1 Corinthians 7:1–40

They had been taught, as a basic doctrine of the gospel, that God's judgment has set nature and its claims aside. They had also learnt, we may well suppose, that in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage. The believer is dead and risen with Christ, and shares in the heavenly calling. Was it his duty, then, to show his separation from the world in practice by refusing to enter a tie whose chief purposes include filling the earth?

The loose living of the pagan world — especially the Greeks, and above all the Corinthians — produced a reaction towards asceticism. The apostle urges holiness, but not at the cost of liberty in Christ.

When Adam was made, the LORD said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." And so He built the woman out of the man. They were to be, and were, one flesh. The apostle was the last man to weaken the order of nature. He later wrote to the Hebrews, "Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled." He in no way contradicts that here.

They do well who stay outside this relationship to walk with the Lord according to the Spirit, and not to give way to their nature in anything. God instituted marriage — woe to anyone who speaks ill of it! But sin has come in, and all that belongs to nature, to the creature, is spoiled. God has brought in a power altogether above and outside nature — the power of the Spirit. To walk by that power is the best thing; it is to walk outside the sphere where sin operates. But it is rare.

Paul could not have written his first statement in verse 1 when creation began, for it would have been bad for Adam to refuse the wife God gave him. But in Christ, now raised from the dead, God has brought in the new creation.

This is what the Holy Spirit led the large-hearted apostle to write, declaring that what he had laid down was not a command but a permission. His own wish for others was that all should be even as he himself was. But he does not overlook that each has as God gives him.

The unmarried state has a higher excellence where there is power to be undivided for the Lord and His things. But it is not so with every saint. All cannot receive it — only those to whom it has been given. If anyone is able, let him receive it. But if he boasts, he is in danger of dishonouring the Lord more than those he despises.

Having urged the saints to maintain holiness in the assembly (1 Corinthians 5) and personal holiness (1 Corinthians 6), the apostle now teaches us to maintain holiness in the natural relationships of life. Christianity in no way sets aside the order of nature. But it corrects the abuses by which fallen man has corrupted these relationships. Every man is free to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. This is in fact a proper way to avoid the temptation to unholiness.

Asceticism is no more Christian than moral laxity, though it takes a fairer form. It is a pretentious assault on the Creator and Preserver of man by setting up a superior sanctity.

Nature as it is has its snares. And nowhere gave more reason to fear from its habits and associations than Corinth. Pagan religion in some cases made sexual sin sacred. Loose living was the commonest thing there at that time, and it is always a danger. Because of it, let each man have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. In a relationship where the two are no longer two but one, the fullest consideration on both sides is only fitting.

Having urged the saints to maintain holiness in the assembly (1 Cor. 5) and individual holiness (1 Cor. 6), the Apostle now instructs us to maintain holiness in the natural relationships of life. Christianity does not set aside the order of nature. It does correct the abuses by which fallen man may have corrupted these relationships. Every man is free to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. This is a legitimate way to avoid the temptation to unholiness.

God had instituted marriage — woe to anyone who should speak ill of it! But sin has come in, and everything of nature, of the creature, is spoiled. God has brought in a power altogether above and outside nature — that of the Spirit. To walk according to that power is the best thing; it is to walk outside the sphere in which sin acts. But it is rare. And most actual sins come from standing apart from what God has ordained in nature.

So that sin might stop among God's children, let believers still walk as men do, at least in what God approved before sin began. Christian marriage is something allowed, and so it is blameless and honourable — rather than good in itself... Hence what was a command to the Israelite is only a permission to the Christian... Yet marriage is honourable in all. It is granted as a concession to our natural weakness. Even so, the Spirit reflects on it the light and beauty of the finished truth above. In a word, no Christian is advised to marry whose life of celibacy is not found to be a burden and a snare.

When Adam was made, the LORD said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him a helper fit for him. And so He built the woman out of the man. They were to be, and were, one flesh. The apostle was the last man to weaken the order of nature. It was he who later wrote to the Hebrews, Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled. Here he in no way contradicts that or differs from it... He did hold that the unmarried state is better, where a person has power to be wholly for the Lord and His things. But it is not so with every believer. All cannot receive it — only those to whom it has been given. If anyone is able, let him receive it: if he boasts, he is in danger of dishonouring the Lord more than those he looks down on.

Asceticism is no more Christian than loose living, though it takes a fairer form. It is a pretentious attack on the Creator and Preserver of man. It sets up a holiness of its own, and it ends in vileness against nature.

It is one thing to say, "Follow Paul's example," and quite another thing to have the "proper gift" to do it. It is a fatal mistake for anyone to expect to walk in a path for which God has not given him a call or the spiritual power. In these days of ritualism and revived monasticism, remember this. Marriage is a holy and honourable institution. God established it in the Garden of Eden, and the Lord's presence in Cana of Galilee set His approval on it.

Each owes the other consideration to the fullest degree, in a relationship where the two who were two are now one... If we are in the relationship, we are bound to be true to its claims. Being married cannot go together with independence from each other in anything that belongs to it.

For this reason then, every man should have his own wife. Once the union is formed, he no longer has power over himself. As to the body, the husband belongs to his wife, and the wife to her husband.

Verses 3 to 5 insist that both wife and husband must show full consideration of each other, as the marriage bond requires. They are one flesh. Neither the husband alone nor the wife alone has power over his own or her own body, to bear fruit. They are united, and must not ignore this sacred relationship... What matters is proper consideration of each other, and that neither one defrauds the other of his or her proper rights in marriage.

Christianity does not set aside the order of nature. It does correct the abuses by which fallen man may have corrupted these relationships. Every man is free to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, and this is a legitimate way to avoid the temptation to unholiness. So the false claim to higher spirituality, made by insisting on a life of self-denial, stands completely condemned.

When Adam was made, the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." And so He built the woman out of the man... The apostle was the last person to weaken the order of nature... He is in full agreement with his Master, who defended God's original institution from creation, though He also held that the unmarried state is better, where a person has the power to be wholly for the Lord and His things. But it is not so with every believer. All cannot receive it, only those to whom it has been given. If anyone is able, let him receive it. But if he boasts, he is in danger of dishonouring the Lord more than those he despises.

You belong to each other now for as long as life lasts. You are to know the joy of holding each other as your own. But before you knew each other, you belonged to the Lord Jesus your Saviour, and you will not deny Him that joy. His claim must always stand first... He has given you to each other. Yet He has not surrendered His rights in you, and He cannot; they are the rights of your God and your Redeemer. Put His claim first and you will not lose your own happiness. You will sanctify it, make it last, and guard it from the selfishness we are all prone to, which can only spoil it.

No one should mock God in any of His arrangements. If His children marry, let the marriage be real, and not in form and name only.

The married estate is inconsistent with independence of each other in all that pertains to it… It is the sure mark of the enemy when grace is twisted into contempt for the least or lowest of God's arrangements. If we are in the relationship, we are bound to be true to its claims.

Married Christians may think it good to part for a while. They may want to seek God more earnestly in persevering and abundant prayer, and for some definite spiritual purpose. Then let it be only for a while. Keep such exceptions clearly distinct from the rule.

He indicates that the natural desires associated with marriage are not to be lightly denied, except in connection with burdens and exercises where both need to be involved in prayer and fasting… Even necessary food is given up so that prayer may be made without distraction. This shows what a powerful activity prayer is when we seek to gain the resources available from God.

1 Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit, which are God's;" 1 Cor. 7:5, "fasting and;" 1 Cor. 10:28, "for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."

Let them come together again. Otherwise a long separation from the habits of married life could give the father of lies a chance to plant doubts in either of them about the holiness of what God ordains. In marriage, abstinence is not a virtue, but it can easily become a snare.

If, by mutual consent, they separated for a while so that they might give themselves to prayer and to spiritual exercises, the bond was to be acknowledged again at once, in case the heart, not governing itself, should give Satan occasion to come in and distress the soul, and destroy its confidence in God and in His love — in case he should tempt with distressing doubts (it is for, not by lack of self-control) a heart that aimed at too much, and failed.

This is the force of the passage in Corinthians, in case Satan tempt you for your lack of self-control. The evil was there, the failure of self-control was assumed; the temptation was Satan's power over the soul, which was the result… There is no pleasure in despair. The flesh finds its pleasure in satisfying its desires, but there is no craving for despair — it is like a consuming fire in the soul.

No compulsion was laid on the saints as to the advice given in verse 5; but he recommends this to them. He was inspired to speak in this way. The mistake lies in the sense of the Lord's permission to him to write, whereas he means that it was not compulsory on them, but left to their discretion before the Lord.

The apostle means that he speaks here not as commanding but as conceding. He laid no compulsion on the saints about the advice given in verse 5; he recommends it to them. He was inspired to speak this way. The advice was not compulsory on them; it was for their discretion before the Lord.

He had said that every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. Now he is careful to explain that he is not giving a command. He speaks as consenting to the married state. His own wish is that all should be as he himself, free from these relationships. But he recognises that it is not given of God for all to remain unmarried, and where it is not given it is "better to marry."

"Concession" may be less open to misunderstanding than "permission," which could suggest permission on the Lord's part.

These words seem to relate mainly to the verse just before. They are of great interest, because they show the difference between an apostle's counsel and an apostle's command. The latter should bind every Christian conscience. The former binds no one, though the godly will not lightly disregard it. The counsel of an inspired apostle can never be wrong, but it may not apply in every case. When he speaks about what is best in practical Christian life, he holds a position of the highest authority as a spiritual guide. But his voice there is not the commandment of the Lord.

As we read it, let us remember who is speaking. Here is a man willing to give up what is lawful for himself, so that he may do what is most fitting and please the Lord with joy. It would hardly seem wise to belittle the advice of such a man. Could we ourselves give better?

All through, the apostle insists on the difference between advice and the command of God. Advice is what one Christian may give another, and he was more able than anyone to give it. God inspired all of this, of course — the advice as well as the command... The advice was inspired, but it was advice. Inspiration did not change its character in that respect. It does not lower our thought of inspiration to see it as just advice, which is what he himself calls it.

In the New Testament we have, thank God, many plain commandments of the Lord. They cover all the major matters of life and service. But there are many smaller matters where the Lord has given no definite instructions... These omissions are not by oversight but on purpose. The Lord plainly means to leave many things to the prayerful exercise of His saints. They must search the Scriptures to find what pleases Him... This is so that they may grow spiritually and have "their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil."

This permission, and this advice that Christians should marry, was not a commandment from the Lord given by inspiration. It was the fruit of the apostle's experience — and the Holy Spirit was not absent from that experience. He would rather that everyone were like himself. But in this matter each person had his own gift from God.

