성경 주석서

본 장에서 사도는 고린도 교인들이 결혼에 관하여 그에게 제시한 몇 가지 사안에 답변한다. 그는, I. 결혼이 음행을 막는 방책으로 정해졌으며, 따라서 사람이 정욕으로 불타는 것보다는 결혼하는 편이 낫다는 것을 보여 준다(고전 7:1-9). II. 그는 결혼한 자들에게, 비록 믿지 않는 배우자가 있을지라도 함께 거하라고 지시한다. 다만 믿지 않는 자가 갈라서고자 하는 경우는 예외이니, 그럴 때에는 그리스도인이 얽매이지 아니한다(고전 7:10-16). III. 그는 그리스도인이 되는 것이 그들의 외적 신분을 바꾸지 아니함을 보여 주며, 따라서 각 사람에게 부르심을 받았을 때의 그 신분에 대체로 그대로 머물러 있으라고 권면한다(고전 7:17-24). IV. 그는 그들에게, 현재의 환난을 이유로 자신을 결혼하지 않은 상태로 지키라고 권하며, 때가 단축되었음과 그 때를 어떻게 활용하여 세상의 위안에 대해 죽은 듯 무관심하게 자라갈 것인지를 일러 주고, 세상 염려가 어떻게 그들의 경건한 헌신을 방해하며 하나님을 섬기는 일에서 그들을 산란하게 하는지를 보여 준다(고전 7:25-35). V. 그는 그들에게 처녀를 어떻게 처리할 것인지를 지시한다(고전 7:36-38). VI. 그리고 과부들에게 그 신분에서 자신을 어떻게 처신할 것인지에 대한 권면으로 본 장을 마무리한다(고전 7:39,40).

이 장은 이 서신의 둘째 부분 또는 구분, 곧 "고린도 교회가 사도의 가르침과 조언을 얻기 위해 편지로 제출했던 문제들에 대한 논의"를 시작한다. 이 서신의 서론을 보라. 그들이 여기서 논의되는 질문들을 제시했던 편지는 잃어버렸다. 만일 우리가 지금 그 편지를 가지고 있다면, 바울이 이 장에서 그들의 질문에 대해 준 답변들에 어느 정도 빛을 비추어 줄 것이 분명하다. 처음 논의되는 질문(1 Corinthians 7:1-9)은 혼인 관계에 들어가는 것이 합법적이고 합당한가 하는 것이다. 이 질문이 어떻게 생겨났는지는 지금 확실히 결정할 수 없다. 그러나 아마도 그것은 유대 혈통의 사람들, 곧 구약성경의 교훈에 따라 혼인 관계의 합법성뿐 아니라 그 중요성까지 주장하던 사람들과, 독신을 옹호했을 수 있는 어떤 헬라 철학자들의 특정 추종자들이나 친구들 사이의 논쟁에서 생겨났을 것이다.

그러나 그들이 "왜" 그 교리를 옹호했는지는 알려져 있지 않다. 다만 Lycurgus, Thales, Antiphanes, Socrates( Grotius를 보라)를 포함한 헬라 철학자들 중 많은 이들조차도, "여자들의 다루기 어려운 성품과, 자녀 교육이 얼마나 번거롭고 위험으로 가득한지"를 고려할 때 혼인 관계에 들어가지 않는 것이 지혜로운 일이라고 생각했다는 것은 알려져 있다. 그들에게서 그리스도인 교회 안의 독신 교리가 파생되었을 수 있다. 그 교리는 수도원 제도와 교황주의자들 사이의 성직자 독신제에서 그토록 많은 부패의 원인이 되어 왔다. 그러나 유대인들은 어디서나 결혼의 합당성과 의무를 옹호했다. 그들은 그것을 하나님의 규례로 여겼다. 그리고 오늘날까지도 그들은 스무 살에 이른 사람이 자연적 결함이나 율법에 대한 깊은 연구로 막히지 않았는데도 이 관계에 들어가지 않으면 하나님께 죄를 짓는다고 여긴다. 이 두 부류에서 교회 안으로 들어온 사람들 사이에서, 결혼이 합법적이고 권할 만한가 하는 질문이 논의되었을 것이다.

