But I say this for your own profit; not that I may set a snare before you, but for what [is] seemly, and waiting on the Lord without distraction.
Paul has just weighed marriage against singleness. Now he explains why: he wants their good, not a rule laid over their lives, and his aim is their undivided devotion to the Lord.
The tone here is close to an apology:
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.
The word behind "restraint" is a strong one. Kelly gives his own translation of the phrase and shows the care in Paul's tone:
"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 snare is not marriage. It can just as easily be the single state held for its own sake:
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.
Older translations end the verse: "that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction." One writer describes what that phrase supposes about the soul:
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.
The obstacle is not always outward circumstance. It can be an unsettled heart:
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.
Paul's concern all through is the weight people carry, not the state they are in:
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.
Paul refuses to make a rule. Kelly traces where a system that makes one goes wrong, even when it began sincerely:
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.
- Profit, not pressure — Paul gives his motive first. Everything here is for their good, and he binds no one.
- No noose — the word he uses means a snare thrown over a person. He will not throw one. Singleness held without devotion becomes that very snare.
- Care removed — the goal is a life free from the anxiety that disturbs the walk with God, married or single.
- Devotion undivided — undistracted attention means communion held without a burden. A restless heart cannot give it, even when it is free.
- Grace, never law — the single life helps only where grace gives the inward fitness. Make it a rule, and the grace is destroyed.
But if any one think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin let them marry.
Paul has just urged undivided devotion to the Lord, and now he turns to the person for whom staying single has become a strain. Two questions follow: who is "his betrothed," and does marrying mean settling for less?
The ESV says "his betrothed"; other translations read "his virgin." Commentators differ on who is meant. One reading takes the whole passage as a man's decision about himself. The verses that follow keep pressing on his own will and his own heart:
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.
The other reading keeps a father in view, and draws a warning out of it for anyone with authority over a young person's future:
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.
The ESV reads "if his passions are strong." Another translation points to age instead. That wording is not about being too old to marry. It marks the point where youthful impulse is past and a settled judgment is possible:
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.
"It is no sin" is the heart of the verse. Paul leaves the choice open on purpose:
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.
The danger comes when people turn a rare exception into a rule:
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.
Marrying is no sin, but Paul goes on to the man who can hold the other path. What marks him is inward steadiness:
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.
Paul writes "let him do as he wishes." So no one can settle this by copying another person's path:
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.
- Reading — Commentators differ. Some take "his betrothed" as the man's own single state. Others read it as a father deciding for his daughter. Both readings land on the same practical outcome — let them marry.
- Timing — "Beyond the flower of his age" marks the moment when youthful impulse has passed. The person is now old enough to know what he is doing.
- Freedom — "It is no sin" leaves the choice open. Vows of enforced celibacy turn a gift into a snare and have bred corruption.
- Firmness — The better path belongs only to the one who stands firm and has power over his own will.
- Gift — Each has his own gift from God. Copying another person's calling without the power for it is a fatal mistake.
But he who stands firm in his heart, having no need, but has authority over his own will, and has judged this in his heart to keep his own virginity, he does well.
Paul closes his answers about marriage with a man who has settled the matter in his own heart and stays single. But who is the "virgin" here — a daughter in his care, or his own unmarried state? Commentators differ.
One reading takes the man to be deciding about himself. The verse keeps saying "his own heart" and "his own will," which fits a choice about his own single life.
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.
Others read the verse as a father deciding about a daughter in his care. From that reading comes a warning to fathers.
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 word behind "firmly established" points to inner stability. It appears in only two other places.
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."
One writer roots that steadiness in the affections, not in effort.
Steadfastness does not come from our own effort; it springs from the affections being right with God.
The verse stacks three conditions: firmness, no necessity, and control over his own will. One writer sees in them the man Jesus described as making himself a eunuch for the kingdom.
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.
This path rests on a gift, and not everyone is given it.
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.
One writer takes "virgin" here to cover unmarried people of either sex. He weighs the single state by whether it leaves a person free for the Lord.
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 same writer warns about what happens when this choice is forced on people.
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.
- Gift, first. This path rests on "his own proper gift of God." Admiring Paul's example is not the same as having the power to follow it.
- Gift, then firmness. The word for standing firm means inward stability. That steadiness comes from affections right with God, not from effort.
- Gift, then freedom. He is under no necessity and has his desire under control. He is not straining against himself, and so he does well.
- Gift, then purpose. Staying single is better only when it leaves a person wholly at the Lord's disposal. Without that aim it can become a snare.