This wish did not come from any natural dislike of married life... A man of his temperament and sensitivity would have warmly enjoyed the joys of home. But great grace was upon him. His miraculous conversion was also his special consecration to the work of God. His liberty was left to him, but he loved his bonds. He knew by experience both the joys and the afflictions of the "better part" — undivided service to the Lord. So he wished that his brothers might be like himself, completely free from all earthly ties.

1 Corinthians 7:32-34 teaches that the unmarried are the most free from care. Verse 7 teaches just as clearly that "every man has his own proper gift of God." Each one must know for himself what his proper gift is. It is one thing to say, "Follow Paul's example," and quite another thing to have the "proper gift" to do it. It is a fatal mistake to expect to walk in a path where God has given you no call and no spiritual power.

We will never find an inspired apostle, or any other truly spiritual man, trying to make himself the final standard others must match. Paul gloried in his own practice, and he was so sure he shared Christ's mind that he could freely wish others to copy his ways. But he remembers God. His own wishes are not God's appointment. And by admitting that "every one has his proper gift of God," he limits his own holy desire.

A spiritual energy lifts the person who receives it above ordinary conditions. But God's institution, here marriage, stays just as it is... Marriage is the rule as God laid it down. But as an exception, the Holy Spirit does lift up this one or that, for good reason, above the need of marriage. It was a question of God's gift; so that he who marries does well, and he does better who does not marry. The opposite of this holy wisdom shows up in the world-church, which turns the exception of grace into a church rule that corrupts.

His own desire was that all men (believers, of course) were like himself, unmarried. If God had not Himself fitted a man for this, it would be a mistake for him to refuse to marry a wife God had brought to him. Paul's viewpoint certainly was a blessed one. But it is not the normal, usual path. We may admire it as much as we like; admiration is not itself the power to follow it... "Forbidding to marry," he assures us elsewhere, is diabolical teaching (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

The Holy Spirit led the apostle to write this, declaring that it was not a commandment but a permission. His own wish for others was that all should be as he was himself. But he does not forget that each person has what God gives him. So to the unmarried and to widows he says it is good for them to remain as he is. Yet even that is not absolute. It holds only if they can do so without fear of sinning in this matter.

This wish did not come from any dislike of married life. … Family joys would have meant much to a man of his temperament and feeling. But great grace was on him. His miraculous conversion was also his special setting apart for the work of God. … But we shall never find an inspired apostle making himself a final standard for others to copy. No truly spiritual man does that. … But he remembers God. His own wishes are not God's appointment. And by admitting that "every one has his proper gift of God," he limits his own holy desire. He also records his protest, in advance, against the folly and great wickedness of those who would later use human authority to enforce celibacy.

It is one thing to say, "Follow Paul's example," and quite another thing to have the "proper gift" to do it. God must give both the call and the spiritual power. Without them, it is a fatal mistake for anyone to expect to walk in such a path. Remember, in these days of ritual and revived monastic life, that marriage is holy and honourable. God established it in the Garden of Eden. He approved it by His presence at Cana in Galilee. In Hebrews 13:4 His Spirit declares it honourable in all.

We can fully agree that it is good to remain unmarried; yet even Paul himself advises that if the natural instinct and desire for marriage were strong within one, it is better to marry. "Forbidding to marry," he assures us elsewhere, is diabolical teaching (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

A man must be his own judge in this matter. … Can he live single with a contented heart? By all means let him do so. God's present calling is not to vineyards and olive groves, or to happiness or wealth here. It is to suffer for a while with Christ, and then to reign with Him. The fewer natural claims a Christian has on his time and energy, the freer he is to follow, with a single eye, the Master he has the privilege of serving. But let him know his proper gift, and aim no higher than God gives him strength to reach.

Not only the widower but the widow becomes free to marry again. But the apostle gives his judgment against it. Not on moral grounds — only superstition could raise a question there. He says it because staying free is the happier state. Even here we find none of the language that came later, when people praised celibacy as the highest of Christian virtues and condemned re-marriage as unchristian. Instead, even for the widow, the apostle adds one condition to her marrying again: "only in the Lord." That phrase means more than that both are Christians. It demands that she marry in a Christian way.

This is how the Holy Spirit led the large-hearted apostle to write. He made clear that what he had laid down was not a commandment, but a permission. His own wish for others was that all should be even as himself. But he does not forget that each person has what God gives him. So to the unmarried and to widows he says it is good for them to stay as he is. Even then it is not without limits. It holds only where they can stay single without fear of sinning in this matter.

To the unmarried and the widows he says it is good to stay as he himself is. But if they could not control their nature and stay in calm purity, it was better to marry. Unsubdued desire was more hurtful than the bond of marriage.

Faith recognises a plain, strict truth, and faith may and should aim to reach it in practice. Yet God's grace is designed to meet the weakness of the flesh as well as to satisfy the desires of the Spirit. He who has called us into fellowship with His Son still thinks of what we are made of, and remembers that we are dust. He gives no support to sin. But He makes honourable provision for those who find the single life a burden too heavy and too dangerous to carry.

Restless desire is a disease that harms the soul... A man must be his own judge in this matter. Marriage is honourable if he chooses it; but his choice will bring its consequences. Can he live single with a contented heart? Then by all means let him do so... But let him know his proper gift, and aim no higher than God gives him strength to reach.

That could never happen for everyone, since each person had his own gift from God. If God had not Himself fitted a man for this, it would be a mistake for him to refuse to marry a wife God had brought to him. Paul's viewpoint was a blessed one, but it is not the normal path. We may admire it, but admiration is not the power to follow it.

There is a spiritual energy that lifts the person who receives it above ordinary conditions. But God's institution — here, marriage — stays exactly the same. Paul was a witness of the first, and he still upholds the second. God laid marriage down as the rule. But the Holy Spirit can and does raise one person or another above the need of marriage, in rare cases and for good reason. It was a question of God's gift... The opposite of this holy wisdom shows up in the church that has joined itself to the world. It turns the exception of grace into a church rule, and so into corruption.

The married should not look for a way out of marriage, any more than the single should look to be bound. And again, he would keep the conscience free for those who might marry. Neither man nor woman sins by marrying, however unwise Christian judgment may find it. Married people cannot escape trouble in the flesh, and the apostle wanted to spare them this.

People bring verse 10 forward too, and misunderstand it just as much: "To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband." The rationalist would make this a distinction between what is inspired and what is not. But the apostle is pointing to something else. The Lord had settled this question Himself, in person. So it was not left to His servant now: see Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:12. Verse 12 makes this clear: "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)." The Lord had not ruled on the case now in question, as the Gospels show.

The apostles spoke with an authority the Lord had given them, and those who were loyal to the truth and to God listened to them (1 John 4:6). But when the Lord Himself speaks, everyone who hears must heed His word and obey, for He is supreme over all. A "Thus says the Lord" is enough for those who are redeemed by His precious blood. Neither questions nor hesitation should have any place in any matter on which the Lord has spoken.

This permission, and this advice that Christians should marry, was not a commandment from the Lord given by inspiration. It was the fruit of the apostle's experience — and the Holy Spirit was not absent from that experience... But on marriage itself there was no longer room for the counsel of experience. The Lord's commandment was definite. The woman was not to separate from the man, nor the man from the woman. If they did separate, the bond was not broken. They had to remain unmarried or else be reconciled.

This takes nothing away from the truth that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. But it does show that not all Scripture is revelation. Here God inspired Paul to answer the questions of the Corinthians with his own spiritual judgment. And as we read it, let us remember the man who wrote it. He was willing to give up what was lawful for himself, so that he might do what is most fitting and please the Lord with joy. It would hardly seem wise to belittle the advice of such a man. Could we ourselves give better?

This was no new direction from apostolic authority. It was the ruling of the Lord Himself, already known: the general duty of husband and wife, resting on a tie that cannot be dissolved. The wife was not to leave her husband, nor the husband to send his wife away. If they were parted, she was to stay unmarried, or be reconciled. Even if she were without fault, separation is a disgrace and might be a trap.

What is helpful is recommended; what is right must be enforced. Whether they knew it at the time of their engagement or not, God was in the ordinance that bound husband and wife together. So let no false view of her higher calling tempt a Christian woman to abandon her husband. Still less may she do so on any lower ground... To dissolve such a tie, except by the express permission of Him who first formed it, is to despise the Lord. By His recorded sentence, a marriage once made is annulled only by the sin that by its nature breaks it.

Paul was an inspired apostle. The Holy Spirit inspired him to write the whole of 1 Corinthians. Yet in chapter 7 he marks off what came from himself as an apostle of Christ from what the Lord gave him directly. In verse 12 he says, "I, not the Lord"; but in verse 10 the charge is "not I, but the Lord." … The apostles spoke with an authority the Lord had given them, and those loyal to the truth and to God listened to them. But when the Lord Himself speaks, all who hear must heed His word and obey, for He is supreme over all. Neither questions nor hesitation should have any place in any matter upon which the Lord has spoken.

But on marriage itself there was no longer room for advice drawn from experience. The Lord's command was definite. The woman was not to separate from the man, nor the man from the woman. And if they did separate, that did not break the bond. They must stay unmarried or else be reconciled.

This was not a new direction from apostolic authority. It was the ruling of the Lord Himself, already known: the general duty of husband and wife, resting on the fact that the tie cannot be dissolved. The wife was not to part from her husband, nor the husband to send his wife away. If she did part from him, she was to stay unmarried, or be reconciled. For even if she were not at fault, separation brings disgrace and could become a trap.

Reconciliation is, in plain language, making everything straight… From there it passes into its more ordinary sense: smoothing things out between two people who have become estranged, and bringing back one who is estranged or hostile… It brings back to unity, peace, and fellowship what was divided and estranged… Compare 1 Corinthians 7:11, "be reconciled to her husband." This is not only her mind returning to affection and good feeling. It is matters made straight between them — the relationship made good.

If the husband wishes to come back, the wife should receive him. 1 Corinthians 7:13 shows this: "If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him." If he wishes to come back, that amounts to consenting to live with her. And a command not to leave him amounts to a command to receive him. At least, so we judge. It may be the Lord is about to bring the husband to Himself. If so, it would be very sad if a Christian wife should prove a stumbling-block by failing in grace.

The Lord plainly tells the wife not to leave her husband. Of course, if he were unfaithful to her, that would be a different matter. But if a wife did leave her husband, she is told to stay unmarried, or to be reconciled to him. And if her husband had married again in the meantime, that would change everything. She could then never rightly be reunited to him, even if his second wife died (Deut. 24:3,4).