그들 가운데 생겨났던 또 다른 질문은, 시련과 박해에 노출된 교회의 당시 상태에서 혼인 상태를 계속 유지하는 것이 합당한가, 또는 회심한 사람들이 회심하지 않은 자들과의 삶의 관계를 계속 유지하는 것이 합당한가 하는 것이었던 듯하다. 사도는 이것을 1 Corinthians 7:10-24에서 논의한다. 아마 많은 사람들은 그리스도인이 아닌 사람들과 함께 사는 것이 불법이라고 생각했을 것이며, 그래서 회심 이전에 존재하던 관계는 해소되어야 한다고 추론했을 것이다. 그리고 그들은 이 교리를 남편과 아내 사이의 관계뿐 아니라 주인과 종 사이의 관계에도 적용했다. 이에 대해 바울이 진술하는 일반 교리는, 아내가 남편에게서 떠나서는 안 된다는 것이다(1 Corinthians 7:10). 그러나 만일 떠났다면 이전의 결혼이 여전히 구속력을 가지므로 다시 결혼할 자유가 없었다(1 Corinthians 7:11). 그는 믿는 남자, 곧 그리스도인이 자기의 믿지 않는 아내를 버려서는 안 되며(1 Corinthians 7:12), 종교의 차이에도 불구하고 그 관계는 계속되어야 한다고 덧붙였다. 그리고 만일 분리가 뒤따른다면 그것은 평화로운 방식이어야 하며, 당사자들은 다시 결혼할 자유가 없었다(1 Corinthians 7:13-17). 주인과 종의 관계에 대해서도 마찬가지였다. 그것은 폭력적으로 끊어져서는 안 되었다. 삶의 관계들은 그리스도교로 말미암아 해체되어서는 안 되었다. 각 사람은 평화롭고 합법적인 방식으로 바뀔 수 있는 경우가 아니라면, 회심했을 때 있던 삶의 지위에 머물러 있어야 했다(1 Corinthians 7:18-24).

그에게 제출된 셋째 주제는, 당시 상황에서 교회의 구성원인 미혼 처녀들이 혼인 관계에 들어가는 것이 권할 만한가 하는 것이었다(1Co. 7:25-40). 사도는 이 장의 나머지 부분에서 이것에 대답한다. 그 질문에 대한 그의 조언의 요지는, 그들이 결혼하는 것은 합법적이지만 당시에는 권할 만하지 않았다는 것이다. 그리고 어떤 경우에도 그들은 인생이 짧다는 것을 기억하고, 이생의 일들에 지나치게 몰두하지 않으며, 영원을 위해 살도록 행동해야 했다. 그는 그것이 합법적이기는 하지만 다음과 같다고 말했다.

(1) 그들의 현재 고난 가운데서는 권할 만하지 않을 수 있다(1 Corinthians 7:26).

(2) 결혼은 염려와 근심을 증가시키는 경향이 있으므로, 당시에는 그 관계에 들어가는 것이 합당하지 않을 수 있다(1 Corinthians 7:32-35).

(3) 그들은 하나님께 살아야 한다(1 Corinthians 7:29-31).

(4) 남자는 자기 딸이나 자기 보호 아래 있는 사람에게 억압적이고 가혹하게 대하지 말아야 한다. 그러나 그런 결혼을 금지하는 것이 그에게 가혹한 일이 된다면, 그는 그것을 허락해야 한다(1 Corinthians 7:36). 그리고,

(5) 전체적으로 볼 때 당시 상황 아래서는 혼인 관계에 들어가지 않는 것이 권할 만했다(1 Corinthians 7:38-40).

혼인과 혼인한 사람들에 관한 여러 어려운 문제의 해답. 고린도전서 7:1-6. 하나님께서는 각 사람에게 자기에게 맞는 은사를 주셨다. 고린도전서 7:7. 결혼하지 않은 자들과 과부들에게 주는 지침. 고린도전서 7:8, 고린도전서 7:9. 결혼한 자들에게 주는 지침. 고린도전서 7:10, 고린도전서 7:11. 이교도 여자와 결혼한 남자들과 이교도 남자와 결혼한 여자들에게 주는 지침. 고린도전서 7:12-16. 각 사람은 자기 부르심 안에 머물러야 한다. 고린도전서 7:17-24. 처녀들에 관한 지침과 일반적으로 독신자들에 관한 지침. 고린도전서 7:25-28. 모든 사람이 영원과 관련하여 이생의 일들 안에서 어떻게 처신해야 하는가. 고린도전서 7:29-31. 혼인 상태의 시련. 고린도전서 7:32-35. 처녀 상태 또는 독신 상태에 관한 지침. 고린도전서 7:36-38. 아내가 남편의 생전에는 그에게 매여 있는 방식과, 남편이 죽은 뒤 다른 사람과 결혼할 자유. 고린도전서 7:39, 고린도전서 7:40.

