1 Corinthians 7:39

1Co_7:39-40

She is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

--

On marriage

Let me--

I. Explain and justify the rule laid down in the text.

1. To be in the Lord is to be a believer in Christ, to be united to Him by a living faith, and to be interested by reason of that, in all the blessings of His great salvation. In short, believers in Christ should marry believers, and none other. Now, this law does not require--

(1) Perfect unanimity in religious sentiment. Creeds may differ, but hearts may be the same.

(2) That both should be members of the same religious society. This is, however, exceedingly desirable, for it is unseemly, indeed, when they who are together in all the most endearing intercourse of life, go as solitary individuals to the sanctuary.

(3) That both or either of the parties should be in full communion with any Christian Church. Now, I believe that a man who lives in the neglect of such communion lives in the violation of a positive command, and in the abandonment of a precious privilege, and, by so doing, subjects his Christianity to suspicion by the Church, and to animadversion from the world. Yet still, there are some who, notwithstanding this serious drawback, we are compelled to believe love the Saviour.

2. Having thus ascertained the rule, we proceed to justify it by an appeal--

(1) To the reasonings of Scripture (Jos_23:11, &c.; Ezr_9:1-2; Deu_7:1-4). Now, if such a principle as this was thus established under a dispensation comparatively lax and dim, how much more reasonable and binding must it appear as a law of Christianity (2Co_6:14-18).

(2) To history, observation, and experience. With all the excuses persons have made, and all the disinterested motives they have assigned for their conduct, did you ever know any good come of it? Scripture and the Church are big with examples of domestic misery and spiritual ruin, the result of these monstrous and unnatural connections. What became of the daughters of Lot, who preferred the sons of Sodom to the sons of God? Was there ever a greater monster, a more fearful prodigy of vice than Ahab? (see also Neh_13:23-27).

3. To analogy. If you wished for a commercial partner, would you choose a man utterly averse to, or totally ignorant of, trade? Would you choose for the companion of a long journey a man whose disposition and principles were opposite to your own? Would you, as a man of taste and of education, prefer being shut up for weeks in a carriage with a fool or a clown?

4. To acknowledged obligation (1Co_6:20). And how is such a marriage to promote the glory of God?

5. To conscience--whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Now, is this of faith, the union of a believer with an infidel?--of a friend of Jesus with an enemy?

II. Consider and expose some of the most obvious temptations to its violation and the most common excuses for it.

1. Fortune. It is this which constitutes a good match.

2. Rank and station.

3. Parental advice.

4. An ill-directed but sincere attachment.

5. But some are ready to say, the object of my attachment has everything but real religion. Well, and wanting that, everything is wanting.

III. Some hints of caution and advice.

1. There may be marriages within the letter of the apostolic rule, which yet are neither lovely nor of good report. There may be piety in both parties, yet--

(1) Such discrepancies of age as to render the union odious.

(2) Such an evident impropriety in the connection as to render it a subject of grief to the Church, and animadversion to the world.

(3) Such indecorous haste in the formation of a new alliance, immediately after the dissolution of an old one, as to excite the grievest censure.

2. There may be marriages in which the law of Scripture is observed with regard to piety, but the dictates of prudence utterly disregarded. There may be marriages where there is neither strength of affection, suitableness of character, adaptation of temper, or similarity of views, sufficient to ensure permanent happiness and domestic harmony.

3. There may be cases in which it is difficult to apply the rule of Scripture, and to determine in what way to act. There may be a most distressing ambiguity about a character. It is impossible to tell how far the influence of circumstances, so peculiarly interesting, may give a more favourable appearance than actual principle would warrant: the mind perpetually alternates between hope and fear, and dares not to decide. In such a case it were well to wait and watch, and, after all, if there should be error, to err on the side of conscience and of safety. Finally, let the husband and wife, who neither of them fear God, think how terrible a thing it is to walk hand in hand to hell. Let the pious husband who has an unbelieving wife, or the pious wife who has an unbelieving husband, strive by all means, by meekness, gentleness, and affection, to win the unbelieving party to the truth (1Co_7:16). (T. Raffles, LL. D.)

Christian marriage

I. This command must be explained.

1. In what respects it allows freedom. A believer may marry--

(1) A second time. This is the particular case here referred to.

(2) Under various circumstances of inequality. If he marry in the Lord, he is at liberty to marry whom he will. There may be inequality of mind, age, station in life. Marrying in the Lord is of such infinite importance that in comparison with it every other consideration is almost trivial. Yet it should be seriously considered that any great inequality, though not expressly forbidden, is yet very undesirable. The God of grace is also the God of nature--the God of order, too, and not of confusion. All these things are lawful for me, but all these things are not expedient.

2. In what respect it binds. Only in the Lord.

(1) Only to a Christian. For a believer to marry an unconverted person may be to marry in carnality, or in covetousness, or in pride, or in the world; but certainly not in the Lord. It is against the Lord; in opposition to one of His plainest commandments, and also to all reason and propriety. Such a junction (for union it cannot be) partakes of the monstrous. For the difference between a regenerate and an unregenerate person is next to infinite (2Co_6:14-16).

(2) Only as a Christian--religiously and with the fear of God. They, there-fore, who anxiously desire to marry only in the Lord, will remember that a prudent wife (or husband) cometh from Him; they will, therefore, by prayer seek this good gift from the only Giver.

II. This command must be enforced. Obedience here--

1. Tends to the glory of God. God is glorified in this world by the visible holiness of His people. When professors marry persons of the world, for money, or connection, or personal attraction, how is the mouth of the ungodly opened, the Church scandalised, and the cause of Christ dishonoured!

2. Prevents many most deplorable evils. He who obeys this precept will be saved from the shame of inconsistency before the world, from the loss of the esteem of holy persons, and from the remorse of his own conscience. Even in those cases of mixed marriages where the professing partner is not drawn aside by the other into apostacy; usually, he suffers great spiritual loss, and loses all zeal in doing good. And should there be children, the mischief spreads.