In verse 10 the apostle points out that the Lord Himself had already settled the question of husband and wife separating; so it was not left to His servant. Verse 12 makes this very clear: "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)." For the Lord had not ruled on the case now in question, as the Gospels show. So the apostle, in the Holy Spirit, settles it here by the authority given to him. But it must have been, and was, from the Lord, though not the Lord deciding in person.

In verse 12, "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)," is very precious... Scripture meets everything here. It overturns the whole system of those who deny inspiration, because it draws a careful line between Paul's best thoughts and the Lord's commands. On this subject Paul will not give us a command, and he is inspired to tell us so.

Here it was the serious question of mixed marriages. The couple were already married, and the gospel had won one of them to Christ but not the other. In this, the grace of Christianity stands in striking contrast to the strictness of Judaism. One of the ways Israel remained a holy people was by refusing to intermarry with the nations. Those who did intermarry, or took foreign wives, were polluted, and their children were unclean. When they felt and judged the sin, they proved it by offering a ram for the trespass and by putting wife and children away.

This does not for a moment consider the case of a believer marrying an unbeliever. That is clearly contrary to the mind of the Lord. Here it is the case of mixed marriages, where one of the two was converted after the marriage... So far from separating from the unbeliever, the brother or sister is to stay in the relationship at all cost, counting on God for the salvation of the unbeliever. That means submitting to what the Lord has allowed, and walking in line with His will.

Was the man who had received the Lord, while his wife remained in unbelief, to put her away? His first impulse might be to do so... But such a conclusion could only come from a mistaken view of his calling. Gospel truth forces no outward change... By the power of the Spirit, truth works on the heart and conscience. Its fruits prove that its mission is not to regulate the social life of this world, but to call people out of it to heaven. If, then, the woman who refused her heart to Christ still clung in natural affection to her husband, let him not put her away. Even less should he use this God-given difference to claim release from a yoke he may not want. He must consider her wishes, not his own.

If the believer were the wife, her unbelieving husband might suspect her and block her at every turn. He would watch to keep the children from Christian truth and every Christian privilege. He would show contempt for what his wife valued. Most of all he resented her calm confidence of faith, which counted idols as nothing and confessed the Lord Jesus before others. But the apostle's direction here instructs and strengthens her. If her husband consented to live with her, despite that confession, she was not called to leave him or put him away... What a relief this must have been to godly but anxious souls! God had brought them to Himself by the gospel after they had married Gentiles or Jews, and their children had been raised in Judaism or idolatry.

In verse 12, "To the rest speak I, not the Lord," is very precious... Now I find the apostle making a difference here, which is instructive... On this subject Paul will not give us a command, and he is inspired to tell us that.

This does not for a moment have in view a believer marrying an unbeliever. That is clearly contrary to the mind of the Lord (2 Cor. 6:14). Here the case is mixed marriages, where one partner came to faith after the marriage. In this case the believer is not defiled by union with the unbeliever.

Here the serious question was mixed marriages, where the gospel had won one married partner to Christ and not the other. Here the grace of Christianity stands in sharp contrast with the strictness of Judaism... Israel stayed a holy people partly by refusing to marry the surrounding nations. Those who intermarried, or took foreign wives, were polluted, and their children were unclean.

If, then, the woman who refused her heart to Christ still clung in natural affection to her husband, let him not put her away. Still less should he use this difference God has made to claim freedom from a tie he may not want. Her pleasure, and not his, must be consulted.

The faith of the one sets the other apart in a very real way, for he is a member of a household where Christ is recognised as Lord. He is set apart despite himself, and however ungodly his character may be. And the children are "holy" — a stronger word than sanctified. It is of course the position they are privileged to hold because of the faith of one parent.

Here the sanctification and the holiness do not mean a spiritual condition that puts them in relationship with God. Through the believer the relationship is clean and God acknowledges it, so the believer can continue in it.

If the believer were the wife, she might be suspected and thwarted at every turn by her unbelieving husband. He would watch that the children were kept from Christian truth and privileges of every kind. He would show his contempt for what his wife valued... If her husband consented to live with her, despite that confession, she was not called to leave or put away her unbelieving husband.

The unbeliever as such slights the word and has no conception of its power... But his conscience can value gentleness, humility, patience and obedience in another very highly, above all when that other is his wife. He knows well how unreasonable and unkind he has often been to her. Yet she has borne it. She never complained and never blamed him, but stayed as loving and dutiful as ever. He is forced to feel that there must be something in her faith that makes the difference — the faith he often mocked.

If he wishes to come back, it is the same as his "consenting to live with her," and if she is told she "should not divorce him," that amounts to being told to receive him... It may be that the Lord is about to bring the husband to Himself. If so, it would be very sad if a Christian wife should prove a stumbling block by failing in grace.

It is in contrast with the Jews. If a Jew had married a Gentile wife, he had to send her away, and her children too, or he profaned himself. If the Jew was to be holy, they all had to go. The Christian system is gracious, so the opposite happens. The unbeliever does not profane the Christian; the Christian sanctified him or her, and the children too. They are "sanctified" in the exact opposite sense to the way a Jew was profaned.

God's grace in the gospel reverses the sentence of the law, making pure what had until then been unclean. Otherwise it might have seemed the duty of the believing husband to put away his unbelieving wife and their children, since mixing with Gentiles was hateful to the law.

In 1 Corinthians 7:14 the word covers the unbelieving husband with the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife with the believing husband. The verse says the converted one sanctifies the unconverted. I have known cases where the unconverted husband grew far worse. He persecuted his wife and shut her out of the house. He behaved much worse than he did before his wife came to faith. The passage does not mean the unbeliever becomes morally pure. It means husband and wife may live together, unlike under the law.

The faith of the one sets the other apart in a very real way, because he is a member of a household where Christ is recognised as Lord. He is set apart despite himself, however ungodly his character may be.

This holiness is only external, and it carries no saving power. It surely does not save, because salvation is always tied to personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even so, it still gives the priceless privilege of being in the place of blessing, the sphere where the Holy Spirit dwells and acts.

It is now not a question of the practical state of the children themselves — whether they are saved or not saved. The passage simply says that their relationship with the believing parent sanctified the children, so no one need send them away. But some would build a monstrous error on such a passage: that the children of Christian parents are saved as such, without the life-giving grace of the Holy Spirit. That idea is too gross to deserve a moment's thought.

The passage does not consider for a moment a believer marrying an unbeliever. That is clearly against the Lord's mind. Here it is a case of mixed marriages, where one partner came to faith after the wedding… The sanctification and the holiness do not mean a spiritual condition that puts them in relationship with God. They mean that through the believer the relationship is clean and owned by God, so the believer can continue in it.

The child has an acknowledged place as "holy" or "clean." Paul uses this to show that the marriage stands, since if the children were unclean, the marriage itself would be. Baptism gives this acknowledged place, a place in the kingdom of God, which runs through the ages in different forms.

The apostle means a sanctified, or holy, state, actually and always true of the husband and children of a believing wife… Not a hint is dropped in this verse of being converted or brought to baptism.

So the believer was not to send away his wife, and was not to leave an unbelieving husband. If the unbeliever left the believer for good, then the believer — man or woman — was free: "let him depart." The brother no longer had to treat the woman who had left him as his wife, nor the sister the man who had left her as her husband. But they were called to peace, and not to seek this separation. How could the believer know whether he might be the means of the unbeliever's conversion? For we are under grace.

Under the law, when Israelites had married foreign wives, they were required to send those wives away; but grace is very different. It will not hold the unbeliever against his will. If he wants to go, the believer is told to "let him depart." When the unbeliever makes the first move, the believer is not under bondage in such cases. How much wiser to leave the matter with God, and not argue.

So if the unbelieving partner cuts himself off from the other, the believer is released from bondage — whether it is the brother or the sister in the case. That act on the unbeliever's side does not give the abandoned believer permission to marry. It does leave the believer freer to serve the Lord, now that the other has gone. Such a marriage is likely to bring strife anyway, since the natural man hates the life of the Spirit. And none of this would justify the believer breaking the marriage tie: the case assumes that the unbeliever has broken it himself, or herself.

He or she no longer has to treat the relationship as still existing. Yet the apostle does not mean anything like divorce by this, or anything that would set the deserted one completely free. The Lord Himself has settled it in the clearest possible way in the Gospels: there is only one ground for divorce. We have no right to take the apostle's words here as declaring another ground, though many now do.

If, however, the unbeliever leaves, the believer is released from the bondage of being tied to an unbeliever. The believer is not to argue with the one who has gone, for we are called to peace. This does not give the believer any licence to break the tie by leaving the unbeliever. Nor does it give the abandoned believer permission to remarry.

According to 1 Corinthians 7, I cannot doubt that a Christian deserted on purpose by an unbelieving partner was free in every way — free, that is, to marry. But this assumes that the one who went away left on purpose. The Christian was never to be the one who leaves, and if forced to go, was to stay unmarried or return.

But freedom must never be taken away. Those who want to go may go. God's calling is in peace. If unbelief for now goes together with respect and natural affection, peace in the home will not be broken, even though the Lord may have divided soul from soul. If it is otherwise, the cross must be accepted and its burden carried — and no false relief sought by breaking the tie at will.

This does not for a moment have in view a believer marrying an unbeliever, which is clearly against the mind of the Lord. Here the case is mixed marriages, where one of the two was converted after the marriage. In this case the believer is not made unclean by being joined to the unbeliever... Far from separating from the unbeliever, the brother or sister is to stay in the relationship at all cost, counting on God for the salvation of the unbeliever. So there will be submission to what the Lord has allowed, and a life lived in line with His will.

This may comfort the heart of one who has been brought to the Lord after marriage. Moreover, to such a person the Spirit of God has given specific direction and blessed encouragement.

Under the law, a man who had married a foreign woman became unclean and had to send her away, and their children were shut out as unclean. But under grace it was completely the opposite... So the believer was not to send away his wife, and was not to leave an unbelieving husband. If the unbeliever left the believer for good, that believer, man or woman, was free: "let it be so." But they were called to peace, and not to look for this separation. How did the believer know that he might not be the means of the unbeliever's conversion? For we are under grace.

A very solemn question, put here by the apostle for two purposes: to encourage true faith, and to discourage the natural pleading that such feeling sometimes produces. The common tendency to do evil so that good may come could easily find room here. A Christian wife, or husband, might well wish to hold back an unwilling partner, in the hope of winning them to Christ. But that wish must not be met at the cost of the other's freedom. Faith does not need such methods to reach its goal.