INTRODUCTION TO 1 Corinthians 7

In this, chapter, various cases concerning marriage being proposed to the apostle, are answered by him; and he discourses of the nature, use, and end of marriage, and of the duties of married persons to one another; and gives advice to such as were unmarried, and points at the advantages of a single state, where it can be continued in without danger. Some of the Corinthians having written to him upon these heads, he returns for answer in general, that abstinence from marriage was most advisable; that is, at that time of persecution, and by those who had the gift of continence, and for reasons after mentioned, 1 Corinthians 7:1 though, in order to avoid fornication, it was absolutely necessary for truth who had not that gift to enter into it, and act agreeably thereunto, 1 Corinthians 7:2 and therefore advises both parties in such a state to yield due benevolence to each other, 1 Corinthians 7:3 giving this as a reason for it, that neither of them had power over their own bodies, but over each other's, 1 Corinthians 7:4 wherefore abstinence from the marriage bed ought not to be but with the following limitations; that it be by mutual agreement, and only for a time, and that only for the sake of devotion but that they come together again, lest Satan should take an advantage of their incontinency, and tempt them to evil, 1 Corinthians 7:5 though in all this the apostle would be understood to speak, not in an authoritative, but a permissive way, and rather by way of counsel than of command, 1 Corinthians 7:6 and expresses his hearty wish, that everyone was, and would continue, in a single state, as he himself; though he corrects himself by observing, that it was not the pleasure of God to bestow the gift of continency on everyone, and therefore suggests, that it was right for everyone to act according to the gift he had received, 1 Corinthians 7:7 and then addresses persons in a single state, whether they had ever been married or not, and advises them so to abide, partly by his own example, and partly by the profitableness of it, 1 Corinthians 7:8 but if they had not the gift of continency, his counsel is, that they enter into a marriage state, giving this reason for it, that it is better to enter into such a state than to be inflamed with lust, 1 Corinthians 7:9 and then he directs himself to married persons; and these he commands, not in his own name, but in the name of the Lord, to live together; and particularly, that the wife should not leave her husband for any trivial matter, or on account of any difference that might arise between them, 1 Corinthians 7:10 and that if she so did, she ought to remain unmarried, or seek to be reconciled to her husband, and come to him again; and, on the other hand, the husband ought not to divorce his wife, unless in case of adultery and wilful obstinate desertion, 1 Corinthians 7:11. And as to another case of conscience which was moved unto him, whether a believer, having married an unbeliever, should live together; he answers, that if a Christian brother had married an unbelieving wife, and she thought fit to continue with him, he should not put her away, 1 Corinthians 7:12. And so a Christian woman that had married an unbelieving husband, if it was his pleasure to dwell with her, she ought not to forsake him, 1 Corinthians 7:13 giving this reason for it, because they were legally married to each other, or otherwise their children must be reckoned bastards; whereas by maintaining the validity of their marriage, and abiding by it, they would appear to be legitimate, 1 Corinthians 7:14 but if the unbeliever, whether man or woman, thinks fit to desert the believing wife or husband, so be it, the party deserted may make themselves easy, nor are they under obligation to remain unmarried: however, as they are called to peace they ought to seek it, and endeavour to live quietly together, 1 Corinthians 7:15 and that for this reason, because they may be the means of the conversion, and so of the salvation of the unbelieving party, 1 Corinthians 7:16 hence the apostle takes an occasion to exhort every man in general to walk and abide in the calling wherein he is called, this being an order he had given to all the churches, 1 Corinthians 7:17 and which he exemplifies by particular instances, as that those who are called in circumcision, or in uncircumcision, should abide so, 1 Corinthians 7:18 because these are nothing, or indifferent things, which may be, or may not be; but keeping the commandments is binding, and not to be dispensed with, 1 Corinthians 7:19 wherefore the general rule is repeated, that it might be the more regarded and observed, 1 Corinthians 7:20. And another instance given, illustrating it, as that