3. Promotes the true interest and happiness of those who obey it. The advantages that attend the spiritual and holy union of two believing persons are inestimable. They walk together, for they are agreed. They are helpers of each others faith and joy, being made, through grace, the instruments of each others spiritual growth in fruitfulness and happiness. They have their sorrows; but these they lessen by dividing them, bearing each others burden. They have their faults; but these they confess, the one to the other, and pray one for another, that they may be healed. But among all the changing scenes of life, they have a look that penetrates within the veil, where their union will be perfected, and crowned with immortality. Hence they habitually walk, as being heirs together of the grace of life. If children are given to them, they cordially unite in the work of bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Exhortations:

1. To Christians who are yet free to obey this command. You see what the will of the Lord is. Regard with horror the thought of being united to an unconverted person.

2. To those who have already transgressed this command. If, by having married inconsistently, you have awakened in your partners mind the suspicion that your religion is all a delusion, now seek to dislodge that suspicion, and to implant in its stead the conviction that religion is a great reality.

3. To those who have married in accordance with this precept. Happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you. (Essex Congregational Remembrancer.)

But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment.

The widows happiness

I. Is conditional.

1. Upon her union with Christ.

2. Upon times and circumstances.

II. Consists in--

1. Freedom and care.

2. Holy service.

3. The assurance of the Divine protection and blessing.

III. Is confirmed by--

1. Apostolic judgment.

2. Enlightened by the Spirit of God. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

And I think also that I have the Spirit of God.--

Degrees of apostolical authority

The apostle on this point does not arrogate more to himself than a view, an advice, the value of which every one can appraise at pleasure. It is evident how far he was removed from that exaltation which makes fanatics take all their ideas for revelations. Nevertheless, he certainly claims an inspiration, and traces it to the Divine Spirit. But we must beware of concluding that he did not claim, besides this, revelations of a wholly special kind. In other cases he is careful to affirm that his directions proceed from the Lord (1Co_14:37; 1Co_7:17). And if he thus expresses himself in connection with simple directions about public worship or Christian practice, how much more conscious was he of being the organ of a Divine revelation of a wholly personal kind when the matter in question was the very essence of his gospel! We are led, therefore, to distinguish three degrees of authority.

I. The Direct Commands Of The Lord, which He gave during His sojourn on earth, and which Paul merely quotes without discussing their grounds (1Co_7:10).

II. The apostolic commands of the apostle, which are imposed on Churches subject to his jurisdiction, and which he gives them as the organ of a higher illumination attached to his special mission. As to these he is careful to expound their reasons, being unwilling to ask his brethren to give a blind obedience (1Co_7:12-17; cf. 1Co_10:15).

III. The directions which he gives as a simple Christian, which he himself declares to be optional, and which he leaves to the judgment of every believer (1Co_7:25). In the text there is a vein of irony. Now, I hope, however, even if my apostolic authority is disputed among you, that you will not deny to me the possession of the Divine Spirit, such as you recognise in all Christians, and specially in the numerous spiritual guides to whom you give your confidence. (Prof. Godet.)

.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 7:39-40. The wife is bound by the law — See on Rom 7:2. Or the apostle may mean the law of the gospel, called the law of faith, and the law of liberty; or he may intend the law of marriage given to Adam and Eve in paradise: is bound to her husband so long as he liveth — This is the general rule, from which is excepted the case of fornication, (Mat 5:32,) and desertion, 1Co 7:15. The apostle repeats what he had enjoined in the preceding part of the chapter, (1Co 7:10-13,) namely, that married Christian women were not to leave their husbands on account of the troubles which in that time of persecution attended the married state. But if her husband be dead — Or if he be justly divorced from her, or maliciously deserts her; she is at liberty to be married, but only in the Lord — That is, let Christians only marry Christians; or let the truly pious only marry the truly pious: a standing direction, and one of the utmost importance. But she is happier — Approaches nearer to the happiness of heaven, which consists in freely enjoying God, and uninterruptedly serving him; if she so abide — Remain a widow; after my judgment — See on 1Co 7:6; 1Co 7:25: he speaks only modestly, not doubtingly. And I think that I also — As well as any of you, and no less than the other apostles; have the Spirit of God — Teaching me in all things that concern the religion of Jesus; or, that I am infallibly guided by God’s Spirit, and endued with knowledge and wisdom to determine matters of controversy in the church. The word δοκω, rendered I think, in this, as in many other passages, does not express doubting, but certainty, 1Co 4:9; Mar 10:42; Luk 8:18; 1Co 11:16; 1Co 14:32. From these, and many other examples which might be adduced, it is evident that the word in this verse does not imply that the apostle was in any doubt whether he was inspired in giving this judgment. It is only a soft way of expressing his certain knowledge of his own inspiration, and may have been used ironically in reference to, and reproof of, the false teachers and others who called his inspiration in question. Whoever therefore would conclude from hence that St. Paul was not certain he had the Spirit of Christ, neither understands the true import of the words, nor considers how expressly he lays claim to the Spirit, both in this epistle, 1Co 2:16; 1Co 14:37; and in the other, 1Co 13:3.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7:39 A widow may marry another man, but only if he loves the Lord. Paul strongly discouraged the marriage of Christians to unbelievers (cp. 2 Cor 6:14-16).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 7:39. Ἐν Κυρίῳ, in the Lord) So that Christ is here also all things. Christians and unbelievers mixed in society and dwelt together. He therefore commands Christian men to many Christian women.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_7:39-40. An appended rule respecting second marriage on the part of women, occasioned probably by questions from the Corinthians.

δέδεται] sc[1274] τῷ ἀνδρί; she may not separate herself from him and marry another. Comp 1Co_7:27; Rom_7:2.

ᾯ ΘΈΛΕΙ ΓΑΜΗΘῆΝΑΙ] to whom she desires to be married. Comp Mar_10:12. ΓΑΜΕῖ ΜῈΝ ΓᾺΡ Ὁ ἈΝῊΡ, ΓΑΜΕῖΤΑΙ ΔῈ Ἡ ΓΥΝΉ, Schol. ad Eur. Med. 593. As regards the later form γαμηθῆναι, instead of the Attic ΓΑΜΕΘῆΝΑΙ, see Lobeck, a[1277] Phryn. p. 742.