Such an act on the unbeliever's side does not give the deserted believer permission to marry. It leaves the believer freer to serve the Lord, because the other has gone... Whatever the trial of such a life, the brother or the sister must long for the salvation of the unbeliever. But in the end this rests with God.

Yet the apostle does not mean by this anything equal to divorce, or anything that would set the deserted partner completely free. The Lord Himself has decided in the plainest possible way in the Gospels that there is only one ground for divorce, and we have no right from the apostle's words here to suppose, as many do suppose now, that they state another.

But the moral weight and the gracious manner of the wife have their effect on the hard husband. He is won over to listen, all the more because she does not preach at him, as he calls it. How many have been won in this way to hear the gospel, the coming day will show.

It is a wonderful thing to have a soul converted to God by a life. I can imagine no higher testimony to any believer than this: a quiet life of submission to God has been the means of showing Christ to a soul. Many a careless husband has, thank God, been converted through the silent godly witness of a woman who always did the right thing, because she was always thinking of pleasing God.

Notice first how carefully this verse distinguishes. It traces the calling to God, who gives life to the dead. It traces the distributing to the Lord, as Head of His own house. The Father has given Him all things, and He gives to His own as He pleases. The verse also claims for every believer full liberty to serve God according to the measure of his ability, without another dictating to him.

Our place is one of intelligent submission. We acknowledge the Lord's allotment and God's call: the one given at the time of conversion, the other the permanent condition. You will see that the Authorised Version, following the common text, reverses the true relationships here. It is God who has called and the Lord who divided, not the reverse, as in what is known as the Received Text.

Verses 17 to 24 lay down the principle that, generally speaking, a person who was converted was to stay in the same relationships as before. Of course, if there was moral evil in them, that had to go. But the passage is not dealing with that. God had distributed to every man: none of us is in our particular circumstances merely by chance. Every assembly was to recognise this.

The general rule was, and he ordains it in all churches, to remain wherever one could remain with God. There was to be no restless spirit of change. That treats circumstances as the great matter, instead of God's control of them — and it is His control we ought to grasp.

As to jobs and positions in this world, the general rule was that everyone should stay in the state he was in when God called him. But it had to be "with God" — doing nothing that would not be to His glory. If the state itself went against His will, it was sin. Clearly he could not remain in it with God. But the general rule was to remain and glorify God in it.

For example, children have sometimes thought they were right to leave their homes. Others have found the duties of their daily work tiresome, and changed their job without much thought, hoping to gain more freedom for the Lord's service. Others again have moved to other places, and even to other countries, for the same reason.

This shows that the instructions apply to all who profess Christ, for all time. Again and again in this letter we find passages that refute any attempt to limit the instruction. It was never meant for one local assembly only, or for the time of the apostles only. (See 1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Cor. 7:17; 1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Cor. 14:36-37; 1 Cor. 16:1.)

Christ raises the Christian above all circumstances. So when God calls someone, changing is not worth the trouble. Why should the circumcised man want to disguise or wipe out the fact that he is circumcised? Why should the uncircumcised man seek it or submit to it? It is no longer a question of distinctions in the flesh. What God values, and what the Christian should value, is keeping His commandments. It is not forms of truth or schools of doctrine, which are a certain danger.

Jewish training led some to place great value on the rite of circumcision, even going so far as to say that Gentile believers could not be saved apart from circumcision (Acts 15:1). Here the Apostle states that, for the Christian, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value. Obedience to the word of God is of value in His sight, not mere religious distinctions in the flesh.

We must understand that "circumcision" was the mark that separated those who trusted in the law from all other people. It was the outward sign that a man was trusting in law. In 1 Corinthians 7:18 we read, "Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision." No man can trust in Christ and in circumcision, or in the law, at the same time. Whoever trusts in Christ does not, and cannot, trust in law.

God's saving grace fits itself equally to the various states and conditions of men. His calling brings us to Himself in Christ, but leaves us personally as we were… The one should not deny his circumcision; he should give it its true honour in its place. The other should not think he can make himself more acceptable in the Father's sight by adding an outdated ritual to a living faith in Jesus. The new man has to do with God, not with outward rituals, and only the doing of His will honours Him.

Was someone already circumcised when God called him? Then let him not erase that mark from his body. Was he uncircumcised? Then let him not be circumcised. God was now dealing with men as men, and not first of all with a chosen nation, the descendants of Abraham. So neither condition mattered in the Church of God.

The point and meaning of this scripture are quite simple. The early days were confused. There was conflict with Judaism, there were the claims of teachers who pressed Jewish law, and there was the practice of household slavery. Many felt a strong pull to free themselves from these things. Nor is the temptation absent today, even if it takes another form. For example, children have sometimes thought they were right to leave home. Others have found their daily work tiresome and switched jobs without much thought, hoping to gain more freedom for the Lord's service. Others again have moved to other places, and even to other countries, for the same reason.

There should be no restless spirit of change, as if circumstances were the great consideration, rather than God's control of circumstances.

Jewish training led some to place great value on the rite of circumcision. Some even said that Gentile believers could not be saved without circumcision (Acts 15:1). Here the apostle states that, for the Christian, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value. Obedience to the word of God is of value in His sight, not mere religious distinctions in the flesh.

That is, obedience to God is what really matters, not whether a person has gone through the outward rite set up in Genesis 17. If God called a man who was already circumcised, he must not erase that mark from his body. If God called him uncircumcised, he must not get circumcised. God was dealing with men now as men, and not primarily with an elect nation, the seed of Abraham. So neither the one condition nor the other was of importance in the Church of God.

Circumcision was only an outward cutting of the flesh, only an outward ceremony. As we have so often seen in this letter, the Holy Spirit insists that outward forms and ceremonies have no power at all. Both circumcision and uncircumcision alike can never produce any results for God. So a circumcised man is just as helpless to please God as an uncircumcised man. The spiritual meaning of circumcision was "a heart affair."

It is no longer a question of distinctions in the flesh. What God values, and what the Christian should value, is keeping His commandments. It is not forms of truth or schools of doctrine, which are without question a danger. God sets the believer apart for obedience — the obedience of Christ, not that of a Jew.

The commandments in 1 Corinthians 7:19 are not those of Sinai. They stand for the way of life that springs from the new nature.

The knowledge of Christ lifts a person above the mere questions of circumcision or uncircumcision. Neither one had any spiritual importance now. What mattered was keeping the commandments of God — not the ten commandments, but those of the New Testament. For in new creation there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

In the past that solemn rite carried great value. But now that Christ has come, the reality behind it all is here for those who believe. The shadow fades away in this, as in everything else. Having ordinances, or submitting to them, makes no one acceptable to God. He looks for the practical fruit of faith in all who bear the name of His Son. Faith works by love, and leads to the fulfilling of the commandments of God. Where this is seen, all else is of small account.

When it comes to a person's place in life, as in marriage, the believer's path is to accept the situation as it stands. He simply brings a new power into it, to the glory of God. We are to remain in the calling we were in when the gospel called us, only it must be "with God" (v. 24). If we cannot have God with us in it, then we must abandon it.

the usual position or occupation of a person, whether slave or free: the Christian is urged to stay in his calling if he can stay there with God.

The calling seems to mean the condition God had placed a person in when He called him. Here it is applied to circumcision or uncircumcision, freedom or slavery, not to earthly occupations, as people commonly suppose. Some jobs might involve a good deal that clashes with God's word and offends a Christian's conscience.

The general rule was to stay wherever a person could stay with God, and he lays this down in all the churches. There was to be no restless spirit of change, as if circumstances were the great matter rather than God's control of them. That control is what should be grasped.

The apostles' days were confused. There was conflict with Judaism, and there were the claims of teachers who pressed the Jewish law; there was also the practice of household slavery. Many were strongly tempted to free themselves from both. The same temptation is still here today, even if it takes another form. For example, children have sometimes thought they were right to leave their homes. Others have found their daily work tiresome and changed their job without much thought, to get what they believed would be more freedom for the Lord's service. Others again have moved to other places, and even to other countries, for the same reason.

The Christian slave is the Lord's freeman; the Christian freeman is Christ's slave. The Lord's authority breaks the chains of the first, so far as his faith goes; the grace of Christ makes a slave of the second, in his heart. "You were bought with a price." Free man or slave, all were bought.

In your earthly calling, as in marriage, the believer's path is to accept the situation as it stands. He simply brings a new power into it, for the glory of God. We are to stay in the calling we were in when the gospel called us, but it must be "with God" (v. 24). If we cannot have God with us in it, then we must leave it.

Even if freedom were within his reach, he would do better to stay where God first found and blessed him. For even in his chains he is Christ's freedman and companion.

Some speculative minds have read an extreme view into these words, as if the Christian had better stay a slave even when he could be free. The words say no such thing. That dream might appeal to a student in his comfortable library. It would not appeal to him if he knew from experience what slavery meant.

Christians are not called to reform the world as they pass through it. They are called to behave as heavenly people should, in the middle of it all. These principles are addressed to slaves, but they apply just as strongly to people in paid work.

A slave's condition in those days was no doubt distressing. Picture a master who did not know God, sunk in the worst moral corruption, with Christian slaves, men or women. They could hardly escape the sight and sound of the most defiling talk. They always had to face what stood completely opposed to the purity of new life in Christ. You can understand how natural it would be for a slave's heart to long for rescue from such a life. But setting the heart on that kind of rescue is the very thing the apostle rebukes here.

"Let it not be a care to you": he must not treat the Lord as if He did not look on the one He loved, or share his sorrow and condition. Let him believe that it was He who ordered it all. It is His to arrange, ours to obey. Is it for a soldier on the battlefield to choose what he will do?

The Christian slave is not to mind his chains, nor long for a natural freedom that he might be tempted to misuse... The believing slave is to wear his chains as ornaments of grace rather than as badges of shame.

Many in ancient and in modern times read this last verse (21) quite differently. They take it to mean: even if you can be free, use the bondage instead. Prefer to be a slave rather than a free man. But this seems extreme. It also gives the human circumstances too much weight, as if slavery suited Christian living better than freedom.

The Christian slave is not to mind his bonds, nor pine for a natural liberty which he might be tempted to abuse. In fact, even if freedom were within his reach, he would do better to remain where God first found and blessed him... The believing slave, therefore, is to wear his bonds rather as ornaments of grace than as badges of humiliation.

The believer who was a slave when God called him is clearly free to accept his release. But if no chance of freedom comes, he is not to make his condition a matter of concern or anxiety.

The apostle urges the truth of that liberty in Christ which the Christian world has almost forgotten: if I am Christ's servant, I am already set free. Match the release he has been given, if you can. Twenty million would buy no such freedom. At the same time, if my master allows me liberty, let me use it rather.

