near end of the world does not loom with such vividness? Entirely so, because no person should be confident of the durability of the results of his activity: in scholarship, art, and politics everything is constantly being replaced by something else, and consequently, in general, the feelings of the modern Christian should not differ from those with which a Christian of the apostolic age labored in the various fields of life and art. And as for where to draw the line between ‘dealing with the world’ and ‘not dealing with it’ — this is something the Christian’s moral discernment must determine.

1 Corinthians 7:32. I want you to be free from concern. The unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 1 Corinthians 7:33. but the married man is concerned about worldly things, how to please his wife. There is a difference between the married and the unmarried woman: 1 Corinthians 7:34. the unmarried woman is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord, so that she may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is concerned about worldly things, how to please her husband. The Apostle is now speaking no longer of the extraordinary cares that must afflict Christian parents in times of persecution of the Church, but simply of the moral difficulties to which married life leads at any time. A free, single person can — if he wishes — devote himself entirely and without wavering to the service of the Lord. A married man, on the other hand, must also take into account the desires of his wife, to support whom is likewise a sacred duty for him. ‘There is a difference between the married and the unmarried woman’ — in Greek, Μεμέρισται η γυνή καί η παρθένος. Evidently these words, in this reading, belong to verse 34. But according to the better reading, they should be read as follows: καί μεμέρισται, ‘and is divided,’ that is, ‘the married man is concerned about worldly things... and is divided’ — divided in his strivings between attachment to Christ and the cares of everyday life. Then, according to this reading, the expression beginning verse 34 follows: η γυνή η άγαμος καί η παρθενος η άγαμος, that is, the unmarried woman (widow) and the unmarried virgin μεριμνᾶ — is concerned, and so on. — ‘That she may be holy in body and spirit.’ From this it does not at all follow that cohabitation with a husband is sinful for a woman or defiles her body and spirit. This expression only means that the said virgin or widow has resolved to dedicate herself entirely to the service of the Lord. In marriage, however, a woman does not alone have authority over her own body — her husband also does (cf. v. 4) — and her soul is divided between earthly and heavenly cares.

1 Corinthians 7:35. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord. The Apostle wishes here to defend himself against the suspicion that he is giving instructions to believers only in accordance with his own views. No, he is pursuing only the true benefit of believers and wishes to point out to them the simplest way to serve God unhindered. One may suppose that as the Apostle wrote this, the image of Mary sitting at the feet of Christ in Bethany and listening to His words hovered before his mind (cf. Luke 10:39-42).

1 Corinthians 7:36. If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward his virgin, if she is past her prime and it seems necessary, let him do what he wishes — he is not sinning; let them marry. 1 Corinthians 7:37. But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no compulsion and having control over his own will, and has resolved in his heart to keep his virgin, does well. 1 Corinthians 7:38. So then, the one who gives his virgin in marriage does well, and the one who does not give her in marriage does better. Here the Apostle draws a practical conclusion from what was said above. He takes two cases possible in relation to the situation of virgins and gives instructions as to how to act in each of these cases. The first case: a father of a virgin finds it more appropriate to give her in marriage. The Apostle says to this that the man will not sin by carrying out his decision (it should be noted that old maids in antiquity attracted contempt — cf. Ps 77:63). The second case: sometimes a father comes to the firm conviction that the celibate life is better for his daughter than married life, while at the same time from the persons closest to him (his daughter herself and his wife) he encounters no serious obstacle to carrying out his decision. If he has definitively resolved to keep or preserve his daughter solely for service to the Lord, then he has acted in this case better than one who decided to give his daughter in marriage. — In establishing this principle, the Apostle was not afraid that its implementation in life should bring an end to the existence of humanity. He knew that by no means all Christians have the inclination or gift for the celibate life (cf. v. 7).

1 Corinthians 7:39. A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 7:40. But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God. The Apostle considers it necessary to speak separately about widows, apart from widowers (vv. 8 and 9), because the situation of the former was somewhat different from that of the latter. Whereas public opinion in antiquity was entirely favorable toward a second marriage of widowers, it was considered more fitting for a widow to remain unmarried for the rest of her life (cf. Luke 2:36). — ‘Only in the Lord,’ that is, only if both she and her new husband remain in communion with Christ. This means that a widow may remarry ‘only’ to a Christian. — ‘By my judgment’ — see vv. 6–7 and 10. — ‘And I think....’ Here, evidently, is irony. The Apostle has in mind those opponents of his who even denied him any inspiration, such as was the portion of the majority of ordinary Christians in Corinth. * * * In Judea a wife had no right to initiate divorce proceedings. According to Ph. Bachmann, the passage speaks here of the holiness of the pagan spouse for the Church, that is, for all other members of the Church, who regard such a person as ‘one of their own’ and are not afraid of being defiled, for example, by his presence at table. Godet holds that the Apostle has in mind exactly the opposite, and in his opinion this passage should be translated as: but if you could become free, rather make use of this possibility (and do not remain in slavery). The consideration that should carry particular persuasive weight, according to Godet, is that the Apostle could not have given a slave-Christian such an ‘unreasonable’ counsel. Freedom is a good by which a person in a certain sense resembles God, and to renounce freedom voluntarily is to harm oneself... But these considerations are not sufficiently persuasive. One must remember that the Gospel did not wish to change social relations but sought to transform the inner state of the person. Only by having made a person free within could it bring an end to his external slavery as well. Some commentators (Grafe, Achelis) hold that what is discussed here is not fathers but guardians, who were sometimes in a ‘spiritual’ marriage with the virgins entrusted to their care (virgines subintroductae) and therefore did not wish to give them in marriage. But this custom is a phenomenon of a later period, and the Apostle could not have had it in mind here. For more detail see Ph. Bachmann.