ΜΌΝΟΝ ἘΝ ΚΥΡΊῼ] only in the Lord, not apart from Christ as the specifically determining element of the new union; only in a Christian way, i.e. only to a Christian, s.c. let her be married.[1278] So among the early interpreters, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Theodoret, Grotius (who puts it happily: intra ecclesiam), Estius, al[1279], or also Olshausen and de Wette. This does not run counter to 1Co_7:12 ff., where, in fact, those mixed marriages are meant which date from the pre-Christian period, and in which only one spouse has become Christian. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, and others, including Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, Billroth, Rückert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, Ewald, all understand the phrase to mean: in a Christian spirit, acting as a Christian should, in the fear of the Lord, etc. (several of the above-named interpreters, as Flatt, Rückert, Osiander, Neander, Maier, include also the point that the husband must be a Christian, or lay the chief stress upon this, as Hofmann and Weiss). But what we have here is plainly a limitation of the ᾧ θέλει so emphatically put first. Moreover, the wider and more general the meaning ascribed to ἘΝ ΚΥΡΊῼ, the more inappropriate it seems in connection with the foregoing definite rules, which all take for granted that the action is Christian.

ΜΑΚΑΡΙΩΤ.] more blessed, i.e. not merely more spared from troubles (1Co_7:26; 1Co_7:28), but, in accordance with the higher reference which μακάρ. invariably has in the N. T., enjoying the blessed relation, which arises out of withdrawal from worldly cares and self-surrender to Christ. See 1Co_7:32-34. As to greater blessedness in heaven, which some have dragged in here in the interests of celibacy (Ambrosiaster, Cornelius a Lapide, al[1280], including Hirscher, Moral, III. p. 502), there is not a word of that in the text, even if we should read ἔσται in place of ἘΣΤΊΝ.

ΚΑΤᾺ Τ. ἘΜῊΝ ΓΝΏΜΗΝ] ἘΜΉΝ carries the emphasis of apostolic self-consciousness.

ΔΟΚῶ ΔῈ ΚἈΓῺ Κ.Τ.Λ[1281]] so that I therefore may expect you to regard my opinion, not as a mere individual judgment, but as arrived at under the influence of the Holy Spirit which is imparted (ἔχειν) to me also, and hence as worthy to be received and followed.

Respecting δοκῶ, mihi videor, the note of Estius may suffice: minus dicit, plus volens intelligi. Comp 1Co_4:9.

κἀγώ] like other teachers who have received His gifts.

In the two expressions coming togetherof which δοκῶ has a touch of irony (comp Dissen, a[1284] Dem. de Cor. p. 230 f.)there is implied a side-glance, but whether precisely to the Petrine party (Neander, Räbiger, al[1285]) may be doubted. It is safer to say generally: to opponents of his full standing as an apostle in Corinth. Comp Calvin.

[1274] c. scilicet.

[1277] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1278] Pauls view, therefore, is not in accordance with the legislative permission of marriage between Christians and Jews.

[1279] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1280] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1281] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1284] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1285] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 7:39-40 dispose, by way of appendix to the case of the maiden and to the like effect, of the question of the remarriage of Christian widows . 1Co 7:39 is repeated in almost identical terms, for another purpose, in Rom 7:2 . On δέδεται and γαμηθῆναι (cl [1214] γαμεθῆναι ), see 1Co 7:27 f.; κοιμηθῇ , the term for Christian death (see parls.). “She is free to be married to whom she will,” while the maiden is disposed of by her father’s will (1Co 7:36 f.); μόνον ἐν Κυρίῳ ( cf. 2Co 6:14 ff., 1Th 4:3 ff.) forbids union with a heathen; it also forbids any union formed with un-Christian motives and otherwise than under Christ’s sanction ( cf. Thess. 1Co 4:4 f. “But more blessed she is” ( μακαριωτέρα δὲ : see parls.) not merely happier by exemption from trouble (1Co 7:26 ff.), but religiously happier in her undivided devotion to the Lord (1Co 7:32 ff.) “if she abide as she is”. This advice was largely followed in the Pauline Churches, so that before long widows came to be regularly enrolled for Church service (1Ti 5:3-16 ). κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην (see note on 1Co 7:26 ): Paul’s advice , not command. δοκῶ δὲ κἀγώ κ . τ . λ .: “However I think, for my own part (however others may deem of me), that I have (an inspiration of) God’s Spirit” (the anarthrous πνεῦμα Θεοῦ : cf. 1Co 12:3 , etc.); see for Paul’s claim to Divine guidance, extending to his opinions as well as commands, 1Co 7:25 , 1Co 2:10-16 , 1Co 4:1 , 1Co 9:2 , 1Co 14:37 . On δοκῶ , see note to 1Co 4:9 ; it is the language of modesty, not misgiving. The Ap. commends his advice in all these matters, conscious that it proceeds from the highest source and is not the outcome of mere human prudence or personal inclination.

[1214] classical.