The Lord's authority breaks the slave's chains for his faith; the grace of Christ makes the free man a slave for his heart.

Christianity takes people in the social position it finds them in, and shows how they may live Christ in that place. Its work is not to remodel society, but to teach the believer to display Christ. He was to be subject to the governing authorities. Since those authorities allowed slavery, he was to obey the laws here as in other matters. He was to seek freedom by lawful means if he could, and if not, to be content with his lot.

So while we are told to stay in our calling, whether as slaves or free men, it is to be "with God". This shows that, though it may be right to remain a slave, it would not be right to stay in some dishonest trade where you could not be "with God".

Think of a pagan master sunk in the worst moral filth, with Christian slaves in his house, men or women. They could hardly avoid the sight and sound of the most defiling talk. Day after day they faced what could never fit the purity of new life in Christ. We can understand how natural it was for a slave to long for rescue from such a life. But setting the heart on that kind of rescue is the very thing the apostle corrects here.

The apostle explains, "For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord." That is the right force: "freedman," not "freeman." The word means a man let out of slavery, not a man born free. It is the exact term here, and it stands out all the more because "freeman" or "free-born" comes next. Christ alone puts every person in his place and true light. Freedom handed out by men cannot do this, or even come close.

The apostle presses the freedom we have in Christ, which the Christian world has all but forgotten. If I am Christ's servant, I am set free already. Match, if you can, the release he already has. Twenty millions will buy no such freedom. At the same time, if my master offers me freedom, I should take it.

But we have to see how the apostle turns to the other side. "Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ." He now changes the phrase. He does not say the man is the Lord's bondman, but "Christ's." He might be born free, or an owner of slaves. Whatever he is, if he is a Christian, he is Christ's bondman. He is bound forever to Him who shed His blood for him. The price paid is what the apostle presses now, to make the free man feel that he is Christ's bondman. It appeals to his sense of grace, and not only to authority.

To be a slave of Christ is to be a free man. Christ has set him free from the slavery of Satan and sin, and from the slavery of his own will, which is the most real slavery in the most terrible sense of the word. The slavery of Christ, then, is the truest liberty. The more we live in the sense of what it means to serve such a Master, the more we will enjoy and stand firm in the freedom Christ has given us.

In any case let the Christian bondman remember that he is the Lord's freeman, and the freeman that he is Christ's bondman. Both have been bought with a price. The One who bought us with the price of His precious blood has the first claim on us. So we are told to stay in our calling, whether as bondmen or freemen, but to stay there "with God". This shows that, though it may be right to remain a slave, it would not be right to carry on in some dishonest trade where a man could not be "with God".

"You were bought with a price." Whether it be the free man or the slave, all were bought. The saints are the purchase of Christ's blood: so indeed is all the world; but believers alone acknowledge it, and they are called to act on it. "Do not become bondservants of men" — an appeal that binds the free as much as the slave. Serving with one aim alone secures true service, and that is perfect liberty. Strange to say, none are so likely to slip into human bondage as those who profess the Lord's name.

What is it that sets the captive free? Is it purchase? So far from it, purchase, instead of giving me my liberty, rather makes me a bondman. I am His to serve, now and evermore, who bought me with a price — His own blood. But people do not serve Christ when it is only a question of being bought. One more blessing is needed to make the claim of purchase felt: redemption.

His master had bought him, and therefore he was the property of his master. This, dear reader, is exactly our relationship to Christ. He has redeemed and bought us at the highest price He could pay — His own precious blood. It is a hard word to the ears of men, and rightly so, if applied to earthly relationships. But as to our relationship to Christ, there is no sweeter word to a Christian. If Christ had only hired me, I should belong to Him only for a time, but He has bought me, and so I am His own for ever.

The believing slave is Christ's freedman; the free man who is called is the purchased slave of his Redeemer... Redemption sets us free from man, but sets us apart for God.

Here it is a guard against pandering to others, whether for ease or honour, or to avoid pain or reproach. It was a great snare to the Corinthians — not to slaves only, but as much, or more, to the free. There is no thought here of weakening the Christian slave in serving his earthly master. Grace would strengthen him to serve with twice the zeal and honour, for he was now the Lord's freedman. How low it would be for a man born free, now bound to Christ as His slave by the deepest and most lasting of ties, to become man's slave! He does that whenever he compromises his Master, who bought him with His blood.

If one is called to be the Lord's servant, how then can he hire himself out to be the servant of a denomination or a congregation and do what man tells him to do? When a man is hired, he becomes a servant to those who hire him and must please them... He bought us with the price of His precious blood, and so we are told, "do not become bondservants of men." We are to serve people in love, but Christ is our Master.

While we are told to remain in our calling, either as slaves or free men, it is to be "with God". This surely shows that, though it may be right to remain a slave, it would not be right to continue in some dishonest trade in which it would be impossible to be "with God".

The days of the apostles were confused. There was conflict with Judaism, there were teachers pressing Jewish practice, and there was household slavery. Many felt a strong pull to free themselves from both. The temptation is still here today, though it takes another form. Children have sometimes thought they were right to leave home. Others found their daily work tiresome and changed jobs, thinking it would give them more freedom for the Lord's service. Others moved to new places, and even to other countries, for the same reason.

As to jobs and positions in this world, the general rule was that everyone should stay in the state he was in when God called him. But it must be "with God" — doing nothing that would not be to His glory. If the state was in itself of a nature contrary to His will, it was sin; clearly he could not remain in it with God. But the general rule was to remain and glorify God in it.

People say, "Doesn't the apostle in 1 Corinthians 7 tell us to stay in the calling we were called in?" Yes — but with this strong qualifying clause, "abide with God." That makes a great difference. Suppose a hangman is converted. Could he stay in his job? Someone will say this is an extreme case. Granted, but it is a case in point, because it exposes the false reasoning drawn from 1 Corinthians 7. It proves there are callings in which one could not possibly "abide with God."

"For the bondman that was called in the Lord is the Lord's freedman." The right word here is "freedman," not "freeman." It means a man who was set free, not a man born free... "Likewise he that was called being free is Christ's bondman." Christ alone puts everyone in his true place and true light. Freedom given by human hands cannot do that, or even come near it. The Lord's authority breaks the chains of the slave for his faith. The grace of Christ makes the free man a slave for his heart.

Some minds have read an extreme view into the phrase: that the Christian had better remain a slave even if he could be free. It says no such thing. "Let it not be a care to you": he must not treat the Lord as though He did not look on the one He loved, or share his sorrow and his condition. Let him believe that it was He who arranged everything.

The words of verse 24 are very strong — "there let him remain with God." For both the Father and the Son make their home with the willing and obedient disciple... No chain holds us to our post, but the counsel is to stay there. And anyone who weighs how God called him will not brush that counsel aside.

As long as we can go on in our calling with God, it would not be according to His mind to seek a change. To go on with God means to keep a good conscience before Him in our daily duties... Find out why a calling feels tiresome, and why you want a different one. Then you will see at once whether you are going against the spirit of these instructions.

The ordinary rule of Scripture is that in the calling in which a man is called he should there remain with God. The blessed Lord was a carpenter until He was called to His fuller service. Paul was a tent-maker, and at times supplied his own needs... Christianity does not change the order of the world, even where sin has given rise to it. I could not make a business of selling gin.

Concerning virgins (1 Cor. 7:25) — the term here applies to both sexes — Paul had no commandment; but he gave his judgment. In view of the present distress, he writes, it is good for a person to remain as he is. He sets out the advantages of that condition (vv. 32-35) and reminds them how near the end is (vv. 29-31). But he does not enforce celibacy.

Everything written in God's word is inspired, the last part of the chapter just as truly as the first. Earlier in the chapter the apostle had shown that the Lord decided the general rule of marriage, and that he himself decided the special case of mixed marriage. So here God inspired him to give the unmarried no commandment from the Lord, but his own judgment. If ever a man was entitled to form and express one, he was.

Some would argue, from his saying "I have no commandment," that not all is inspired. Yes, he was inspired. Modern attempts prove how important it was that the God of grace pointed out the difference so precisely — the difference between Paul expressing his experience by the Spirit, and a revelation by the Spirit which carried the direct force of a commandment.

They had asked his advice on this question too, but he has no definite answer to give. The Lord will put no yoke on them. Here, as in the other matters in this chapter, He will leave grace to work freely, with no rule that either requires or forbids. But Paul has received mercy, and he serves as a steward of the grace of God. So he will give them his judgment on this point too.

His words are not those of a master, but of one who had received mercy from the Lord to be faithful (1 Cor. 7:25). Neither he nor his fellow workers in the ministry had rule over their faith.

Paul was acting in the spirit of the Lord's words when he gives us his own judgment as one who had "obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25)... With a wife or family to care for, he could not have done the Lord's work so thoroughly. So the apostle gives his wise and gracious judgment, not as a command, but as something left to weigh on the spiritual mind... But note, it is a gift, not a law, much less a caste. Only those receive it "to whom it is given." It is put as a privilege.

In verses 6, 10, 25 and 40 he separates two things: what the Lord definitely commanded, and what he judged to be right and pleasing to the Lord where the Lord gave no distinct command. After giving his spiritual judgment, he adds these telling words: "And I think that I too have the Spirit of God." If that is so, I trust none of us will set Paul's judgment aside lightly.

In verse 25 Paul carefully guards the instructions that follow, so that no one can turn them into absolute commands and trap people (v. 35). They are only his judgment. Yet it is judgment of a very spiritual order, for the last words of the chapter say something telling: "I think that I too have the Spirit of God." How these instructions of the Spirit applied depended on the spiritual state of those who heard them. So Paul was inspired to issue no command but to give his judgment.

The counsel of an inspired apostle never can be wrong, but may not be applicable in every case. They had consulted Paul as if he were an oracle, and his answers carry that weight — but they are not commands. When he speaks about what is wise in Christian life, he speaks as a spiritual guide of the highest authority. But his voice is not the commandment of the Lord.

It is not a coming necessity but a present one that makes it best to remain as you are. That is the force of the word everywhere else in the New Testament and in other writings. It existed then; it was not merely on the way. I know of no reason to think it does not exist still, as it will until the Lord comes... Until the day of the Lord the earth is a scene of wickedness, confusion, and misery. Why act like someone who wants a settled life there, if you really are a pilgrim and a stranger?

What is meant by these words? Most take them to mean that the apostle is pointing to some temporary, particular pressure that the Church might later come out of. But this is surely at odds with the whole tenor of his teaching in this chapter. What he describes here is not, I am persuaded, exceptional, but general. The present necessity is the present time, the burden of their life of patience here below.

