The concluding verse of I Corinthians chapter 6 serves as a fitting introduction to chapter 7. “for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” The latter half of chapter 6 made clear that glorifying God with our body involves fleeing sexual immorality. Now in chapter 7 we learn more about how to glorify God with our body in and outside of marriage.
I Corinthians 7:1, “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote:”
In the first 6 chapters, Paul was addressing issues in the Corinthian congregation he had heard reports about (I Corinthians 1:11; 5:1). At chapter 7 he begins to address matters the Corinthians apparently brought up in a letter to him. It would be nice if we had that letter. I’m sure it would clarify the meaning of several statements in this chapter. All I can gather with confidence from chapter 7 about what they wrote to Paul is that they needed some clarification on whether it is better to be celibate or sexually active in marriage.
Notice the next phrase which most translations put in quotations, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
Translators put this in quotations because it is believed this is either something some Corinthians stated in the letter they wrote to Paul, or it is something Paul had said to them previously and they wrote back to him about it. Whether they were advocating or arguing with or just wanting clarification on this statement is hard to say. The statement asserts that it is good for a man to live celibate, to abstain from all sexual activity even in marriage. The word “But” at the beginning of verse 2 indicates Paul agrees with the idea that celibacy is good in a sense, but with qualifications. Paul himself was celibate. Later in the chapter Paul will give the practical reasons for his preference of celibacy (7:26-35). Jesus also said that celibacy is good for those who are gifted to handle it well (Matthew 19:10-12).
How most should guard against sexual immorality (I Corinthians 7:2-7)
7:2ff, “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”
So while there may be advantages to a single and celibate life, Paul says it’s unwise for most to commit to that lifestyle. For most, when their sexual desires are not being fulfilled in marriage, there will be greater temptation to fulfill those desires elsewhere in sexual immorality, which pulls us away from Christ as Paul explained in chapter 6. So he advises marriage as a safeguard against immorality. For most men, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). For a special few, it is good to be alone. I suspect the same goes for women as well.
Then Paul tells married couples they have a responsibility to provide sexual fulfillment to their spouse. Put bluntly: give it to her/him when he or she wants it. In some cases it needs to be pointed out that Paul is talking about a way of giving, serving, loving one another, not demanding what we want. I know some husbands who know very little of the Bible, but they can quote this passage to their wife. Demanding your spouse to obey this for your benefit is contrary to the spirit of what Paul is saying. He’s talking about being unselfish toward one another.
Paul’s advice here for married couples is right in line with the OT. Exodus 21:10-11 is about the rights of a slave wife… “Marital rights” in that text is a euphemism for sexual relations. Even a slave wife had a right to expect that kind of love from her husband. Also see Proverbs 5:15-21…
The ancient Jews took one’s martial duty rather seriously. According to Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishnah, a man’s marital duty to his wife depended on his status and employment. He said, “Men of independent means – every day; workmen – twice a week; donkey drivers – once a week; camel drivers – one a month; sailors – once every six months.”
“5 Do not deprive one another,”
The Greek word here “deprive” means to cause another to suffer loss by taking away through illicit means. It’s translated “rob, steal, despoil, defraud.” It’s the same word in the LXX in Exodus 21:10 about depriving a slave wife of food or clothing or her marital rights. The point of the word is that to refuse to have relations with one’s spouse is to withhold what is properly theirs. In today’s language “cheating” refers to extramarital affairs. In Paul’s language “cheating” would also refer to depriving your spouse of sexual relations.
Paul mentions one legitimate excuse for a limited period of sexual abstinence in marriage. “except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
I think Paul is talking about a possible form of fasting a married couple may choose to engage in. Fasting is a way to draw near to God, a way to sort of magnify your prayers. When you deny yourself in the natural in order to experience more of God’s presence and kindness in your life, God rewards it (cf. Matthew 6:17). Sexual relations could be something a couple may agree to deny themselves of for a while in order to draw nearer to God. But notice Paul says there needs to be mutual agreement to do this, and it should only be for a limited time.
The importance of a healthy bedroom life in marriage, Paul says is “so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” And it implies that Satan has the power to make sexual immorality available to you.
“6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.”
What does “this” refer to? I think it refers to what he said in verse 5 about sexual abstinence in marriage for a limited time for the purpose of prayer. He’s clarifying that he’s not commanding anyone to do that. He just wouldn’t have a problem with it if a couple decided to.
