1 Corinthians 7

1 Corinthians 7:1-17 (Marriage and Divorce)

(7:1) “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.”

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote.” What did the Corinthians write to Paul? They must have had questions about marriage. In the previous chapter, some of them were moving to licentiousness regarding sex. Perhaps some were moving in the other direction—barring sex within marriage or lowering the value of marriage altogether.

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Later church fathers like Origen took Paul to mean that sex was ungodly or unspiritual. However, Paul is not using the term “good” in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. Here, it is “good” by being relative to himself (v.8) or relative to the present circumstances (v.26). Morris writes, “Good does not here mean ‘necessary’ or ‘morally better’… It is simply something to be commended, rather than blamed.”[] If a person chooses to be single, that’s a good choice (e.g. Jesus, Paul, etc.). However, by affirming that singleness is good, Paul is not saying that marriage is bad.

It’s also possible that this statement was another Corinthian catch phrase or slogan. After all, Paul begins by stating that he is responding to what they wrote to him. Some scholars hold that this statement, therefore, could’ve come from an ascetic dualism that was present in Corinth. Just as dualism led to being promiscuous with sexuality in chapter 6, dualism can also lead to being ascetic. That is, if the body is worthless, then promiscuity follows. But if the body is evil, then asceticism follows. On this reading, Paul accepts the premise that celibacy is “good,” but he quickly qualifies this view because it has a poor foundation (i.e. Stoicism, neo-Platonic dualism?) and poor logical outcomes (i.e. the rejection of marriage altogether).

(7:2) “But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”

“Because of immoralities.” Paul is a realist: If celibacy causes immorality, then it’s a bad choice. Just imagine how difficult it would be to keep your sexuality under control in this Corinthian culture. As a teenager filled with hormones, you could look up and see the Acrocorinth with its temple to Aphrodite, knowing that you could visit a prostitute at any moment. In verses 32-35, Paul makes clear that he isn’t teaching absolute morality here. Instead, he is teaching what are called principlized ethics. He wants these believers to be free from the concerns of a family, but if they choose to marry, that’s morally fine.

(7:3) “The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.”

A spouse’s “duty” refers to sexual relations.[] Paul speaks about this in the form of complementarity—not promoting one gender’s sexual needs over the other. It isn’t that the woman has to only please the man, but both spouses are to seek to please each other. The basis for this is the “one flesh” union mentioned earlier (1 Cor. 6:16; Gen. 2:24).

This passage is written to the conscience of an individual spouse. Therefore, this passage shouldn’t be used as a means of pressuring one’s spouse into having sex. Instead, each spouse should consider this command for themselves before God. Fee writes, “The way to correct an abuse of mutual relations is not to make demands on the offending party only, but to emphasize the mutual responsibility of each… Paul’s emphasis, it must be noted, is not on ‘You owe me,’ but on ‘I owe you.’”[]

(7:4) “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”

“Authority” (exousiazō) is a term Paul uses frequently in this letter. He isn’t arguing for bossing your spouse around in bed. Instead, his focus is that Christian couples should seek to give up their rights to one another. Even in sex, the Christian ethic is governed by sacrificial love. The ancient world would be familiar with wives needing to sexually perform for their husbands. This was par for the course. Paul’s message is radical for his culture, because he states that both spouses should serve one another sexually. Sex is for the purpose of giving—not taking.

(7:5) Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The term “depriving” (apostereite) literally means “defrauding.” Paul used the term in chapter six to describe how the Christians were stealing from each other in court (1 Cor. 6:8). The reason why Christian married couples should pursue a healthy sex life is because they are “one flesh” (1 Cor. 6:16; Gen. 2:24), and sex helps to produce unity and avoid the temptation of living separate, parallel lives.

“Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” Satan targets the marriages of walking Christians. Satan hates marriage, and he will do whatever he can to separate what God has unified. When we see Christian marriages fall apart, the wreckage is always painful to sort through—often in the years or decades that follow. This shows what a stunning Satan’s strategy has in capitalizing on our sexual urges for his purposes.