The apostle has spoken to those who were married when God called them. Now he gives his advice to the unmarried. The world is in a condition of distress and need. The time is short, and its weeping and rejoicing will soon be over, for the fashion of this world is passing. Because of all this he judges that it is good for a Christian to be free from earthly ties. This does not mean that a man bound to a wife should seek to be free. But if he is free, it is better to remain so.

As a rule the apostle commends a single life to the Christian. But he guards that counsel from misuse. The married should not seek to end their marriage, and the single should not seek to be bound in that way. Again, he would keep the conscience free for those who might marry. Neither man nor woman sins by marrying, however unwise that step may be in the Christian judgment.

God has compassion on the natural weakness of His children. He lets them know that complete self-denial is the better way, a way always open to the willing soul. Yet He forces no one into it, for self-denial must be voluntary if it is to be acceptable. We are not chained to our post, but urged to remain there.

He answers the question of whether marriage was good or not, given the actual circumstances. He tells them this is simply a matter of giving advice. He has no commandment from the Lord. He keeps that completely separate from any judgment he may give as a faithful man — which, through the mercy of the Lord to him, he was known to be. His spiritual judgment might therefore be of the greatest value to those who used it rightly... In short, it was a matter for each person to weigh and settle. No one could decide another's course.

In verses 6, 10, 25 and 40, he separates what the Lord clearly commanded from what he judged to be right and pleasing to the Lord, where the Lord gave no distinct command. After giving his spiritual judgment, he adds these telling words: "and I think that I too have the Spirit of God." So I trust that none of us wants to set aside Paul's judgment lightly.

The apostle speaks of a "present necessity." He seems to mean the immense pressure of the world on the young Church. That would make getting tangled in unnecessary cares something not to be desired.

It is not a coming necessity but a present one that makes it best to remain as one is. That is the force of the word everywhere else in the New Testament and in other writings. It existed then; it was not merely on its way. And I know of no reason to think it does not exist still, as it will until the Lord comes... Until the day of the Lord, the earth is a scene of wickedness, confusion, and misery. So why act like someone who enjoys a settled life there, if you really are a pilgrim and a stranger?

Yet the apostle guards against the abuse of his usual advice to Christians to stay single. The married should not seek to end the marriage, any more than the single should seek to be bound by it. And again, he would keep the conscience free for those who might marry. Neither man nor woman sins by marrying, however unwise Christian judgment may think it.

A spirit of contentment is what he seeks to encourage. If one were "free from a wife," by her death, or by her leaving to marry another, his advice is: "Do not seek a wife."

Besides the common duty of contending for the faith, each believer has his own "necessity" or burden. Let him bear it patiently with God. To seek a wife might be to find a blessing or a snare. If he is thinking about any change of state, let him know well what motives are prompting him. Let him pause before he trades his present burden for another that may be even heavier.

Christians who enter the married state do no wrong, but they will have trouble in the flesh and add to their cares. The Apostle would, as far as possible, have us without care, so that we might serve the Lord without distraction.

Yet the apostle guards against any misuse of his advice that a Christian is usually better off single. The married should not seek to end the marriage, any more than the single should seek to be bound by one; and again he would keep the conscience free for those who might marry. Neither man nor woman sins by marrying, however unwise it may be in Christian judgment. For trouble in the flesh is certain for such, and the apostle wanted them spared this.

Much here is the apostle's advice about giving way to nature, which is entirely lawful, or not giving way to it in the matter of marriage. It is not the Lord's commandment. Still, we must remember that when he gives his apostolic advice, it is inspired advice, the advice of the Holy Spirit.

It is not a coming pressure but a present one that makes it best to stay as one is... It was there already, not merely on the way; and I know of no reason to think it does not still exist, as it will until the Lord comes... Until the day of the Lord the earth is a scene of wickedness, confusion, and misery. Why live like someone who wants a settled home there, if you really are a pilgrim and a stranger?

The present necessity is the present time — the burden of their life of patient endurance here on earth... But besides the task shared by all, of contending for the faith, each believer has his own "necessity" or "burden." Let him carry it patiently with God.

And it is possible for one to marry while in a bad state of soul (1 Tim. 5:11,12), and reap sad results. In any case, one should seek the clear guidance of God in a matter so serious, and not rush into something he is not ready for. Marriage itself, as Paul says, will bring "trouble in the flesh": the married man will face many problems that never come to a single one. Let everyone who is thinking of marriage be ready for this.

But this advice lays such an unwelcome restraint on the heart and on our very nature that he must have felt that the permission of God's first ordinance would... generally be followed rather than the apostle's warning. And like the One who noticed the weakness of the flesh without scolding it, his sympathies are with the weak. To be honest with them, he shows them what marriage brings; but by refusing to dwell on such a subject, he spares himself as well as them.

If a man marries, he will have trouble in the flesh, though it is quite right for a man to marry. Still, we learn that Christ suits our need, and we prove the comfort of His love in the time of trouble. In such times Christ is manna... If I have a sick wife, I ought to feel for her; such things are sure to come.

We are to recognise that "the time is short," or "straitened." The word used means contracted as to space. It is used in only one other place in the New Testament — Acts 5:6, about Ananias being wrapped up for burial. How often we fail to see that we live in a straitened time! The death and resurrection of Christ have narrowed the issue. So we should hold all we have in the world with a light hand, ready to leave at a moment's notice.

This is no commonplace remark on how short time is. It is the solemn statement that the time has been shortened from now on — that is, as I suppose, since Christ's death and the call of the church. It was shortened so that the believer should hold everything but Christ with a loose hand: all the things in which men might rejoice, however sorrowful their lot may be. But the Saviour has changed everything for the Christian. He looks on the earth as the place of Christ's rejection. He follows Him in spirit into the heavens now opened, and from there he waits for Him in peace, with joy unspeakable and full of glory. This world has no more permanence than the shifting scenes of a theatre.

Not a word here formally brings in the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet it all rests deeply on that great and most influential truth, held as a living and constant expectation. What does the entire course of the world depend on? It takes for granted ages to come for man and his progress here below. So it denies in practice, and often openly, the Lord's coming as a real hope, or even as truth. What fills man with vainglory? What kindles his enthusiasm, or steels him to labour and endurance? Would any of it be found if he believed the Lord was coming? Clearly not.

This does not give anyone a warrant to neglect his wife. That would directly contradict the instruction the Holy Spirit gave through the same apostle in our chapter. Suppose a Christian husband used that passage as a warrant for neglecting his wife and children, day after day and evening after evening, so as to exercise his gift in a wider circle. The inevitable result will be that the state of his wife and children will soon close the door on his service.

God established certain relationships… Sin has come in and spoiled everything. A new power has come in which, while fully recognising them as of God, and using them as pictures of the highest spiritual relationships with Christ and the Father, has nothing to do with them — is above them and outside them. As a rule those who talk much about being dead to nature do so because they are not… "Dead to nature" is legality.

The apostle only wanted them to be free from anxiety and distraction, so that they might serve the Lord. If reckoning themselves dead to nature did not produce this effect, they gained nothing — they lost by it… If they mastered and silenced the will of nature, they served the Lord without distraction. They lived by the Spirit and not by nature, even in the things God had ordained as good for nature.

Some things last only for a time — marriage, weeping, rejoicing over present circumstances, buying, using the world. They were not matters that should take up too much time and attention. If they are things God gives for our present comfort, they must never enslave us in any way. They must not so occupy our interest that eternal realities grow dim and lose the place that belongs to them. For all that is present is passing.

This is not a common remark on how brief time is. It is the solemn statement that the time has been shortened from now on — that is, as I take it, since Christ's death and the call of the church. The purpose is that the believer should hold everything but Christ with a loose hand, including all the things in which men might rejoice, however sorrowful their lot may be. But the Saviour has changed everything for the Christian. The Christian looks on the earth as the place where his Lord was rejected. He follows Him in spirit into the heavens now opened, and waits there in peace for Him, with joy unspeakable and full of glory. This world really has no more permanence than the shifting scenery of a theatre.

He does not reason on the brevity of life, but on the shortness of their allotted time of pilgrimage. With life, as men reckon it, they have already finished. Both dead and risen with Christ, their calling is to wait here as His witnesses until He comes. So let their thoughts suit their calling, and their actions suit their thoughts. The married should not long for a settled life here, and mourners should not long for more hopeful days. Their endless comfort will arrive when Jesus comes.

Christ does not ignore relationship, sorrow, joy, business, or position. Instead He brings in an energy of the Spirit for each one. That energy deepens sensitivity and respects everything God has established in nature and on earth. At the same time it raises us above it all and attaches us to Christ in heaven, who is about to come again.

This is not stoicism. Stoicism would try to hammer out all the higher feelings of nature in the stoic, and of the divine nature in the badly taught Christian. If my affections were as sensitive as Paul's were, I would have more feeling than I have. But in this sense my feelings are not just natural, fallen nature. They are new. I have Christ and His mind as their power and their regulation. Christ wept; but He wept in the sight of God, and He would not have been perfect as a man if He had not wept more than once.

Resurrection was everything to Him. It was His relief in the sorrows of life, and His object in the middle of the promises and prospects of the world. It gave His soul a calm sunshine when dark, heavy clouds had gathered over Bethany. It moderated and separated His affections when the bright glare of a festive day lit up the road from there to Jerusalem. The thought of it made His mind holy equally in the grief and the enjoyments around Him.

Let those who prosper seek their joys somewhere other than in this passing and uncertain world. Do not let the love of gain take the place of godliness. Gain glues men to the things of time. Godliness teaches us to handle God's things as our own... The believer should not live today as if he feared tomorrow might take his joy away. He should not lounge at ease in his inheritance. He should live as a steward who is wise to turn the money of unrighteousness to lasting account.

Christ has been rejected, and the power of evil has come in. Marriage is entirely lawful, and so on. Yet let even those who have wives be as though they had none (vv. 29-31). I am to use this world in everything as not a possession of mine, as not belonging to me.

The word translated "abuse" appears only here and in 1 Corinthians 9:18. "Abuse" is one fair way to render its classical use. But once you understand the Christian's relationship to the world, and the apostle's argument, that meaning cannot be accepted. We have good reason to fear that a great deal of worldliness has hidden behind this mistake. Another meaning, given even in the dictionaries, fits far better: "to do what one likes with" a thing, or "to exercise absolute power over" it. The Christian is in the world, but not of it; and, as the apostle reminds us, the fashion of this world passes away. We do not belong to the world, and it does not belong to us.