“7 I wish that all were as I myself am.” [He means I wish all Christians were single and celibate like me. He will explain later that it has advantages for serving Christ (7:32-35; 9:5,19).] “But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.”
So Paul considers his self-control in sexual matters, his ability to be celibate and not tempted, to be a gift from God. It’s not that he’s superior to men who are married, it’s that God has gifted him in that way. It reflects what Jesus said about celibacy. Matthew 19:11, when the disciples made a comment about it being better not to marry, He said, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.” It’s given to some to be celibate without a temptation struggle.
At verse 8 Paul begins to address different categories of Christians grouped by marital status.
Instructions for Unmarried and Widows (7:8-9)
“8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” Pretty straightforward.
Instructions for Christian Married Couples (7:10-11)
“10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband”
When he says “not I, but the Lord” he appears to mean “the Lord has given us these instructions and I’m just passing them on.” The gospel accounts have preserved for us Jesus’ teaching on the matter. Jesus taught that what God has joined together in marriage, let no man separate (Matthew 19:3-6). God never intends for a marriage to end in divorce. Where there is divorce sin is involved; there’s been some rejection of the will of God, by at least one spouse, often by both. But when both spouses are committed to achieve God’s intention for their lives and put the other above their self, divorce won’t happen. Divorce only enters a home when sin opens the door for it.
“11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”
Remaining unmarried leaves open the possibility of reconciliation to one’s spouse. Jesus taught when your spouse has not been unfaithful to you, but you remove any possibility of reconciliation by remarrying someone else, it’s the moral equivalent of committing adultery (Matthew 19:9). Jesus said you can’t skirt around adultery by divorce and remarriage. His words make good sense to me. A wife is going to suffer about the same whether her husband starts seeing another person while still married to her, or if he sends her away first and then starts seeing that other person. Either way she loses her husband to another woman. Or he loses his wife to another man.
Now, Paul does not address here what a believer is to do if he or she has divorced a believer and remarried. Should such a person divorce again and live celibate? Or should they pray for forgiveness and cleansing and commit themselves to live up to God’s intentions for marriage in their new marriage? This question is hotly debated among Christians. For my view, see my study on “Divorce, Matthew 5:31-32.”
Instructions for Believers Married to Unbelievers (7:12-16)
Verse 12, “But to the rest I say…“
What or who is “the rest”? Some people want to say he means, “But to the rest of your questions.” But that doesn’t fit, because this falls in a list of Paul addressing different categories of people in the church. Verse 8, “to the unmarried and to widows.” Verse 10, “to the married.” Now verse 12, “to the rest.” This is a category of people. What follows in the text makes it clear that “the rest” are believers married to unbelievers. Mixed marriages were not being addressed in verses 10-11. In verses 10-11, he was addressing believers married to believers. Now in verses 12-16 he is addressing believers married to unbelievers.
“… I say, not the Lord…”
What does he mean? Well, if in verse 10 when he said, “not I, but the Lord,” he meant “Here’s the Lord’s teaching on the matter,” then here when he says “I say, not the Lord,” he means, “I don’t have instruction from the Lord on this situation. But I’m telling you what I think is His will here.” This informs us that we are not to apply the Lord’s MDR teachings in the gospels and in I Corinthians 7:10-11 to mixed marriages. Now, just because this is Paul’s opinion on this situation does not mean we should feel free to disregard it if we don’t like it. He was an apostle of Christ who knew the heart and mind of the Lord better than any of us. His opinions are not “take-it-or-leave-it” opinions.
It’s easy to imagine that the Corinthians had a question about whether believers married to unbelievers should break up those marriages, especially if the Corinthians were familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures. Under the Law of Moses, Israelites were not allowed to marry pagans. When good Israelite men married pagan women, the women tended to lead their hearts away from God. Solomon is the classic example (Nehemiah 13:23-27). In the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, Jewish men who had married pagans during the exile were instructed to send their wives away in order to purge the nation of corrupting influences. Also, according to the Law, things that are holy or clean would become unholy or unclean through contact with something unclean (Haggai 2:12-13), though this was not the case with things considered most holy (Exodus 29:37; 30:25-29; Leviticus 6:17-18).
“12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.”
Apparently Paul does not think religious differences are a legitimate reason to end a marriage. So he commands believers married to unbelievers not to initiate a divorce.