Think of how easy it would be to fall into sexual immorality in Corinth. With the Acrocorinth looming over the city, it would be easy to make a trip to visit a “temple priestess” or to sleep with one of the many promiscuous people in the city. Paul already gave theological principles to avoid sexual immorality of this kind (1 Cor. 6:12-20). Here, he gives practical wisdom to marriages: One way to tear down temptation from outside of your marriage is to build a great sex life inside your marriage. Paul holds “a brutally honest and realistic view of the fact that humans are sexual beings.”[]

(7:6) “But this I say by way of concession, not of command.”

Paul isn’t commanding abstinence in marriage. It’s merely permissible for the purpose of prayer.

(7:7) “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.”

“Each man has his own gift from God.” This is where we get the notion that celibacy is a spiritual “gift.”

Was Paul married at one point? We don’t know. However, it seems likely. For one, Paul writes like a man who had been married, understanding the realistic aspects of marriage. Moreover, Jewish culture encouraged marriage: Rabbi Eleazar said, “Any man who has no wife is no proper man” (Talmud, Yeb. 63a), and Rabbi Ishmael taught, “As soon as one attains twenty and has not married, He exclaims, ‘Blasted be his bones!’” (Talmud, Kidd. 29b)[] If Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin (Acts 26:10), then it is without a doubt that he had been married. Paul could’ve been a widower or maybe his wife had left him (perhaps when he became a Christian?). This is all speculation. We’re simply not sure.

(7:8) “But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.”

Paul teaches that being single is preferable. Yet, we need to read his view in light of his historical circumstances. Later, he writes, “I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you” (vv.26-28). There must have been some sort of persecution swelling in Corinth, and Paul didn’t want people to experience the heartache of building a family only to see it ripped apart. It’s one thing to be thrown to the lions as a single man, but quite another when your wife and children are in the coliseum with you! J.B. Lightfoot writes, “A man who is a hero in himself becomes a coward when he thinks of his widowed wife and his orphaned children.”[]

(7:9) “But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Although the prepositional phrase “with passion” does not appear in the Greek, the NASB correctly handles this metaphor. 2 Corinthians 11:29 uses a similar metaphor to refer to inward emotions—not outward burning (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10-15).[]

(7:10) “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband.”

For a robust explanation of divorce and remarriage, see the earlier article co-authored with my colleague Ryan Lowery titled, “Divorce and Remarriage.”

“Not I, but the Lord.” Paul must have a copy of one of the gospels (1 Cor. 11:23-25). He’s quoting “the Lord” Jesus here, and of course, Jesus was against divorce (Mt. 19:1-12).

Why doesn’t Paul mention the “exception clause” that spouses are allowed to divorce in the case of adultery? In our estimation, Paul assumed that his audience knew this, because this was common in both Jewish and Greek culture. We need to remember that Paul “does not develop a comprehensive theology of divorce.”[]

(7:11) “(But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”

This is what we would call a separation, rather than a divorce. During a time of separation, a spouse can choose to move out temporarily. This is to prevent divorce, and the goal is reconciliation.

(7:12) “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.”

“But to the rest I say, not the Lord.” Again, Paul is likely reading from one of the gospels. He is differentiating his own teaching, from the teaching of “the Lord” Jesus.

“That if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.” Jesus never addressed marriage with non-Christians. If you are married to a non-Christian, you shouldn’t divorce them, but rather lead them to Christ. Later, Paul writes, “God has called us to peace” (v.15). The principle is to win marriages for Christ—not lose them.

(7:13) “And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.”

The same principle is in play for women. It would be quite odd if Christians divorced their spouses once they came to Christ. Instead, the goal is to win your spouse to Christ.

(7:14) “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.”

Once someone comes to Christ in an unbelieving family, God will work through that believer in a special way to reach the entire family.

(7:15) “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”

“Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave.” Divorce is permissible in the case of abandonment. If our spouse leaves us, we aren’t commanded to hunt them down and try to stay married. Morris writes, “If the unbeliever takes the initiative, then the believer is not bound. This appears to mean that the deserted partner is free to remarry.”[] Fee writes, “If the pagan spouse seeks the dissolution of the marriage, then allow the divorce. Except for some differences regarding the nuance of the verb, all are agreed on that much.”[]

“The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases.” The term “bondage” (douloō) is different from the word “bound” (deo) used elsewhere for marriage by Paul (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2). Yet his meaning seems to be the same: If your spouse leaves you, then you are free to remarry.