if a man is called while a servant, he should make himself easy, and continue so; though if he can have his freedom it is most eligible, 1 Corinthians 7:21. The reason persuading him to be satisfied with his condition is, because he that is called by grace, though a servant in a civil sense, is the Lord's freeman in a spiritual sense; and, on the other hand, he who is free in a civil sense when called, is in a spiritual sense a servant of Christ, 1 Corinthians 7:22 as clearly appears by his being bought with the price of his blood; and therefore neither one nor the other should be servants of men in matters of religion, 1 Corinthians 7:23. Wherefore, as before, it becomes every man to abide in the station in which he is called, until it please God in his providence to change his situation, 1 Corinthians 7:24. After this the apostle returns to his former subject about marriage, and addresses the virgins particularly, concerning whom he declares he had no express commandment from the Lord, but however was willing to give his judgment and advice, with all sincerity and uprightness, as one that had the honour to be counted faithful by the Lord himself, 1 Corinthians 7:25 and his judgment was, that considering the present persecution of the churches of Christ, it was better for single persons, men or women, to remain so, 1 Corinthians 7:26 though he advises those that were married by no means to desert one another, or seek to dissolve the marriage bond; as, on the other hand, those that were free from it, he would not have them seek out for a wife, 1 Corinthians 7:27 though should they, it would not be criminal in them; and whether young men or maidens, it was not unlawful for them to marry, only it was not so convenient for the present; and such therefore must expect trouble in the world, 1 Corinthians 7:28. However, it was proper, since time was short, and every worldly enjoyment was fading and perishing, that care be taken that there be no abuse of any, in whatsoever state and condition, or circumstance men were in; neither to be too much depressed with afflictive providences, nor too much elated with prosperous ones; and by no means to indulge to lasciviousness and luxury, 1 Corinthians 7:29. And whereas the married life is a careful one, and the apostle was desirous the persons he writes to should be without any distressing care, he advised so strongly as he did to a single state; and in order to persuade to it, he puts the difference between an unmarried and a married man, who though they both had their cares, yet about different things; the former about divine and religious things, in order to please the Lord; the latter about worldly things, in order to please his wife, 1 Corinthians 7:32. And just the like difference he observes there is between a wife and a virgin; the virgin, she is concerned about and taken up in religious matters, that she may increase in holiness, both inward and outward; and the wife is engaged in worldly and domestic affairs, which engross her thoughts and time, in order to please her husband, 1 Corinthians 7:34 wherefore the advice he had given to continue single, was manifestly for the profit and advantage of such persons in spiritual things; though he gave it with no design to ensnare any, who had not the gift of continence, but advised to it, when it could be done, in a comely manner, and that they might attend upon the worship of God, without distraction by worldly cares for their families, 1 Corinthians 7:35 but in case, when a virgin is ripe for marriage, and there is a necessity for it, it is by no means advisable in parents to behave uncomely to her, and refuse to marry her, and so deprive her of the remedy against incontinence; when such is the case, she ought to marry, that being not sinful, yea, it would be sinful to do otherwise, 1 Corinthians 7:36 yet where there is no necessity, where persons have the gift of continency, are steadfastly determined not to marry, but, to keep their virginity, this is commendable as well as profitable, 1 Corinthians 7:37 whence this conclusion is drawn, that they that marry do well, rather than burn in lust, or commit sin, but they that do not marry, having the gift of continency, do better, both for themselves, and for the Lord, 1 Corinthians 7:38. And whereas whilst an husband is living, the wife is bound by law to continue with him; and when he is dead, she may marry whom she will, So be it she seeks the Lord, and has his glory in view, 1 Corinthians 7:39 yet in the judgment of the apostle she would be a much more happy person should she continue a widow; and this was not only his own private judgment, but he had reason to believe it was according to the mind of the Spirit of God, 1 Corinthians 7:40.

