1 Corinthians 7

While this chapter does have some relationship to the overall current focus of this blog, the apocalyptic events of the first century, it is a very misunderstood and misused chapter.  Therefore, I will spend some time addressing it more thoroughly than I normally would.  
The key verse that helps understand the rest of the chapter is directly related to the events culminating in the end of Judaism.
Premise:  Divorce is not anywhere in the context of 1 Cor. 7 and this chapter has no relevance to discussions of that concept. 
== 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 ==
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.  
Paul clearly starts a new topic in his letter to the church at Corinth.  Keep in mind through this chapter that the church there is predominantly Gentiles. The Corinthians write to Paul about events that are going on that are affecting their marriages.  The word “touch” in the first verse comes from the Greek haptomai which carries the idea of clinging to, attaching to, or even sexual joining given the context.  So what Paul opens with, in answer to their question, is that a man not join himself to a woman, i.e. to marry (at least during this time, which we will address further down).  However, in verse two, he says that in order to avoid sex outside of marriage, everyone should have their own spouse and nothing more.  
Furthermore, the spouse should “render due benevolence”, which means have sex with, rather than abstain.  He even goes so far as to say that a man or woman does not have authority concerning their own body, but their spouse does.  To emphasize this, he calls withholding sex from the spouse fraud!  That the only time not having sex is good is with mutual consent to focus on spiritual things (for sex is certainly a physical thing). It is this authority over the other’s body that is really important for the points I want to make about this section.  In many ways this is like the bondservant relationship we have with either sin or Christ.  By marrying, the spouse willingly submits themself to the applicable authority of the other (this is covered more in Ephesians 5).  It is a type of bondage and the one that sets the context for comments Paul states later.  Note, this is not the so-called “marriage bond” itself, but the submission to the physical needs of the spouse that is under discussion. 
== 1 Corinthians 7:6-9 ==
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.  
In this section, Paul gives some direction to the unmarried.  I take a less typical approach to this in regard to the phrase “by permission”.  I don’t believe is saying “well, I talked to God about it, brought up this suggestion, and He let me go ahead and write it down here in addition to what He commands.”   
What I believe Paul is actually saying is “what I’m about to say isn’t necessarily a command that everyone has to obey, but is something that you are permitted to do (given the circumstances that the church finds itself in right now).”  In other words, this has nothing to do with Paul’s personal opinion, but the nature of whether his statement carries the weight of ‘must do’ or merely ‘can do’. Then he goes on to tell them what God has permitted them (but not required them) to do.  That is, if they are unmarried (this carries the idea of never married, else widows would also fall into this category and be redundant) or widowed (also not married, but previously married with a spouse that is now dead), then they should stay not married.  
The reasons for this are because of the persecution the church faced during this period leading up to the Jewish Wars at the hands of the Judaizers, the Jewish Zealots, Pharisees, and all those who persecuted the church in those days.  After the end of Judaism, this advice becomes moot. Note here that divorcees are not in the list.  In fact, the concept of divorce is nowhere in this chapter. 
== 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 ==
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.  
This part carries the weight of command and is a must.  There are a few points I want to highlight here as this is the misunderstood passage. 
# The command is “don’t depart”.  There is nothing in here about what to do if departing happens, how to go about departing, or anything of the sort.  So whatever “depart” means, God commands spouses not to do it.  Period.
# depart (Greek chorizo) – This word is a general word that carries with it the idea of active leaving or dividing something physically, to go away from.  It does not mean “divorce” in any legal sense and is never used that way in scripture anywhere.  In Acts 1:4 and 18:1-2 it is used to talk about leaving a city.  In Romans 8:38-39 it is used in conjunction with active separation from Christ by an outside force.  In Philemon it is used to talk about a temporary physical separation of Onesimus from his master and in Hebrews 7:26 it refers to Christ being separate or distinct from sinners.  Even in Matt. 19:6 and Mark 10:9 when it is used in a context that also contains the concept of divorce, chorizo is only used to talk about outside/unauthorized forces acting to dissolve a marriage that God had formed.  The divorce (apoluo) is a legal process by which only those in the marriage can dissolve the marriage and then only for one Biblically acceptable reason, fornication.
# If a woman does separate, they are to remain “unmarried”.  Here is what a lot of those who want to talk about divorce for any reason cling to.  Aha!  Here she is called “unmarried” meaning she has no husband.  So she must have divorced him.  However, this has two problems.  
#* this is Gentile culture and polygamy is not that big of a deal.  So unmarried can refer to not marrying a second husband (while still technically married to the first).  
#* the rest of the phrase says “or reconcile to her husband” which flatly denies the idea that she is no longer married to the guy since she can reconcile with he who is called her husband still.  This verse cannot be used to justify divorce, and certainly not divorce for any reason since no reason for the separation is given.
# The phrase “put away” at the end of the verse is inconsistent by the translators.  Apoluo (Matt. 19:9) refers to the writ of divorce, the legal document dissolving a marriage or the legal action that it enacts.  The word here in 1 Cor. 7 is an unrelated word, apheimi.  Where chorizo means to leave or physically separate, apheimi, means to push away, to abandon, to give up on.  In modern terms, we call this the dead-beat dad. 