“But God has called us to peace.” This clause seems to fit more naturally with verse 16. Paul is saying that the believer should live in peace with their spouse (rather than divorce), because they might lead their spouse to Christ. This would fit with the theme of the chapter: stay in the condition in which you were “called.”

(7:16) “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”

Earlier, Paul stated that the goal was to win the unbelieving spouse to Christ (v.14). Here, however, Paul shows that this isn’t a certainty.

Questions for Reflection

The Corinthians wrote to Paul asking him questions (v.1). We only have one side of the dialogue between Paul and the Corinthians—much like listening to one side of a phone conversation. When reading this section (vv.1-16), what sort of questions do you think the Corinthians were asking?

What can we learn about Paul’s approach to marriage counseling from this passage? (For instance, notice how he blends principles with straightforward, practical advice.)

What false beliefs about marriage do people hold that prevent them from enjoying a successful marriage?

What might happen if two immature Christians jumped into marriage without growing in their ability to love others first? What obstacles might they face in marriage?

If a younger Christian was thinking about getting married, what would you tell them to get prepared beforehand?

Why would God call on people to stay married even if they weren’t happy in the marriage? Why isn’t he more willing to allow divorce? Put another way, how have you seen divorce affect people in a negative way?

1 Corinthians 7:17-24 (Stay in the condition in which you were called)

In verse 15, Paul writes, “God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15). This sets up his discussion of staying in the circumstances in which you were “called.”[]

(7:17) “Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches.”

It would be easy for an unequally yoked person to believe that they never should’ve married their unbelieving spouse in the first place. But Paul contradicts this view. We shouldn’t consider our calling as a cosmic accident. God called us to Christ in specific circumstances, and Paul urges us to live these out. He lists a number of examples: circumcision (vv.17-18), slavery (vv.20-23), and singles and marrieds (vv.24-40).

Circumcision

(7:18) “Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.”

It seems kind of obvious that someone cannot be “uncircumcised.” However, during the Maccabean Revolt, some Jews tried to mangle their circumcised parts in order to fit in with the Gentiles (1 Macc. 1:15; Josephus, Antiquities, 12.241). Paul is saying that we shouldn’t leave our condition. Instead we should serve God wherever he has found us.

(7:19) “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.”

“Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing.” In Paul’s day, rabbinical Judaism didn’t just think that circumcision mattered; they believed it was all that mattered. Paul makes a controversial point that these ritual laws were subservient to following God’s will. Indeed, Fee writes, “It is hard for us to imagine the horror with which a fellow Jew would have responded. For not only did circumcision count, it counted for everything.”[]

“What matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.” First-century adherents of Judaism would’ve held that circumcision was keeping the commandments of God. Yet Paul argues that God’s commands supersede circumcision. God’s commands can be summarized as the command to love others (Jn. 13:34-35; Rom. 13:8-9; Gal. 5:14).

(7:20) “Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.”

Again, this is the overriding principle in this section: God has placed you in a very specific role and place, and you should stay if God has placed you there. Of course, this drives legalists crazy! These are principles—not absolutes. God could call us to another place, and other principles could override this principle. Yet, Paul’s point is simply that we should stay put in our current condition, because God can work powerfully. Fee writes, “Paul’s point, then, is not that one must stay where one was when called. Rather, it is precisely as the imperative in this verse implies: Whatever your situation was at the time of your call, don’t let that become a concern to you. One’s calling in Christ raises one above that urgency.”[]

Slavery

(7:21) “Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.”

“Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it.” Slavery was a horrible social institution in the first-century Greco-Roman world. But our identity and calling are such powerful realities that these can eclipse even this situation to the point where Paul can write, “Don’t worry about it.”

“But if you are able also to become free, rather do that.” Paul wasn’t pro-slavery. He wanted slaves to get their freedom. The problem was that many simply couldn’t.

(7:22) “For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave.”

This shows God’s “backwards wisdom.” In God’s view, slaves are actually free, and free people are actually slaves. Paul wants them to get their view onto God, rather than their social circumstances.

(7:23) “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.”

Our identity in Christ (“You were bought with a price…”) was the basis for fleeing sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:20). Similarly, this same identity is the basis for not becoming slaves of men. It is a powerful and multifaceted identity.