VII.

Concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me.—Some members of the Church having written to St. Paul to ask his counsel on matters concerning which there existed a difference of opinion at Corinth, the Apostle now proceeds to answer these inquiries, and his reply occupies the remainder of the Epistle (to 1Corinthians 16:4). The subjects concerning which the Corinthians sought for St. Paul’s opinion are treated of in the following order:

I. MARRIAGE, 1 Corinthians 7.

II. THE EATING OF MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS, 1Corinthians 8:1 to 1Corinthians 11:1.

III. THE ATTIRE OF WOMEN IN PUBLIC WORSHIP, 1Corinthians 11:2-16.

IV. THE LORD’S SUPPER, 1Corinthians 11:17-34.

V. SPIRITUAL GIFTS, 1Corinthians 12:1 to 1Corinthians 14:40.

VI. THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION, 1Corinthians 15:1-58.

VII. THE COLLECTION FOR THE POOR IN JUDÆA, 1Corinthians 16:1-4

In the consideration of each of these subjects various collateral matters are introduced, and the great principles which guided the Apostle, and which ever should guide the Church and individuals, are set forth. Many of the subjects were of purely local and temporary interest. The particular combination of circumstances which for the moment rendered them important has ceased to exist, and can never arise again; but the principles on which the Apostle based his arguments, and which he enunciates as the ground of his decisions, are eternal. To apply the injunctions of the Apostle in these chapters with a rigid and unyielding literalism to the Church in all ages, is to violate those very principles which guided St. Paul in enunciating them, and to exalt the dead and death-bearing letter at the sacrifice of the living and life-giving spirit of the apostolic teaching. As we proceed with our examination of St. Paul’s reply to the Corinthians’ letter we shall have little real difficulty in distinguishing between those practical injunctions which were of local and temporary application, and the wider and larger truths which are of universal and lasting obligation; for the Apostle himself is always careful to point out when a command is based upon some particular necessity of the day, and when it arises from some unchanging Christian principle.

The first subject concerning which the Corinthians sought advice was MARRIAGE. From the opening words of St. Paul’s reply, “It is good for a man not to marry” (such is the force of the word rendered “touch,” Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29), it would seem that those who wrote for the Apostle’s advice were inclined to regard celibacy as preferable to the married state: so much so, indeed, that they had scruples as to whether even those who had been married should not separate (1Corinthians 7:3-5). We may, therefore, conclude that it was probably from the Pauline party that the inquiry came. It would be improbable that those who exalted some other teacher would have written to St. Paul to ask his guidance upon matters of controversy; and the tone of the Apostle’s replies on such questions as marriage, and the meats offered to idols (from which we can conjecture the line taken in the letter addressed to him), leads to the same conclusion. It would be natural for the Pauline party unduly to exaggerate the importance of celibacy and to undervalue matrimony. St. Paul’s own example, and his strong preference for the unmarried state, would have easily come to be regarded by his followers as matters of moral import, and not of merely temporary advantage and personal predilection. It is likely, also, as we know from other religious controversies, that the opposition of the Petrine party would drive the Pauline party into more extreme views. They would quote the example of their leader as a married man in opposition to the conduct of St. Paul (1Corinthians 9:5, and Matthew 8:14).

Good for a man.—We must not, on the one hand, force this statement into meaning that it is merely expedient, nor must we, on the other, attach to it so great a moral import as to imply that the opposite is morally wrong (as St. Jerome, “ergo est malum tangere”). The English word “good,” in its most general sense, accurately conveys the meaning. It is laid down as a proposition that it is in St. Paul’s opinion a good thing to remain unmarried. But that general proposition is immediately limited in its application by what follows. St. Chrysostom paraphrases this and the following verse thus: “For if thou inquire what is the excellent and greatly superior course, it is better not to have any connection whatever with a woman; but if, what is safe and helpful to thine own infirmity, be connected by marriage.”

CHAPTER 7

1 Corinthians 7:3. ὀφειλήν] Elz. and Matt. read ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν, against decisive evidence. Erroneous explanation.—1 Corinthians 7:5. Τῇ νηστείᾳ καί after σχολάσητε (not σχολάζητε, Elz.) is an inappropriate addition in the ascetic interest; and συνέρχεσθε, in place of ἦτε, is a gloss.—1 Corinthians 7:7. γάρ] A C D* F G א*, min[1012] It. Copt. Goth. and several Fathers have δέ. Approved by Griesb., and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. The ΓΆΡ was an incorrect gloss upon the ΔΈ.

Instead of Ὅς … Ὅς, read, with Lachm. and Tisch., following the majority of the uncials, Ὁ … Ὁ. In 1 Corinthians 7:10 again, Lachm. and Rück. put ΧΩΡΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ in place of ΧΩΡΙΣΘῆΝΑΙ (with A D E F G); but, considering the weight of authority on the other side, ἈΦΙΈΝΑΙ must dissuade us from the change.—1 Corinthians 7:13. ΑὟΤΟς] approved also by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. The evidence against ΑὐΤΌς (Elz.) is conclusive. But this induces us to read ΑὝΤΗ in 1 Corinthians 7:12 also (with Lachm. Tisch. and Rück.).