There is no thought of "abusing" in it. "Abuse" is a bad word, but it is hard to give the sense in one word; no single English word suits. As for the other passage — "using this world and not abusing it" — you hear it quoted by people who are up to their neck in it. It means using this world without having it in your possession — simply handling it, and not as property.

This is not a commonplace remark about how short life is. It is a solemn statement that the time has been shortened from now on — since Christ's death and the calling of the church, I take it. The purpose is that the believer should hold everything but Christ with a loose hand. That includes all the things men might be glad about, however sad their circumstances. The Saviour has changed everything for the Christian. He looks on the earth as the place where Christ was rejected, and follows Him in spirit into the heavens now opened. From there he waits for Him in peace, with joy unspeakable and full of glory. This world has really no more permanence than the shifting scenes of a theatre.

Yet the heavens and the earth pass away — that is, in the form in which we now know them. Or, as the apostle says to the Corinthians, "the fashion of this world passes away" (1 Corinthians 7:31). Other scriptures assure us that this is the sense in which we are to understand it.

So the disciple, if he is wise in a heavenly way, will not try to pile up or hold on to the wealth that many men call their own. He will gain from the rich grace of God, who does not call him to a life of self-denial, yet frees him from selfishness… Knowing that the fashion of this world passes, he keeps his eye on the everlasting dwellings. Instead of disposing of the world as their own, and so either hoarding it or enjoying it selfishly, they give away right and left.

The world at present is full of distress and need. The time is short, and its weeping and rejoicing will soon be over, for the fashion of this world is passing. So he judges that it is good for a Christian to be free from earthly ties… Still, Christians who marry do no wrong; but they will have trouble in this life and will add to their cares. The apostle would have us free from care, as far as possible, so that we can serve the Lord without distraction.

There was another matter to be considered as well. The great and important thing in his eyes was that people should live free from care. He wanted them free from that weight of anxiety which would disturb their walk with God. In fact, he is not speaking of what should be, or of what has to be, but of what is so often found. The unmarried person would naturally be concerned for the things of the Lord, and for pleasing Him. He has no one else to please.

Here the apostle presses the greater freedom from everyday anxiety which the single man or woman enjoys, compared with the married. It is freedom for serving and pleasing the Lord. There is less weight in the race and less distraction from the goal. Yet even here the apostle speaks with caution and delicacy. He would not tie anyone down. He sought their good, with an eye to what is fitting and to undistracted waiting on the Lord.

The apostle speaks here in a positive way, because he is measuring Christian character, not as it too often shows itself, but at its true worth as the proper effect of faith. The unmarried saint is joined to his Redeemer, and seeks to please Him by caring for His things... He does not quite mean it as a reproach when he adds, "The married man cares for the world." Within proper limits, this is right for his position. He is no longer free, as before; nor may he deny his wife, even for Christ's sake, as he might deny himself. To love his wife, and honour her, are now among the settled duties of his place. In carrying them out, he may find himself both lower and less happy, spiritually, than when he lived only for the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:32-34 teaches that the unmarried are the most free from care. But verse 7 teaches just as clearly that "every man has his own proper gift of God." Each one must know for himself what his own gift is... It is a fatal mistake to expect to walk in a path for which God has not given you a call, or the spiritual power... Marriage is a holy and honourable institution. God established it in the Garden of Eden, and He gave it His approval by His presence at Cana of Galilee.

Of course it does not follow that this is always the case. A believer may be unmarried for other reasons, and may not be making the Lord the supreme object of his life... Of course we know that, despite this, God has used and blessed many married men far more than many others who have stayed unmarried.

The apostle only wanted them free from anxiety and distraction, so that they might serve the Lord. If reckoning themselves dead to nature did not produce this effect, they gained nothing; they lost by it... If they subdued and silenced the will of nature, they served the Lord without distraction. They lived according to the Spirit and not according to nature, even in the things God had appointed as good for nature.

Here the apostle points out how much freer the single man or woman is from earthly anxiety than the married, and so freer to serve and please the Lord. There is less weight in the race and less distraction from the goal. Yet even here the apostle speaks with care and gentleness. He would not trap anyone. He sought their good, aiming at what is fitting and at undistracted waiting on the Lord.

He is not really making a reproach when he adds that the married man "is anxious about worldly things." Within proper limits this is right for his position. He is no longer free, as he was before. He may not deny his wife, even for Christ's sake, as he might deny himself. Loving his wife and honouring her are now among the settled duties of his place. In doing them, he may find himself both lower and less happy in spirit than when he lived only for the Lord.

In fact, he is not speaking of what should be, or what has to be, but of what is so often found. The unmarried man would naturally care for the things of the Lord, to please Him. He has no one else to please. A married man clearly has another person to please. So he is at least tempted to care for the things of the world, to please his wife.

You are in a serious position. A wife always has great influence on a Christian husband. As the apostle teaches us, he is in danger of caring for the things of the world to please her. That danger is greater still when the husband is a worker for the Lord and has been blessed in that work… Do not try to weaken his energy. A wife sometimes likes to have her husband for herself. When her husband is the Lord's worker, that is a great evil… A husband must care for his wife, consider her, and do anything but neglect her. It is truly evil and sad when he neglects her.

A believer may be unmarried for other reasons, and may not really be making the Lord the supreme object of his life. But he does not have the care of a wife to take up his time and attention, so he should have more time for the Lord… Of course we know that, despite this, God has used and blessed many married men far more than many others who stayed unmarried.

1 Corinthians 7:32-34 teaches that the unmarried are the most free from care. But verse 7 teaches just as plainly that "each has his own gift from God." Each one must know for himself what his own gift is… It is a fatal mistake for anyone to expect to walk a path for which God has not given him a call or the spiritual power. In these days of ritual and revived monastic life, remember that marriage is holy and honourable. God established it in the Garden of Eden, and He approved it by His presence at Cana in Galilee.

Here the apostle presses one point. The single man or woman is freer from earthly anxiety than the married, and so freer to serve and please the Lord. There is less weight in the race and less distraction from the goal.

It seems clear that in this passage the word "virgin" covers the unmarried of either sex. Here is the Apostle's teaching in short. Marriage is good, as is every institution God has set up. It is wholly right and allowed. Yet staying unmarried is better, if it is kept up so that the person is more fully at the Lord's disposal for His interests. If such people do not "attend upon the Lord without distraction," their celibacy may only cast a snare on them.

The wife is holy too, but her calling makes her more a "Martha" than a "Mary." She cares for her husband and obeys him. Pleasing him is her proper aim, so she also cares for the things of the world. To think now of the things of Christ, in the spirit of her unmarried liberty, would be to fail in her duties as a wife. For she is no longer her own.

Let her weigh this well when she is sought in marriage, and not lightly surrender the place she already holds in God's household.

1 Corinthians 7:32-34 teaches that the unmarried are the most free from care. But verse 7 teaches just as plainly that "every man has his own proper gift of God." Each one must know for himself what his proper gift is. It is one thing to say, "Follow Paul's example," and quite another to have the "proper gift" to do it. It is a fatal mistake for anyone to expect to walk in a path for which God has not given him a call or the spiritual power.

The unmarried state has its advantages where grace gives the right inward condition… But God does not give this to everyone. It is not of man's will but of divine grace. Make it a law, and you destroy the grace.

In fact, he is not speaking of what should be or what needs to be, but of what is so often found. The unmarried person would naturally care for the things of the Lord, to please Him. He has no one else to please… He does not want to lay down rules, since keeping them might only be a snare to them. He wants them to seek to serve the Lord without distraction, whatever their course may be.

When married, they were occupied with things below, to please their wives and provide for their children. But they enjoyed a rest of mind. In it nature did not claim her rights with a will they had failed to silence, and they kept holiness of walk and of heart. If they brought the will of nature under and silenced it, they served the Lord without distraction.

Having set the better way before them, he now apologises for his words, while still holding his position. He speaks only in their interest as his spiritual children. He does not want to trap them in rash purposes, or have them tie themselves carelessly to resolutions which might prove painful to their flesh. But there is a spiritual beauty that he loved himself, and he would gladly see them captivated by it too. If God gave them strength, they might match him in the race of single-hearted zeal.

"Not that I may cast a snare [literally, a noose] over you, but for what is seemly and waiting on the Lord undistractedly." Here the apostle urges the greater freedom from earthly anxiety. The single man or woman is freer than the married to serve and please the Lord. There is less weight in the race and less distraction from the goal. Yet even here the apostle speaks with caution and delicacy. He would not entangle anyone; he sought their welfare with a view to what is fitting, and to undistracted attention on the Lord.

The apostle's teaching may be summed up in this. Marriage is good, as is every divine institution. It is wholly right and permissible. Yet to remain unmarried is better, if a person keeps that state to be more wholly at the Lord's disposal for His interests. If such people do not "attend upon the Lord without distraction," their celibacy may only cast a snare upon them.

The apostle's words have often made a deep impression on me. What do we know of this? The language supposes the soul living by faith inside the heavenly sanctuary. It holds communion with the Lord without a burden and without a care. This is the Spirit's desire for us all.

Sadly, how little there is of that among us — so little real rest of heart and soul, and therefore so little real waiting on the Lord without distraction. It is impossible to make the Lord our one object while we are still an object to ourselves. It is impossible while our hearts are restless and burdened.

The great and important thing in his eyes was that people should live without care. He meant freedom from the weight of anxiety that would disturb them in their walk with God... He is not saying this, as he declares again, constantly guarding it, for anything but their profit. He does not want to lay down rules, since keeping them might only be a snare to them. He wants them to seek to serve the Lord without distraction, whatever their course may be. There was no sin, as he insists again — no sin at all in marriage.

No doubt it grew out of a desire for thorough devotedness... The unmarried state has its advantages where grace gives the right inward condition. That condition would fit into suitable outward circumstances and lead to such a life and service as we see in the apostle himself. But this is not given to all, nor is it of man's will but of divine grace. Make it a law, and the grace is destroyed.

Here it is not a question of a man's daughter but of his own state... The strong emphasis on the heart's purpose — for instance, "one's own will" and "one's own heart" — fits perfectly if the question is one's own virginity. But how would it fit a daughter's? Applied to her they sound arbitrary and inconsiderate beyond measure.

Let the Christian father have due respect for the affections of his child. He should indeed commend the higher path to her. But he must not turn a privilege into a punishment by forcing her into a celibacy she does not want. It would be less fitting to be a discontented virgin than a rejoicing bride... A parent should never use his authority in a way that provokes a just anger in the child... If her affections are engaged to another, that is a necessity he ought to yield to. His virgin must not be his victim.