(7:24) “Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.”

Paul affirms that we should seek freedom and not give ourselves over to slavery. But if we are stuck in our situation, we should be content to serve Christ there. For more on this topic, see our earlier article, “The Bible and Slavery.”

1 Corinthians 7:25-40 (Singles and Marriage)

(7:25) “Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.”

Jesus didn’t speak to whether or not people should become married. The closest he came to this topic was when he spoke about being “eunuchs for the kingdom” (Mt. 19:11-12). Since Paul doesn’t have an explicit word from the historical Jesus, he gives his view under the “trustworthy” inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

(7:26) “I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.”

We argued earlier (v.8) that there was some specific “famine or persecution”[] afflicting the Corinthians. Again, as we said before, it would be better to be single when going through persecution.

(7:27) “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.”

This is an example of principalized ethics—not moral mandates. Principalized ethics don’t deal with “right” and “wrong,” but with “better” and “best.” If you are married, that’s fine. If you’re single, that’s also fine. Stay in the condition in which you were called.

(7:28) “But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.”

Marriage is a gift of God. But during times of persecution, marriage will lead to more suffering and “trouble,” as Paul puts it (see comments on verse 8 and 26).

(7:29) “But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none.”

“But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened.” We have limited time to serve Christ. What should we do as a consequence?

“So that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none.” Since time is short, we need to make as much of an impact for the cause of Christ as is possible. Paul surely states that we have obligations to our wives (1 Cor. 7:1-5, 32). His point is that all of this is temporary and fleeting.

(7:30) “And those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess.”

All of our weeping, rejoicing, and materialistic conquest will be going away soon (v.29).

(7:31) “And those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.”

Our materialistic resources are going to be “passing away” rather soon (cf. 1 Jn. 2:15-17).

(7:32) “But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.”

The reason Paul was giving moral principles about abstaining from marriage was because of the “present distress” (v.26) and the time is short (v.29). With such limited time, we should maximize our impact for Christ.

(7:33) “But one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife.”

Truly, when we get married, we need to consider how to provide for a wife and children. This takes up a lot of time, energy, etc. Are we prepared for this when we enter into marriage?

(7:34) “And his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”

When we get married, we take on extra ministries: marriage and kids. Are we prepared to take this on? Especially in times of “distress” (v.26)? This isn’t moral or immoral. As Morris writes, “‘Holy’ here refers not to ethical achievement, but to consecration.”[] Before we get married or have children, we should pray that God would make us ready to take on such important ministry: loving a spouse and children.

(7:35) “This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.”

Paul is writing these principles for their good—not to control them. These principles are there to promote serving better in the cause of Christ (“your own benefit”). The question is not, “What is right or wrong?” The question is, “What is the most beneficial?”

(7:36) “But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.”

“Past her youth” refers to getting older and missing her window for getting married. In the ancient world, this was very young—perhaps only 20 years old or younger.[]

Paul’s teaching is to allow these people to marry. Morris writes, “To withhold marriage from a girl of marriageable age and anxious to marry would have been to court disaster in first-century Corinth and bring dishonour on both father and daughter.”[]

(7:37) “But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.”

The father can choose to keep his daughter back from marriage if he meets all of these conditions. Yet Paul seems to be appealing to the conscience of the father. It seems that they practiced arranged marriages in this culture—not the culture of dating that we see today. Again, these are principalized ethics—not moral mandates. The legalist drives himself crazy reading this chapter, because Paul avers back and forth between what is the “right” decision.

(7:38) “So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.”

Which is the “right” judgment call? Either! It depends on the situation. Paul wants the Corinthians to utilize discernment, wisdom, and discretion in making their decision.

(7:39) “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

“Until death do we part” is not only a staple of Western weddings. It is a biblical concept.

(7:40) “But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.”

“In my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is.” Morris writes, “Right to the end Paul refrains from saying anything to indicate that there is something morally higher about celibacy.”[]

“I think that I also have the Spirit of God.” Morris writes, “He is conscious of the divine enablement; what he says is more than the opinion of a private individual.”[]

Questions for Reflection

What do we learn about how to make complex decisions from this passage? (vv.17-40)

What does Paul mean when he says, “Stay in the condition in which you were called”? (v.20, 24