DIVISION III. CONTACT WITH IDOLATRY, 8 10. We have traced in the previous chapters the disastrous reaction of the old leaven upon the new Christian kneading at Cor [1215] But Christian society had its external as well as its internal problems a fact already evident in the discussion of ch. 6 respecting the carrying of disputes to the heathen law-courts. A much larger difficulty, involving the whole problem of social intercourse between Christians and their heathen neighbours, had been raised by the Church Letter the question περὶ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων (1Co 8:1 ). Was it lawful for a Christian to eat flesh that had been offered in sacrifice to an idol? Social festivities commonly partook of a religious character, being conducted under the auspices of some deity, to whom libations were poured or to whom the animals consumed had been dedicated in sacrifice. The “idol’s house” (1Co 8:10 ) was a rendezvous for banquets. Much of the meat on sale in the markets and found on ordinary tables came from the temples; and without inquiry it was impossible to discriminate (1Co 10:25-28 ). Jewish rule was uncompromisingly strict upon this point; and the letter of the Jerusalem Council, addressed to the Churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, had directed “the brethren from among the Gentiles” to “abstain from idolothyta ” (Act 15:29 ). The Cor [1216] Church, in consulting Paul, had expressed its own leaning towards liberty in this matter (1Co 7:8 ); what will the Ap. say? It is a real dilemma for him. He has to vindicate the broad principles of spiritual religion; at the same time he must avoid wounding Jewish feeling, and must guard Gentile weakness against the seductions of heathen feasts and against the peril of relapsing into idolatry through intercourse with unconverted kindred and neighbours. In theory Paul is for freedom , but in practice for great restrictions upon the use of idolothyta. (1) He admits that the question is decided in principle by the fundamental truth of religion, viz. , that God is one , from which it follows that the sacrifice to the idol is an invalid transaction (1Co 8:1 ff.; 1Co 10:19 ; 1Co 10:26 ). But (2) many have not grasped this inference, being still in some sense under the spell of the idol; for them to eat would be sin, and for their sake stronger-minded brethren should abstain (1Co 8:7-13 ; 1Co 10:23-30 ). To this effect (3) P. sets forth his own example , ( a ) in the abridgment of his personal liberty for the good of others (1Co 9:1-22 ; 1Co 10:33 to 1Co 11:1 ), and ( b ) in the jealous discipline of bodily appetite (1Co 9:23 ff.). The last consideration leads (4) to a solemn warning against contamination by idolatry , drawn ( a ) from the early history of Israel , and further ( b ) from the communion of the Lord’s Table , which utterly forbids participation in “the table of demons” (1Co 10:1-22 ). These instances show in a manner evident to the good sense of the readers (1Co 10:15 ), that to take part in a heathen sacrificial feast is in effect a recognition of idolatry and an apostasy from Christ.

[1215] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1216] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_7:39

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

The uniform doctrine of the New Testament is, that marriage is a contract for life, between one man and one woman, indissoluble by the will of the parties or by any human authority; but that the death of either party leaves the survivor free to contract another marriage. See Rom_7:1-3. Such being the doctrine of the Bible, no civil or ecclesiastical body can rightfully establish a different rule, or prescribe another or (as they pretend) a higher rule of morality. All attempts to be better than the Bible, on this or any other subject, only render men worse. Paul, therefore, teaches that a woman on the death of her husband, is free to marry whom she will only in the Lord. There are two ways in which this restriction may be understood. First, that she should marry only one who is in the Lord, i.e. a Christian. Though mixed marriages between Christians and Jews or Gentiles should not, when formed, be broken up (as taught above, Rom_7:12-15); yet no such marriage ought to be contracted. Or, secondly, the phrase may be taken adverbially as expressing manner, as becomes those who are in the Lord, i.e. in a Christian manner. She is to marry as becomes a Christian. This interpretation includes the other. Compare Rom_16:2, Rom_16:22; Eph_6:1, etc. The former explanation is the more simple and natural.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That which he spake of a widower, he speaketh now of a widow, to wit, that she may marry again, so that she do it in the fear of God: and yet he dissembleth not, but saith, that if she remain still a widow, she shall be void of many cares.

By the law of marriage.

Religiously, and in the fear of God.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

The whole is here closed up with advice to widows: As long as the husband liveth the wife is bound by the law, confined to one husband, and bound to continue and cohabit with him. Note, The marriage - contract is for life; death only can annul the bond. But, the husband being dead, she is at liberty to marry whom she will. There is no limitation by God's law to be married only for such a number of times. It is certain, from this passage, that second marriages are not unlawful; for then the widow could not be at liberty to marry whom she pleased, nor to marry a second time at all. But the apostle asserts she has such a liberty, when her husband is dead, only with a limitation that she marry in the Lord. In our choice of relations, and change of conditions, we should always have an eye to God. Note, Marriages are likely to have God's blessing only when they are made in the Lord, when persons are guided by the fear of God, and the laws of God, and act in dependence on the providence of God, in the change and choice of a mate - when they can look up to God, and sincerely seek his direction, and humbly hope for his blessing upon their conduct. But she is happier, says the apostle, if she so abide (that is, continue a widow) in my judgment; and I think I have the Spirit of God, Co1 7:40. At this juncture, at least, if not ordinarily, it will be much more for the peace and quiet of such, and give them less hindrance in the service of God, to continue unmarried. And this, he tells them, was by inspiration of the Spirit. "Whatever your false apostles may think of me, I think, and have reason to know, that I have the Spirit of God." Note, Change of condition in marriage is so important a matter that it ought not to be made but upon due deliberation, after careful consideration of circumstances, and upon very probable grounds, at least, that it will be a change to advantage in our spiritual concerns.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

bound by the law--The oldest manuscripts omit "by the law."

only in the Lord--Let her marry only a Christian (Co2 6:14).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 39. The wife is bound by the law] This seems to be spoken in answer to some other question of the Corinthians to this effect: "May a woman remarry whose husband is dead, or who has abandoned her?" To which he replies, in general, That as long as her husband is living the law binds her to him alone; but, if the husband die, she is free to remarry, but only in the Lord; that is she must not marry a heathen nor an irreligious man; and she should not only marry a genuine Christian, but one of her own religious sentiments; for, in reference to domestic peace, much depends on this.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

39. The wife is bound He had previously spoken indiscriminately of husbands and wives, but as wives, on account of the modesty of their sex, might seem to have less liberty, he has thought it necessary to give in addition some special directions in reference to them. He now, therefore, teaches that women are not less at liberty than men to marry a second time, on their becoming widows. We have already mentioned above, that those who desired a second marriage were branded with the reproach of intemperance, and that, with the view of putting some kind of slight upon them, those who had been contented with being once married, were wont to be presented with the “chaplet of chastity.” Nay more, this first opinion had, in course of time, become prevalent among Christians; for second marriages had no blessing pronounced upon them, and some Councils prohibited the clergy from being present on such occasions. The Apostle here condemns tyranny of that sort, and declares, that no hindrance ought to be thrown in the way of widows’ marrying, if they think proper.