Verse 14, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
In what sense has the unbelieving spouse been made holy by their Christian husband or wife? It clearly does not mean they have been saved from sin. There’s no indication anywhere in Scripture that one can be saved simply because of who their spouse is. I Corinthians 7:16 shows that the salvation of the unbelieving spouse is only a hoped for result of marriage to a believer. Also, I don’t think Paul means that the unbelieving spouse experiences serious moral transformation because of their Christian spouse, because experience shows this is often not the case.
There’s some parallel here with what the OT said about holy and most holy things. Holy or clean things would become unholy or unclean through contact with something unclean (Haggai 2:12-13). But things that were most holy would transfer holiness to that which touched them (Exodus 29:37; 30:25-29; Leviticus 6:17-18). Like when Jesus touched unclean people, like lepers. He did not become unclean. Rather He made them clean (Mark 1:40-42; 5:25-43). Paul is likely saying Christians are not just holy. They are most holy. We were washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (I Corinthians 6:11). We are covered by Christ’s blood and our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 6:19). So we do not become unclean by contact with something unclean, unless we’re straying from the Lord of course (I Cor 6:15-18). Rather we transfer holiness and cleanness to what contacts us. Perhaps this is part of why all food is holy and clean to us – I Timothy 4:5; Acts 10:14-15. So our spouse, even if an unbeliever, is made holy and clean in some sense.
So what does that mean? I suspect it involves the fact that an unbeliever married to a believer has more of God’s blessing and protection than they would on their own. It’s a theme of the OT that when there’s a true believer in a household, the whole household is blessed because of the believer. God saved not just Noah from the flood, but his whole family. God blessed not just Abraham, but his whole family. God blessed Laban, why? Because Jacob was working for him. God prospered Potiphar in Egypt, why? Because Joseph was in his household. God put a hedge of protection around Job’s household and all that he had, why? Because Job was righteous in God’s sight. See also Psalm 128… Another blessing for the rest of the household of a believer is that they live with godly influence. They can regularly observe the true and living God being worshipped, prayed to, obeyed and experienced. It’s a sacred environment in which they live where there is an increased potential for their salvation.
“15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”
What does he mean “not under bondage in such cases”? At least three things assure me of what he means.
1) Elsewhere in this chapter the language of bondage and freedom refers to the bondage of marriage and freedom to remarry (7:27,28,39). So I think “not under bondage” means free to remarry.
2) In this context you would expect Paul to address the marital options of a believer deserted by an unbeliever. He addressed what the marital options are of the unmarried and the widows in verses 8-9 (also 7:27,28,39). He addressed the marital options of a believer separated from a believer in verses 10-11. Later in verse 25ff he will address the marital options of “virgins.” So we would expect Paul in this context to address the marital options for one deserted by an unbeliever. So it makes the best sense to me in this context he is addressing their martial options with the phrase “not under bondage.” He means free to remarry.
3) The phrase “in such cases” eliminates a common interpretation I’ve heard as a viable option. That common interpretation is that “not under bondage” means not so enslaved to the marriage that they have to forsake Christ to keep the marriage together. In this view Paul is only thinking of situations where the unbeliever refuses to stay with the believer because of the believer’s commitment to Christ and so the only way the believer can save the marriage is by being unfaithful to the Lord. In this view Paul is not addressing whether or not the brother or sister can remarry someone else, but only that should obey the Lord even when their spouse disapproves. That cannot be what Paul means by “not under bondage” because the phrase “in such cases” qualifies when a deserted believer is not under bondage. It indicates that in other cases, the believer would be under bondage. But is a believer ever so enslaved to a relationship that it take priority over obeying the Lord? Never, in any cases. So “not under bondage” must refer to a bondage believers are under in other cases. In some cases, such as when a believer separates from another believer, they are not free to remarry someone else (7:10-11). But in the case of desertion by an unbeliever, the believer not under bondage, that is he or she is free to remarry.
The phrase at the end of verse 15, “But God has called us to peace,” may be applied in more than one way. We should not try to keep an unbelieving spouse who doesn’t want to be with us. We also should not be overly distressed at their departure, knowing it’s within the sovereign will of God. We should be at peace in our hearts and in our relationships as much as it depends on us (cf. Romans 12:18).
Verse 16, Paul makes a statement that should bring greater peace to the hearts of those who are or were married to an unbeliever. “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”
We don’t know whether or not continuing in a marriage to an unbeliever will save him or her. The possibility of saving your spouse can be an encouragement to continue in marriage to an unbeliever. And the possibility that you could never save your spouse can help a deserted believer accept the end of their marriage and move on.
-James Williams