So again, the concept of the legal divorce is not found in these two verses, nor anywhere in the chapter.  Coming here to talk about divorce for any reason is either done through ignorance or someone is using eisegesis because they already have something they want to do and can’t actually find a place in the New Testament that allows them to draw the authorization to do it from the scripture, i.e. they are a false teacher. These two verses and the whole context of this chapter is about physical separation, especially under the heading of rendering due benevolence and not defrauding one another by refraining from physical sex. 
== 1 Corinthians 7:12-17 ==
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.  
Paul then transitions to a new sub-concept, that of Christians married to non-Christians.  
It's important to iterate that we are still under the prime point of the first few verses of the topic (the first few verses of the chapter), that of not withholding sex from your spouse, i.e. physical separation. Here Paul begins with a section that sounds more like Paul speaking his opinion and less like an authoritative inspired writer.  However, I still believe that this carries the weight of authoritative scripture akin to that of verses 6-9. 
Like the rest of the context from verse 1 to here, this has no reference to divorce and the only imperative statements are not to aphiemi (push away, leave, abandon).  The reason given is that ultimately the Christian spouse can save the non-Christian generally speaking, and that cascades to the offspring who might have gone with the non-Christian and ultimately become pagans.  (This verse additionally contradicts the false doctrine that Christians are permitted to only marry Christians and gives a reason why its false at the same time.)
There is a conditional point to be made here and it is for the Christian and it is in relationship to the prime point of the context.  IF the non-Christian does depart (chorizo) then the Christian "is not in bondage" in such cases.  A lot has been made of this phrase within the conditional statement.  What then is the bondage spoken of?  Once again, context is king.  In this context, the bond, the duty, the obligation spoken of us the sex in the prime point of the context.  Marriage is not spoken of as a bond in this context up to this point and so the phrase in question cannot be a reference to marriage. 
== 1 Corinthians 7:18-23 ==
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. 22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. 
Spring-boarding from the specific context of the prime point, Paul uses it to address a larger issue facing the church, one he writes on in most of his letters.  This point is concerning the Judaizing influence on the Gentiles within the church.  His main argument is, whatever state you find yourself in, married or unmarried, circumcised or not, servant or free, you are Christ's and those things have no bearing on that fact.  He'll expound on why in a bit. 
== 1 Corinthians 7:25-31 ==
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; 31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.  
The key here, to much of this chapter is found in verse 26.  The phrase "this present distress" refers to the persecution of the church by the Jews.  This answers the following questions:
1) Why were the Christians at Corinth asking about sex and spouses leaving?
2) Why is Paul assuring folks that God permits those who are not in a marriage to stay that way if they can keep from having sex?
3) Why are non-Christians leaving Christian spouses? 
Others are answered as well.  This whole thing is in the context of the church being persecuted! This key is further addressed in verse 28 and following.  Those that marry haven't sinned, but they are going to endure physical persecution.  Paul gives them some hope by saying that the time is short (addressing Christ's words in Mathew 24:22, saying the required prayers will be answered).  However, he says "it remaineth" (loipon - hereafter) that events were going to transpire that would be the great equalizer.  
That the kosmos (see 2 Pet. 3), the essence of it is passing away (present active indicative tense - its in the middle of passing away right now as a matter of fact).  Folks, Paul is saying the same thing as Peter, that the kosmos was at that time passing away.  Yet here we are 2000 years later.  It cannot be that Paul was speaking of the literal kosmos...just like Peter was not. 
== 1 Corinthians 7:32-38 ==
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. 36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. 
In the face of this persecution and the coming judgment, understand what draw on the focus marriage has on an individual.
== 1 Corinthians 7:39-40 ==
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.40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God. 
Here is where those who hold to the idea that at least some folks can only marry Christians.  
The phrase "only in the Lord" is what they site inferring that the widow can marry anyone she want as long as he is a Christian. That is not the impact of the phrase.  "Only in the Lord" does not modify "whom", it is not saying that "whom" is only in the Lord.  Only is an adverb.  Adverbs modify verbs not nouns.  
"Whom" is a noun.  "Only", therefore, must modify the first antecedent verb in agreement with it, i.e. "be married".  So she can be married only in the Lord.  What, then, does the phrase "in the Lord" mean?  It simply means that the widow must marry in a way that is acceptable to Christ, a very broad and general phrase.  I.e. she can't marry someone already married or someone divorced for reasons other than fornication (circa Matthew 19).  
Beyond that, going back to verses 12-17, it cannot mean that she may only marry someone who is not a Christian else Paul contradicts himself in the same context. 
Wow, this chapter is almost as intense as Romans 8!  
I believe I have more than sustained my original premise. 
In Truth and Love.
== Navigation ==
1 Corinthians 1-4
1 Corinthians 5-6
1 Corinthians 7
1 Corinthians 8-9
1 Corinthians 10-11
1 Corinthians 12-14
1 Corinthians 15-16Category:Apocalyptic