It is of little consequence, and so far as the sense is concerned it matters nothing, whether we say that the wife is bound legi, (to the law,) in the dative, or lege, (by the law,) in the ablative. For it is the law that declares the connection between husband and wife to be indissoluble. If, however, you read it in the dative, the term will convey the idea of authority or obligation. Now he reasons from contraries; for if a woman is bound to her husband for life, she is, then, set at liberty by his death. After she has been set at liberty, let her be married to whom she will

When the verb to sleep means to die, it refers not to the soul, but to the body, as is manifest from its constant use in Scripture. It is a foolish part, therefore, that is acted by certain fanatics, who, from this little word, make it their endeavor to prove that the souls of men, after being separated from their bodies, are destitute of thought and intelligence, or, in other words, of their life.

Only in the Lord This is thought to be added for the purpose of admonishing them in passing, that they ought not to yoke themselves with the irreligious, or to covet their society. This, I acknowledge, is true, but I am of opinion that more is meant that they should do this in a religious way, and in the fear of the Lord, for it is in this manner that marriages are formed auspiciously.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(39, 40) The wife.—The question of the re-marriage of widows is here considered. It was probably a matter in which his opinion had been asked, and, in any case, naturally completes the subject of marriage. The widow may be married again if she desire, but “only in the Lord”—i.e., not to a heathen. She, being a Christian, should marry a Christian.

The words “by the law” are not in the best MSS. The opening sentence, asserting the marriage union to be dissoluble only by death, is to guard against any married woman applying these words to herself, they having reference only to widows.

St. Paul explains that she is happier to continue a widow (her case coming under the same considerations as referred to the unmarried in the previous verses).

I think also that I have the Spirit of God.—This is no expression of doubt as to whether he had the Spirit of God, but an assurance of his confidence that he, as well as other teachers (who, perhaps, boast more about it), had the Spirit of God to guide him in cases where no direct command has been given by Christ.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

39, 40. The Second Marriage of Women

39. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth] Cf. Rom_7:2.

if her husband be dead] Literally, if her husband sleep, or rather, perhaps, be laid to sleep, the word generally used of the death of Christians, and even of the saints of the old covenant. See St Mat_27:52; St Joh_11:11; Act_7:60; Act_13:36. St Paul uses it in ch. 1Co_11:30 and ch. 1Co_15:6; 1Co_15:18; 1Co_15:20; 1Co_15:51, and in 1Th_4:13-15. The same idea is found in St Mat_9:24, and in the parallel passages in St Mark and St Luke, but the word employed in the Greek is different. The writers of the Old Testament also described death thus, as, for instance, in Deu_31:16; 1Ki_2:10; Dan_12:2. Thus death is robbed of half its terrors. It is a condition of partially, not wholly, suspended consciousness; a waiting of the soul, in union with its Lord (1Th_4:14) until the great awakening. Calvin remarks that to infer from this passage that the soul, separated from the body, was without sense or intelligence, would be to say that it was without life. See 2Co_12:2.

only in the Lord] Cf. 2Co_6:14. The marriage of widows was discountenanced, but not forbidden. Under certain circumstances it was even enjoined. See 1Ti_5:9; 1Ti_5:11; 1Ti_5:14. But under all circumstances mixed marriages were to be avoided.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth,.... That is, she is bound to her husband, by the law of marriage, during his life; nor can the bond of marriage between them be dissolved but by the death of one of them, except in the cases of adultery, and wilful desertion, see Rom 7:2.

But if her husband be dead; or "asleep", for so the word may be rendered; though it designs death: death is often expressed by sleeping in Scripture; for the dead will not always remain in such a state, but be raised from thence at the last day, just as persons are awaked out of sleep. The Alexandrian copy reads "dead"; and so seems the Ethiopic version to have read.

She is at liberty to marry whom she will: so that second marriages are lawful, though condemned by many of the ancients: the liberty of a widow is greater than that of a virgin, because a virgin is under the power, and at the dispose of her parents; but a widow is at her own dispose; and death having dissolved her former obligation, she is at entire liberty to marry, or not marry, and to marry whom she pleases, that is not forbidden by the laws of God:

only in the Lord; not that it is absolutely necessary that her husband should be in the Lord, a converted person, a believer in Christ; though such an one should be most desirable and eligible: but either that she should continue in the possession of her faith in Christ, and not relinquish it for the sake of an husband; or that she enter into this state in the fear of the Lord, calling upon him, and consulting him in such an important affair; and take care that whom she marries is not within the line prohibited by the Lord.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

Ver. 39. She is at liberty] The Montanists therefore (and with them Tertullian in his old age) were in an error that condemned second marriage, and said it was no better than fornication. Secundas nuptias pro fornicationibus habent. (Aug) Howbeit that of Jerome is not to be disliked. Think daily of death; and that will be enough to forbid the banns of second marriage.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The wife is bound ... - ; see the notes at Rom 7:2.

Only in the Lord - That is, only to one who is a Christian; with a proper sense of her obligations to Christ, and so as to promote his glory. The apostle supposed that could not be done if she were allowed to marry a pagan, or one of a different religion. The same sentiment he advances in 2Co 6:14, and it was his intention, undoubtedly, to affirm that it was proper for a widow to marry no one who was not a Christian. The reasons at that time would be obvious:

(1) They could have no sympathy and fellow-feeling on the most important of all subjects, if the one was a Christian and the other a pagan; see 2Co 6:14-15, etc.

(2) If she should marry a pagan, would it not be showing that she had not as deep a conviction of the importance and truth of her religion as she ought to have? If Christians were required to be “separate,” to be “a special people,” not “to be conformed to the world,” how could these precepts be obeyed if the society of a pagan was voluntarily chosen, and if she became united to him for life?

(3) She would in this way greatly hinder her usefulness; put herself in the control of one who had no respect for her religion, and who would demand her time and attention, and thus interfere with her attendance on the public and private duties of religion, and the offices of Christian charity.