ΑὐΤΌΝ) Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. have ΤῸΝ ἌΝΔΡΑ, approved by Griesb. also, and on conclusive grounds. ΑὐΤΌΝ has crept in from uniformity to 1 Corinthians 7:12. Had there been a gloss, we should have found a corresponding variation of ΑὐΤΉΝ in 1 Corinthians 7:12 as well.—1 Corinthians 7:14. ἈΝΔΡΊ] The uncials from A to G, א*, Copt. Baschm. It. Jerome, and Augustine, read ἈΔΕΛΦῷ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. ἈΝΔΡΊ is an explanatory addition.—1 Corinthians 7:15. ἩΜᾶς] Tisch. has ὙΜᾶς, but the evidence for it is weaker; and ὙΜᾶς would easily come in from 1 Corinthians 7:14.—1 Corinthians 7:17. ΚΎΡΙΟς] Elz. and Matt. read ΘΕΌς, and, after ΚΈΚΛΗΚΕΝ: Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς. Against conclusive testimony; ΚΎΡΙΟς was glossed and dislodged by ΘΕΌς, and then afterwards reinserted in the wrong place. Hence in G, Boern. we have Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς … Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς Ὁ ΘΕΌς.—1 Corinthians 7:18. Instead of the second ΤΙς ἘΚΛΉΘΗ, Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. read ΚΈΚΛΕΤΑΊ ΤΙς, with A B א, min[1013], and additional support from D* F and G, which have τις κέκλ. The Recept[1014] is a mechanical repetition from the first clause of the verse.—1 Corinthians 7:28. ΓΉΜῌς] B א have ΓΑΜΉΣῌς; and, since in A we have ΓΑΜΉΣῌ, and in D E F G ΛΆΒῌς ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ, which is plainly a gloss, the evidence preponderates in favour of ΓΑΜΉΣῌς (Lachm. Tisch.); ΓΉΜῌς arose out of what follows.—1 Corinthians 7:29.[1015] After ἀδελφοί Elz. has ὍΤΙ, against A B K L א, min[1016] Baschm. Syr. p[1017] Vulg. Eus. Method. Basil, Theodoret, Hierat. al[1018] An exegetical addition.

ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ ἘΣΤΙΝ] A B א, min[1019] Copt. Syr. p[1020] Arm. Slav. Eus. Ephr. Basil, Cyr. have ἘΣΤΙ ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ. Now, seeing that D* has simply ἘΣΤΙ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ, and F G 67** Boern. Vulg. Method. Tert. Jerome, Ambrosiast. al[1021] have ἘΣΤΊ, ΛΟΙΠΌΝ ἘΣΤΙΝ, the reading of A, etc., is best accredited. That in the Received text originated in the wish to indicate the fact that ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ was regarded as belonging to what had gone before,—a connection which is expressly set forth in several codd[1022] vss[1023] and Fathers (see Tisch. and Reiche). As to whether a comma should be placed between ἘΣΤΊΝ and ΤῸ ΛΟΙΠΌΝ, which is done by Lachm. Tisch. Rück. and Scholz, see the exegetical remarks on the verse.—1 Corinthians 7:31. Τῷ ΚΌΣΜῼ ΤΟΎΤῼ] Lachm. Tisch. and Rück. read ΤῸΝ ΚΌΣΜΟΝ, with A B א, also D* F G 17, which, however, add ΤΟῦΤΟΝ. The dative was a correction to bring it into accordance with the common usage; ΤΟῦΤΟΝ (ΤΟΎΤῼ) again an addition from what follows.—1 Corinthians 7:32-34. ἈΡΈΣΕΙ] Lachm. and Rück. have ἈΡΈΣῌ, with A B D E F G א 21 46, Eus. al[1024] But it was very natural that, in place of the future (K L, almost all the min[1025] Clem. Or. Meth. Ath. Epiph. and many others), the more usual subjunctive should creep into the text.—1 Corinthians 7:34.[1026] μεμέρισται κ.τ.λ[1027]] ΚΑῚ ΜΕΜΈΡΙΣΤΑΙ] occurs in A B D* א, min[1028] Syr. p[1029] Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome, and many other Fathers, and is joined to what precedes it by most of the codd[1030] Copt. Vulg. Cyr. Jerome (who expressly states that this connection is according to the original), Pel. Bede, al[1031] On the other hand, it is construed with what follows by Syr[1032] Arr. Arm. It. Chrys. Theodoret, Basil, Oecum. Theophylact, Tert. Ambr. Aug. Sedul. and Latin codices in Jerome. The καί after μεμέρ., which is wanting in Elz., is conclusively attested by A B D*** F G K L א, min[1033] Aeth. Vulg. It. Chrys. al[1034] Going on with the verse, we find ἡ ἄγαμος after γυνή in A B א, some min[1035] Vulg. and several Fathers; while, on the other hand, there is no ἡ ἄγαμος after παρθένος in Vulg. Jerome, Aug. Euseb. al[1036] We have the choice left us, therefore, between the following two readings (and modes of connecting the words): (1) [καί] μεμέρισται καὶ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἡ παρθένος· ἡ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ κ.τ.λ[1037], and (2) ΚΑῚ ΜΕΜΈΡΙΣΤΑΙ. ΚΑῚ Ἡ ΓΥΝῊ Ἡ ἌΓΑΜΟς ΚΑῚ Ἡ ΠΑΡΘΈΝΟς Ἡ ἌΓΑΜΟς ΜΕΡΙΜΝᾷ Κ.Τ.Λ[1038] The latter is adopted by Lachm. and Rück.; but is not to be preferred, because it offers no difficulty whatever, and, consequently, no occasion for any change. The former, on the contrary (found in D*** F G K L, and many min[1039] It. Slav. Chrys. Theodoret, Dam.), presented a stone of stumbling in the μεμέρισται, which was either not understood at all, or misunderstood. Where not understood, it was left out altogether (so even Cyprian: “uxori. Sic et mulier et virgo innupta cogitat,” etc.); where misunderstood (that μερίζεσθαι must mean curis distrahi, see Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7), it was connected with the preceding clause by καί (which appears, therefore, to be spurious). This made γυνή be taken as mulier vidua (Aeth.); and hence ἡ ἄγαμος was either pushed forward (Vulg.), or else left in connection with παρθένος, and the same word added to γυνή as well (A B א, Lachm.). Scholz, too, has the words as in our reading,[1040] but spoils it by his quite wrong and abrupt method of punctuation: τῇ γυναικί· μεμέρισται. Καὶ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ἡ παρθένος ἡ ἄγαμος μεριμνᾷ κ.τ.λ[1041]—1 Corinthians 7:34. ΤᾺ ΤΟῦ ΚΌΣΜΟΥ] omitted in B alone, which, however, is approved of by Buttmann (Studien u. Krit. 1860, p. 370).—1 Corinthians 7:37. ἐδραῖος· ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ] Lachm. reads ἘΝ Τῇ ΚΑΡΔ. ΑὐΤΟῦ ἙΔΡΑῖΟς, which has conclusive evidence in its favour; on the other hand, there is no sufficient ground for omitting ἙΔΡ. (as Griesb. does) or ΑὐΤΟῦ (deleted by Tisch.). As regards ἙΔΡΑῖΟς in particular, which is omitted only by F G, It. Aeth., it was very likely to be left out as being unessential, so far as the sense was concerned, after ἝΣΤΗΚΕΝ.

ΑὐΤΟῦ ΤΟῦ] is deleted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. in accordance with A B א. In place of it, Tisch., following the same authorities, has ἘΝ Τῇ ἸΔΊᾼ ΚΑΡΔΊᾼ. The evidence, however, for ΑὐΤΟῦ ΤΟῦ (the uncials D E F G K L) is too weighty and uniform, while ΤΟῦ again was in appearance so cumbrous and superfluous, and such a natural occasion for writing ἸΔΊᾼ instead of ΑὐΤΟῦ presented itself in the preceding ἸΔΊΟΥ ΘΕΛΉΜ., that our conclusion is to retain the Recept[1042].