Verse 36 is more correctly given in Mr. Darby's New Translation. It reads: "if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be... he does not sin: let them marry." When the fleeting beauty of youth is past, and one is old enough to know what he is doing, he may think it more fitting and becoming for him to be married. To marry is then certainly not sin.

In speaking this way the Apostle has our profit in view. He has no wish to set a snare for us. He does not want us caught in the delusion of being monks or nuns. That delusion has led to so much corruption in a large part of professing Christendom. He leaves all free to marry.

There is a spiritual energy that lifts the person who receives it above ordinary conditions. But God's institution, here marriage, stays just the same... Marriage is the rule God has laid down. As an exception, the Holy Spirit can and does raise this one or that above the need of marriage. It was a question of God's gift; so that he who marries does well, and he who does not marry does better. The world-church shows the contrast to this holy wisdom. It turns the exception of grace into a rule.

If he stood firm, and had power over his own will, that was the better way. If he married, he still did well. If he did not marry, it was better.

1 Corinthians 7:32-34 teaches that the unmarried are the most free from care, but verse 7 just as clearly teaches that "every man has his own proper gift of God." Each one must know for himself what his proper gift is. It is one thing to say, "Follow Paul's example," and quite another to have the "proper gift" to do it. It is a fatal mistake for anyone to expect to walk in a path for which God has not given him a call or the spiritual power.

Here there is no question of a man's daughter but of his own state. The Lord deserves to have us wholly devoted to Himself… The great emphasis given to the heart's purpose (for instance, "one's own will" and "one's own heart") suits perfectly if it is a question of one's own virginity, but how a daughter's? Applied to a daughter, they sound arbitrary and inconsiderate beyond measure.

But arbitrary decisions that rest only on the sacrifice of another's happiness never please God. So let the Christian father have real respect for his child's affections. He should indeed commend the higher path to her. But he must not turn a privilege into a punishment by condemning her to a single life she does not want. … He would do better to keep her unmarried than to give her, if his own will were the only one sacrificed; but his virgin must not be his victim.

The Greek word hedraios (from hedra, "a seat or sitting") carries the thought of being stable, firm, within. Besides Colossians 1:23 it occurs only in 1 Corinthians 7:37, "he that stands firm in his heart," and in 1 Corinthians 15:58, "my beloved brothers, be firm."

Steadfastness does not come from our own effort; it springs from the affections being right with God.

But one might stand with firmness of faith, having no necessity for marriage, having control over his own will, and purposing that he will maintain his virginity. This is the case of one making himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake (Matthew 19:12). If it is not too common, it is still blessedly commendable.

1 Corinthians 7:32-34 teaches that the unmarried are the most free from care, but verse 7 just as clearly teaches that "every man has his own proper gift of God." Each one must know for himself what his proper gift is. It is one thing to say "Follow Paul's example," and quite another thing to have the "proper gift" to do it. It is a fatal mistake for anyone to expect to walk in a path for which God has not given him a call or given him the spiritual power.

It seems clear enough that in this passage the word "virgin" covers the unmarried of either sex. The Apostle's teaching can be summed up like this. Marriage is good, as is every divine institution; it is wholly right and permissible. Yet to stay unmarried is better, if it is kept up so as to leave a person more wholly at the Lord's disposal for His interests. If such people do not give the Lord their "undivided devotion," their single life may only become a snare to them.

The unmarried state has its advantages where grace gives the right inward condition. That condition would surely fit suitable outward circumstances and lead to the kind of life and service we see in the apostle himself. But this is not given to all. It is not of man's will but of divine grace. Make it a law, and the grace is destroyed. A swift harvest of sin, shame, and misery then proclaims the wisdom of God's ways and the folly of Christendom.

There is no question here of a man's daughter but of his own state. The Lord deserves to have us wholly devoted to Himself... The great emphasis on the heart's purpose — for instance, "one's own will" and "one's own heart" — fits perfectly if the question is a person's own virginity. But how would it fit a daughter's?

Should he then decide not to give her in marriage? As a rule, he says, that would be the better way (v. 38). But arbitrary decisions that only stand by sacrificing someone else's happiness never please God... let him not turn a privilege into a punishment by forcing her into a single life she does not want. It would be less fitting for her to be a resentful unmarried woman than a joyful bride.

There was no sin, as he insists again — there was no sin of any kind in marriage. But if a man had no need of marriage, if he had authority over himself and had settled it in his heart to stay single, he did well. So, on the other hand, he says, the one who marries does well, although if he does not, he may do better.

While there are cases where marriage is a positive duty, there was plainly a better place of undivided devotion to Christ. Blessed is the one who is given to serve the Lord this way, without hindrance. Still, it must be the gift of God.

"So then he who marries does well; but he who does not marry does better." This assumes in each case that the will of the Lord is followed. Simply marrying, if it is not "in the Lord," could mean dreadful disaster. And refusing to marry out of selfish, evil motives is certainly not better than marrying, if the Lord were leading one to marry.

The Apostle has our profit in view. He has no wish to set a trap for us. He does not want us drawn into the delusion of becoming monks or nuns, which has caused so much corruption in a large part of the professing Christian world. He leaves all free to marry.

Grace may call a servant of God to a path that does not fit with being married. Only the call of God is supreme. Yet the one who is called that way still respects the ordinary rule, and never despises it because of the exception. Error takes hold of the exception — even error cannot survive without a scrap or show of truth — and turns that exception into a human rule. This is Satan taking the place and rights of the Lord. His aim is to bring God into contempt, and to dazzle man with the vain hope of higher holiness and lead him into the depths of corruption.

Romans 7:1-2 rightly gives the legal side of this matter. Corinthians speaks instead of what is morally binding before God, so "by the law" does not belong here. It is clear that only death rightly does away with the marriage bond. Any other dissolving of the bond is abnormal. Yet it could be allowed to one partner if the other has in effect broken the bond by fornication (Matt. 19:9).

But you never find in Scripture the soul sleeping. The man sleeps, but always as identified with the body… Again in 1 Corinthians 7:39: "if her husband dies (falls asleep), she is free to be married to whom she wishes." There it is no question of soul or spirit.

The close of the chapter takes up widows in particular. It is a remarkable instance of the opposition between the apostle's mind and the church councils. They dared to treat a widow's marrying as so evil that the church had to refuse its approval and its prayers… Death separates. Not only the widower but the widow becomes free to marry again… Even here we find no such language as sprang up later, when people praised celibacy as the highest of Christian virtues and condemned remarriage as unchristian.

A virgin is not entirely at her own disposal; a widow is. In the first case the apostle directs the will of the parent, in the second the will of the woman. Liberty is the state of a believer, and arbitrary rules cannot change it. A second marriage stands on the same moral footing as the first. Only one restriction limits the Christian widow's freedom to give herself in marriage. If she marries, it must be in the Lord.

It can hardly be doubted that the expression "in the Lord" goes farther than "in Christ." Every believer is "in Christ," but there are very many who do not own His authority in practice. We could not truly say of such that they are "in the Lord," for the phrase means having one's life and walk in the circle where His Lordship is owned. When the apostle says that a widow may marry whom she will, only in the Lord, he does not mean, in our judgment, any converted person. He means we must weigh the practical state of the believer in question. One walking disorderly, or living in disobedience to the Lord's authority, would not come within the limits of the apostle's description.

He might be drawn to a sister so different from himself in habits, circumstances, and age that the match would look wrong to others and prove unhappy for them both. Sadder still, the attraction may be to a mind so fleshly or worldly that it endangers his soul and his testimony… This scripture therefore seems to cover more than the bare fact of being in Christian fellowship. It teaches that the marrying should be in the Lord — guided for their good to His glory, and so by His direction.

For Christians, 1 Corinthians 7:39 guards the limits of "will" with that one worthy principle: "only in the Lord." The immediate application is to a widow marrying again. But it would be absurd to restrict it to her, or to doubt that it applies equally to any Christian woman or man.

There are certain things we do not need to pray about. If a young man sets his affections on an unbelieving young woman, he need not ask the Lord whether the marriage is His will. The Scriptures plainly forbid it… "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 Corinthians 6:14) is just as clear and emphatic.

An inspired apostle is still speaking here. But he speaks as a friendly counsellor and a true helper of their joy, not as a direct messenger of God to their consciences. He gives no positive command. His answer to their questions gives solid ground for faith to act on, since they are the words of an inspired teacher. Yet they claim no absolute obedience. They assume that the person asking has an exercised conscience. The decision belongs to that conscience, in the sight of God. Counsel is not command, except when spoken by the Lord Himself.

All that is given here is given by inspiration, the advice as well as the command... The advice was inspired, but it was advice. Inspiration did not change its character in that respect. Calling it simply advice does not lower our thought of inspiration — advice is what he himself calls it.

Here he separates two things. One is his judgment; about this he could still appeal to them, since he had the Spirit to form and guide his experience. The other is a revelation from the Lord, which made a commandment... Some would argue, from his saying "I have no command from the Lord," that not everything is inspired. Yes, he was inspired. Modern attempts show how important it is that the God of grace marked the difference so exactly: on one side the Spirit expressing his experience, on the other a revelation by the Spirit that carried the direct force of a commandment.

Here again the apostle points out what he judged wiser on spiritual grounds. Had others given a different opinion? He, if any man might, gives his judgment as one who thought he had God's Spirit. He was inspired to put it this way. He was not of a doubtful mind. He was avoiding an express command from the Lord, and speaking instead as an apostle giving counsel.

The marriage tie of believers is for life. Death separates. So the widow, like the widower, becomes free to marry again. But the apostle gives his judgment against it — not on moral grounds, where only superstition could raise a question, but because remaining unmarried is the happier state.

He has no wish to lay a snare before us that might lead us into the delusion of being monks or nuns, which has caused so much corruption in a large part of professing Christendom. He leaves everyone free to marry, and adds a word about the widow, in case a question arises, that she is free to marry — only let it be "in the Lord". But he judges that he has the mind of the Lord in thinking she would be happier to remain free.

He makes it very clear that this is a strictly personal opinion, not the commandment of the Lord. He himself stayed unmarried so that he could serve the Lord more fully, with an undivided heart. If the same motives keep younger women unmarried, who can question that this is the happier path for them? Yet we must face the fact that this is not the usual attitude among women, or among men either. 1 Timothy no doubt says what is usually most fitting, while 1 Corinthians 7 allows for the exception.

Having given his spiritual judgment, he adds these telling words: "And I think that I too have the Spirit of God." So I trust that none of us will lightly set aside Paul's judgment.