(4) She would thus greatly endanger her piety. There would be danger from the opposition, the taunts, the sneers of the enemy of Christ; from the secret influence of living with a man who had no respect for God; from his introducing her into society that was irreligious, and that would tend to mar the beauty of her piety, and to draw her away from simple-hearted devotion to Jesus Christ. And do not these reasons apply to similar cases now? And if so, is not the law still binding? Do not such unions now, as really as they did then, place the Christian where there is no mutual sympathy on the subject dearest to the Christian heart? Do they not show that she who forms such a union has not as deep a sense of the importance of piety, and of the pure and holy nature of her religion as she ought to have? Do they not take time from God and from charity; break up plans of usefulness, and lead away from the society of Christians, and from the duties of religion? Do they not expose often to ridicule, to reproach, to persecution, to contempt, and to pain? Do they not often lead into society, by a desire to please the partner in life, where there is no religion, where God is excluded, where the name of Christ is never heard, and where the piety is marred, and the beauty of simple Christian piety is dimmed? and if so, are not such marriages contrary to the law of Christ? I confess, that this verse, to my view, proves that all such marriages are a violation of the New Testament; and if they are, they should not on any plea be entered into; and it will be found, in perhaps nearly all instances, that they are disastrous to the piety of the married Christian, and the occasion of ultimate regret, and the cause of a loss of comfort, peace, and usefulness in the married life.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The apostle all along this chapter hath been speaking to several cases, which the church of Corinth had put to him concerning marriage; some that concerned persons already married, others that concerned such as were single, having been never married; he shutteth up his discourse with advice which relateth to such as had lost their husbands, with reference to second marriages. As to this he determineth, that no woman might marry again while her first husband lived; that is, unless her husband, be legally divorced from her for adultery, or unless her husband, being a heathen, had voluntarily deserted her: but if her husband were dead, she might marry to whom she would; yet she was not at such liberty, as that she might marry an unbeliever. Unbelievers are either heathens, or Christians in name, but such as are idolaters, or profane persons, or heretics, who hold such tenets as are inconsistent with any true faith in Jesus Christ. This phrase,

only in the Lord, seemeth to oblige godly women, not only to avoid marrying with heathens, but with nominal Christians; that is, such who, although they have been baptized, and own Christ with their tongues, yet hold such damnable opinions, or live such profane lives, or worship God in such an idolatrous manner, as is inconsistent with any true faith in Christ. The reason of the precept holds as well to the latter as to the former.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

39. The wife… bound—And by parity, doubtless, the husband is under the reciprocal law. Death or adultery is the only dissolution of the tie by the law of Christ, however it may be by the law of any State. The looseness of human laws can justify no laxity in the Church or the individual Christian. To marry in the Lord is either to marry a Christian, or one whom the conscience is assured will not hinder the Christian life, and may become a Christian under connubial Christian influences.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Only in the Lord. The second marriage of the Christian widow must be a holy and a Christian marriage. (2Co_6:14)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Only in the Lord - That is, only if Christians marry Christians: a standing direction, and one of the utmost importance.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The apostle concludes the chapter with a resolution of the case of conscience; namely, whether second marriages of widows were lawful or not?

He answers, They were. After the first husband was dead, the widow might marry again, provided that she married in the Lord: that is, with a believer, not an infidel; with one of the same faith with herself.

It is very dangerous and sinful for persons professing the true faith of Christ to match with idolaters. There is far greater ground of fear that they will pervert you, than there is ground of hope that you shall convert them.

But though the apostle asserts it lawful for widows to marry again, yet he declares, that in regard of the present danger which the church was in of persecution, they would be more happy in their widowhood.

So that the determination of the apostle, as to the case of marriage and a single life is concluded thus: "That ordinarily, where there is no necessity, a single life is more for a person’s peace, more free from distractions in God’s service, and therefore best."

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

39. “A wife has been given for so long a time as her husband may live: but if the husband may die, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord.” This verse clears away all the fog on second marriages. Death in every case satisfies the matrimonial covenant, and liberates the surviving party to marry ad libitum, but “only in the Lord.” Hence you see that Christians have no right to marry sinners. I know the cause of God has suffered more at that point than any other. So long as the children of Seth, i. e., the holy antediluvians, kept separate from the children of Cain, the proud members of the carnal church, founded by their great ancestor, whose worship, though grand and demonstrative, had no blood and hence no salvation, they were cheered with such preachers as Enoch and Noah. No sooner did they enter into matrimonial alliances, i. e., when the sons of God and the children of Seth saw the daughters of men, i. e., the race of Cain, that they were fair and took to themselves wives, the world became filled with violence, the wicked seducing the righteous into sin, and thus blotting out the lights of the antediluvian dispensation, and thus expediting the great flood which swept them all into eternity. I will not solemnize the matrimony of a Christian and an infidel or a debauchee. It is the safe thing to wait until the genuineness of his seeking is demonstrated by a sky-blue conversion.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord . [i. e., to a Christian.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

39, 40. The wife is bound by the law, etc. One point remains to be discussed, viz., The remarriage of widows. I suppose that the letter of inquiry asked about this. She is at liberty. In case of her husband's death, she is free from the marriage bond, and can marry whom she will, with one limitation—she must marry in the Lord; that is, a Christian. An alien marriage is prohibited. Indeed, so far was an ancient Christian from marrying an unbeliever that the question actually arose whether, when the sinner was converted, he could still live with an unconverted partner. See verses 12–14.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

A woman is bound to her husband

Here "bound" is a metaphor for a close relationship between people in which they support each other emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Here it means the union of marriage. AT: "A woman is married to her husband" or "A woman is united with her husband" (See: Metaphor)

for as long as he lives

"until he dies"

whomever she wishes

"anyone she wants"

in the Lord

"if the new husband is a believer"

my judgment

"my understanding of God's word"

happier

more contented, more joyful

lives as she is

"remains unmarried"

translationWords

die

lord

judge

Holy Spirit

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

39, 40. THE SECOND MARRIAGE OF WOMEN

39. [νόμῳ] rec. with EFG, Peshito and authorized Vulg., after δέδεται. Omit אABD, and some copies of Vetus Lat. and Vulg. It is no doubt a marginal gloss. Tertullian and Origen omit it.