- Never a law. Commentators differ over whose choice this is — the man's own, or a father's for his daughter. They agree on the limit: make it a rule, and the grace is destroyed.
So that he that marries himself does well; and he that does not marry does better.
Paul ends his advice on marriage with a comparison, not a command. One choice is good; the other is better. So whose choice is Paul weighing? And does calling one path "better" make the other second-best?
Commentators differ over whose situation Paul has in view. One reading takes the whole passage as a man deciding about his own single state, not about a daughter:
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?
Others read it as a father deciding whether to give his daughter in marriage. Even then, they say, he must not force her:
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.
The first half of the verse gives clean approval, not grudging permission. Paul keeps saying there is no sin in it at all:
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.
This better path means undivided devotion to Christ. And no one can take it up at will — it has to be given.
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.
The comparison only holds when the Lord's will is followed in either case. Staying single for the wrong reasons does not make anyone the better party.
"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.
Paul leaves everyone free to marry. Take that freedom away, and the result is corruption, not holiness:
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.
The exception is real, and only God's call makes it. Damage starts when people turn it into a rule for everyone:
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.
- Better, not holier. Marrying "does well." There is no sin of any kind in it. The contrast is good versus better, never clean versus unclean.
- Better means undivided. Staying single frees a person to serve Christ without a rival claim. It is not a higher spiritual grade.
- Better is a gift. God has to give that path. Admiring it is not the same as being able to walk it.
- Better needs the Lord's leading. Both halves of the verse assume obedience. Refusing marriage from selfish motives is not "better" at all.
- Better must never become law. Commentators warn what happens when this exception becomes a rule: corruption, not holiness.
A wife is bound for whatever time her husband lives; but if the husband be fallen asleep, she is free to be married to whom she will, only in [the] Lord.
Paul ends his long answer about marriage with the case of a widow. Her tie to her husband holds for life. His death ends it and leaves her free to marry again — with one boundary, "only in the Lord."
One writer sets the verse beside the parallel in Romans and marks the one exception Scripture allows:
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).
Paul's word for the husband's death is a gentle one: some translations read "fallen asleep." Readers have taken that to mean the soul itself sleeps. One writer answers by showing what sleep attaches to across the New Testament:
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.
Many have treated this freedom as a second-rate, shameful choice. Paul does the opposite. One writer sets his words against the church rules that came later:
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.
Another writer contrasts the widow with an unmarried daughter still under her father's care:
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.
Paul limits the choice with three words. One writer separates them from the phrase "in Christ":
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.
It asks more than whether the other person believes. It asks whether the Lord is directing the step:
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.
The verse names a widow, but the principle does not stop there:
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.
One writer applies this to a decision people often pray over:
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.
- Bound — the tie holds for life. Only death rightly ends the marriage bond, with one exception: fornication.
- Asleep — Scripture calls the husband's death sleep, a word that belongs to the body, never to the soul.
- Free — this is real liberty, not a grudging permission. A second marriage stands on the same moral footing as the first.
- Only — one phrase limits that liberty. "In the Lord" asks more than whether the other person is converted; it weighs how he walks.
- Everyone — the case is a widow's, but the principle covers every Christian man and woman. No one needs to ask whether an unequal marriage is God's will.
But she is happier if she so remain, according to my judgment; but I think that *I* also have God's Spirit.
Paul closes his long answer about marriage with an opinion, not a rule. That raises two questions: how binding is an apostle's advice, and can Scripture be inspired without being a command?
The last words of the chapter sound like a friend's advice, not an order. That difference shapes how a reader should answer them.
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.
Being inspired does not turn advice into law. The words stay what Paul calls them.
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.
So one letter holds two kinds of words, and the line between them matters.
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.
Why does Paul sound so careful here, when elsewhere he commands?
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.
Death ends the marriage tie, so the widow is free. Paul still advises against a second marriage, and one commentator shows on what ground.
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.
Another writer warns of the snare Paul was careful to avoid.
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.
Paul's counsel in 1 Timothy can look like the opposite of this. Motive settles the difference.
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.
Advice is not a command. It still carries weight.
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.
- Counsel — Paul answers as a friend, not as a messenger to the conscience. Counsel is not command unless the Lord Himself speaks it.
- Inspired — the advice is inspired, just as the commands are. Inspiration does not turn advice into law.
- Confident — "I think" is not doubt. Paul holds back an express command, yet claims the Spirit who shaped his judgment.
- Free — death ends the tie, so the widow may marry. Nothing here bans a second marriage or makes single life holier.
- Weighty — the choice rests with your own conscience before God. Even so, no one should set Paul's judgment aside lightly.