Instead of ποιεῖ, A B א 6 17 37, Copt. have ποιήσει (as also where it occurs for the second time in 1 Corinthians 7:38), which is adopted by Lachm. and Rück. (B 6 17 37 have ποιήσει also the first time in 1 Corinthians 7:38.) But in default of internal reasons for a change, these witnesses, having no support from the Fathers, and next to none from the vss[1043], are too weak to warrant it.—1 Corinthians 7:38. ὁ ἐκγαμίζων] Lachm. and Rück. have ὁ γαμίζων τὴν παρθένον ἑαυτοῦ. Now it is true that γαμίζων occurs in A B D E א 17 23 31 46, Clem. Method. Basil., and τὴν παρθ. ἑαυτ. (or τ. ἑαυτ. παρθ., so Rück.) in much the same codices and Syr[1044] Erp. Arm. Baschm. Aeth. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Clem. Basil. al[1045] But the whole reading is manifestly of the nature of a gloss, ἐκγαμίζων being explained sometimes by γαμίζων τὴν παρθ. ἑαυτ., sometimes by the addition to it of τὴν παρθ. ἑαυτ. The latter phrase crept into the text beside ἐκγαμ., the former in place of it.

Instead of ὁ δέ read καὶ ὁ; so Griesb. Lachm. Schulz, Rück. Tisch., upon conclusive evidence. The antithesis gave rise to the ὁ δέ.—1 Corinthians 7:39. After δέδεται Elz. has νόμῳ, against A B D* Fa[1046] א**, min[1047] with many vss[1048] and Fathers. Taken from Romans 7:2, although Reiche doubts this.

ἐὰν δέ] Tisch. has ἐὰν δὲ καί, upon insufficient evidence; the καί might easily come in through writing the next syllable twice over, or by a clerical error such as κεκοιμηθη (so F G).

[1012] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1013] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1014] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1015] Respecting ver. 29, see Reiche, Comment. crit. 1. p. 178 ff.

[1016] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1017] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.

[1018] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1019] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1020] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.

[1021] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1022] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by א.

[1023] ss. vss. = versions.

[1024] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1025] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1026] Respecting ver. 34, see Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 184 ff.

[1027] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1028] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1029] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.

[1030] odd. codices or manuscripts. The uncial manuscripts are denoted by the usual letters, the Sinaitic by א.

[1031] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1032] yr. Peschito Syriac

[1033] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1034] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1035] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1036] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1037] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1038] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1039] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1040] It is defended also by Reiche and retained by Tisch. Elz. varies from it only in omitting the καί after μεμέρισται, which was justly reinserted by Bengel.

[1041] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1042] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1043] ss. vss. = versions.

[1044] yr. Peschito Syriac

[1045] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1046] Fragment of a Codex of the 7th century. See Tisch. Monum. sacr. ined. p. 460.

[1047] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1048] ss. vss. = versions.

CONTENTS.

Instructions regarding marriage, matrimonial intercourse, and divorce (1 Corinthians 7:1-17); then an excursus upon the theme that the reception of Christianity ought not to alter the outward relations of life (1 Corinthians 7:17-24); lastly, about virgins—as to how far celibacy in general is advisable for both sexes (1 Corinthians 7:25-34), and whether a father does better to let his daughter remain single, or give her away in marriage (1 Corinthians 7:35-38). The same advice, to remain unmarried, is given to widows (1 Corinthians 7:39 f.). Comp on this chapter, Harless, die Ehescheidungsfrage, 1861.

고전 7:1-40.

혼인에 관한 그들의 질문에 대한 답변. 다른 일들에서의 일반 원칙은, 때가 짧으므로 자기 처지에 머물라는 것임.

1. 고린도인들은 편지에서 아마 혼인을 낮추어 보는 경향의 질문들을 했고, 불신자와 맺은 혼인은 끊는 것이 더 낫다는 뜻을 암시했을 것이다.

좋다--곧 "유익하다"는 뜻이다. "현재의 곤란" 때문이며, 곧 세상이 불안정한 상태에 있고 박해가 혼인으로 묶인 사람들을 거칠게 갈라놓을 가능성이 있었기 때문이다.

히 13:4는

독신 생활에 더 높은 거룩함이 있다는 금욕주의적이고 로마교적인 생각에 반대하여 "혼인은 모든 사람 가운데서 존귀하다"고 선언한다. 어떤 경우 독신이 그리스도인의 유익이 될 수 있는 또 다른 이유는

고전 7:34, 35에

"주의 일을 흐트러짐 없이 섬기게 하려 함"이라고 제시되어 있다. 그러나 이것들은 바울 시대와 같은 예외적인 경우, 예외적인 시대의 일이다.