39. γυνὴ δέδεται. The perfect marks the permanent nature of the marriage contract. See Rom 7:2.

ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ. Literally, if her husband sleep, or rather, perhaps, be laid to sleep, the word generally used of the death of Christians, of the saints of the old covenant and even of the heathen. The phrase is as old as Homer. See Il. XI. 241, and Soph. Electr. 509 ὁ ποντισθεὶς Μυρτίλος ἐκοιμάθη. Cf. Mat 27:52; Joh 11:11; Act 7:60; Act 13:36. St Paul uses it in ch. 1Co 11:30 and ch. 1Co 15:6; 1Co 15:18; 1Co 15:20; 1Co 15:51, and in 1Th 4:13-15. The writers of the Old Testament also described death thus, as, for instance, in Deu 31:16; 1Ki 2:10; Dan 12:2. Thus death is robbed of half its terrors. It is a condition of partially, not wholly, suspended consciousness; a waiting of the soul, in union with its Lord until the great awakening. Calvin remarks that to infer from this passage that the soul, separated from the body, was without sense or intelligence, would be to say that it was without life. See 2Co 12:2. The aorist here, as in ἀπέθανον, refers not only to the past act, but to the present condition.

μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ. Cf. 2Co 6:14. The marriage of widows was discountenanced, but not forbidden. Under certain circumstances it was even enjoined. See 1Ti 5:9; 1Ti 5:11; 1Ti 5:14. But under all circumstances mixed marriages were to be avoided.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

39. δέδεται] viz. τῷ ἀνδρί, or perhaps absolutely, is bound, in her marriage state.

γαμηθῆναι] γαμηθῆναι and γαμῆσαι are later forms, reprobated by the grammarians: γαμεθῆναι and γαμέσαι being the corresponding ones in good Greek. See Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 742.

Meyer cites Schol. on Eur. Med. 593, γαμεῖ μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἀνήρ, γαμεῖται δὲ ἡ γυνή. But not invariably, see ver. 28.

μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ] only in the Lord, i.e. within the limits of Christian connexion—in the element in which all Christians live and walk;—‘let her marry a Christian.’ So Tertull., , Ambrose, Jerome, Grot., Est., Bengel, Rosenm., Olsh., Meyer, De W. But Chrys. explains it μετὰ σωφροσύνης, μετὰ κοσμιότητος:—and so (but in some cases including in this the marrying of a Christian) Theodoret (τουτέστιν ὁμοπίστῳ, εὐσεβεῖ, σωφρόνως, ἐννόμως), Theophyl., Calv., Beza, Calov., al. This however seems flat, and the other much to be preferred; also as making a better limitation of ᾧ θέλει.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

39. A few words are added about the remarriage of widows. As their case is covered by vv. 8 and 34 we may suppose that the Corinthians had asked about the matter. In Rom 7:1-6 the principle stated here is used again metaphorically to illustrate the transition from law to grace: ἐφʼ ὅσον χρόνον appears in both passages. Romans was written soon after 1 Corinthians. There we have εἂν δὲ ἀποθάῃ ὁ ἀνήρ: for κοιμηθῇ see on 11:30.*

μόνον ἐν Κυρίῳ. ‘Only as a member of Christ,’ which implies that she marries a Christian.† To marry a heathen, especially in Corinth, would make loyalty to Christ very difficult: cf. v. 12, 9:1, 2, 11:11, 15:58, 16:19. For the ellipse of the verb after μόνον see Lightfoot on Gal 2:10 and 5:13.

Rom 7:2 has influenced the text here. א3 D2 E F G L P ins. νόμῳ after δέδεται, but א* A B D* 17, Am. Copt. Aeth. Arm. omit. For κοιμηθῇ, A, Orig. Bas. have ἀποθάνῃ.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Be dead [κοιμηθη] . Lit., have fallen asleep. See on Act 7:60; 2Pe 3:4; compare Rom 7:2, where the usual word for die, ajpoqanh is used. In that passage Paul is discussing the abstract question. Here the inference is more personal, which is perhaps the reason for his using the more tender expression.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vers. 39, 40: widows.

It has been asked why Paul returns to widows, after having already given in 1Co 7:8-9 the direction which concerns them. Reuss supposes that Paul forgot what he had said in these verses, or that he judged it suitable to inculcate it anew. But in the verses quoted, Paul had only spoken of widows jointly with celibates and widowers. Now their social position was so far different from that of the latter, that he might judge it necessary to add a special explanation regarding them. According to ancient ideas, there was no doubt as to the legitimacy of a second marriage for widowers; but it was otherwise with widows. It is known how much perseverance in widowhood was honoured among the Jews; comp. Luk 2:36-37; from this to the condemnation of a second marriage was not far. And we also know that among the heathen a sort of contempt was expressed for the mulier multarum nuptiarum, and that they went the length of inscribing this title of honour on the tombstone of a woman: univira.In the second century of the Church we hear even Athenagoras call a second marriage, whether of man or woman, a decent adultery. Probably, therefore, among the questions put to the apostle in regard to marriage, there was one which bore on this particular point. The general answer given (1Co 7:8-9) required, therefore, to be more specialized and confirmed; and this answer being only a particular application of all that he had just expounded in regard to virgins, could not be placed elsewhere than here. The only difference on this point between virgins and widows is, that in the case of widows everything is referred to their own wish, without any more question of the father’s.

Vv. 39, 40. “A wife is bound as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. 40. But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment. Now I think that I also have the Spirit of God.”

Γυνή, without article: a wife in opposition to a virgin,

Is bound: to her husband, as long as he liveth. The regimen νόμῳ, by the law, has no doubt been borrowed from Rom 7:2.

Paul limits the liberty which he concedes to the widow by the restriction, only in the Lord. In this context the meaning of the words can only be: on the basis of communion with Christ, consequently with a member of the Christian society. This is the meaning now generally held. The words would be superfluous, if we made them signify, with Chrysostom, Calvin, and others: honourably and piously. Reuss objects to the meaning, “with a Christian,” that the same reservation should have been made also in the case of virgins. But in regard to the latter Paul had not said: to whom she will. For in that case there was the paternal will which watched over their lot.

Vv. 40. By the word happier the apostle sums up the two reasons, the one general, the other particular, whereby from 1Co 7:25 he had justified his preference given to celibacy for the Christian virgin. There is therefore no question of a superior holiness in this world, or a more glorious position in the next, attributed to this state.

The apostle on this point does not arrogate more to himself than a view, an advice, the value of which every one can appraise at his pleasure. It is evident how far he was removed from that exaltation which makes fanatics take all their ideas for revelations. Nevertheless he certainly claims an inspiration, such as that which all Christians share, and consequently he traces to the direction of the Divine Spirit the advice which he has just expressed. But we must beware, as we have already said, 1Co 7:10, of concluding from this, with several (comp. in particular Reuss, p. 197), that he did not claim, besides this, revelations of a wholly special kind, going beyond what was granted to the Church in general. In other cases he is careful to affirm, in regard to directions which he gives, that they proceed from the Lord; comp. 1Co 14:37, and also the expression 1Co 7:17. If he thus expresses himself in connection with simple directions about public worship or Christian practice, how much more conscious was he of being the organ of a Divine revelation of a wholly personal kind when the matter in question was the very essence of his religious teaching, his gospel! We are led, therefore, to distinguish here three degrees of authority,—1. The direct commands of the Lord, which He gave during His sojourn on the earth, and which Paul merely quotes without discussing their grounds (1Co 7:10). 2. The apostolic commands of the apostle, which are imposed on Churches subject to his jurisdiction, and which he gives them as the organ of a higher illumination attached to his special mission. As to these he is careful to expound their reasons, being unwilling to ask his brethren to give a blind obedience (1Co 7:12-17); comp. 1Co 10:15. 3. The directions which he gives as a simple Christian, which he himself declares to be purely optional, and which he leaves to the judgment of every believer (1Co 7:25). Far from confounding these different degrees, and assimilating, for example, the second with the third, we should recognise and admire the precision with which the apostle distinguished them and could draw the practical consequences of the distinction.

The word δοκῶ, I think, is not in the least, as Chrysostom and others have thought, a modest way of affirming his inspiration. It is evidently, especially if account be taken of the κἀγώ, I also, an ironical expression: “Now I hope, however, even if my apostolical authority is disputed among you, that you will not deny to me the possession of the Divine Spirit, such as you recognise in all Christians, and specially in the numerous spiritual guides to whom you give your confidence” (1Co 4:15).

There are few chapters of the apostle which have drawn down on him such severe judgments.

In connection with the passage 1Co 7:29-31, it has been asserted that his morality itself was “the plaything of a shortsighted Christology.” What we have found in the passage are practical directions in which St. Paul takes account of the relation between the world and the Church on to the Parousia, a relation which may in the course of time be more or less strained, but which in any case renders it always difficult for Christian spouses to educate and guide a family. What pious parents have not had painful experience of the fact? In truth, the apostle did not foresee the armistice which would be established for a time between the two hostile societies; but the conflict between the opposing principles which animate them has never ceased, and, in proportion as the last times approach, it will again become more and more what it was in apostolic times. Paul’s ethics do not therefore depend on a chronological error; they rest on the just appreciation of the Church’s position in the world down to the coming of the Lord.

It is objected to this same passage that every believer is placed in it face to face with the Parousia, as if this event were to terminate his own life. But, in speaking thus, Paul only does what the Lord Himself did. Jesus very expressly set aside the idea of the nearness of His return (Mat 25:5; Mar 13:35; Luk 12:45; Luk 13:18-21; Luk 21:24; Mat 24:14; comp. Mar 13:32); and yet this is how He speaks to His disciples (Luk 12:36): “Be ye like men looking for their lord, when he shall return from the wedding, that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open to him immediately.” This is because, in fact, death is to every believer a personal and anticipated Parousia. The saying of Jesus is therefore for all on to the last day a moral truth, but this truth is only relative, till the promise be accomplished in its strict sense to the last generation. So it is with the sayings of Paul.

Again, it has been alleged that Paul here taught the religious and moral superiority of celibacy, and while some have praised him for so doing, others have sharply reprimanded him. His accusers charge him with nothing less than putting himself in manifest contradiction to the saying of Jesus, which he quotes himself, and to God; and what is more astonishing is, that they claim to be thereby doing no violence to his apostolic infallibility. Indeed, does not Paul himself declare that he is here speaking as a simple Christian, not as an organ of Divine revelation?

But is it credible that Paul, an intelligent man, should not have noticed the contradictions between his advice and the declarations of God and of Jesus Christ, while the author of the writing quoted discerned them so easily? Or that Paul, having seen these contradictions, should have audaciously faced them, and that without even attempting to say a word to resolve them? The fact is, that all that the author writes on this subject proceeds on the erroneous opinion, that Paul ascribes a superiority in holiness to celibacy. This is what he does not do for an instant, as we have seen, not even in the passage 1Co 7:32-34.

Sabatier, in l’Apôtre Paul, p. 142, has reproduced, as Reuss and Scherer had done, the judgment of Baur, according to which Paul had formed at this period a gross idea of the conjugal bond. “In the Epistles of the captivity,” says he, “we shall see St. Paul reaching a broader appreciation of marriage and of domestic life.” We shall set over against this judgment the views of a very independent-minded German critic, Heinrici, who thus expresses himself (p. 136): “We have here (1Co 7:14) the proof that the apostle recognises the moral character of marriage and of its relation to the kingdom of God.” If with this verse we join 1Co 7:16 and 1Co 11:3, it will be seen which of the two judgments is based on the facts. To save, to sanctify, such is certainly the higher end of the marriage union from the Christian point of view, according to the author of the Epistles to the Corinthians.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.