성경 주석서

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.

1 Corinthians 7:1. Δέ] leads over to the answering of questions put in the letter from Corinth.

ἐγράψατέ μοι] Differences of opinion must have prevailed respecting the points discussed in this chapter, and these had been laid before the apostle by the church. In particular, there must have been at Corinth opponents of marriage. This is wrongly denied by Baur, who imagines merely an attempt made among the Corinthians to defend fornication from the analogy of marriage; of which there is not a trace in the apostle’s words. Whether, now, the doubts in question, more especially as to the lawfulness of marriage,[1050] were mixed up with the subsistence of the parties at Corinth, it is impossible to make out with any certainty, although in itself it seems likely that a matter of opinion so important practically would be turned, with other points, to account in the interest of party. Grotius holds that those who raised such points of debate were “sub Christianorum nomine philosophi verius quam Christiani.” But such of the Greek philosophers as advocated views adverse to marriage did so upon the ground of the cares and dangers connected with marriage (see Grotius in loc[1051]), not from any doubt regarding its morality, as, according to 1 Corinthians 7:28; 1 Corinthians 7:36, must have been the case among the Corinthians. Further, it is certain that the adversaries of marriage could not be of the Petrine party; for Peter himself was married (Matthew 8:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5), and the Judaizing tendency, which cannot be proved to have had an Essene-Ebionitic character in Corinth (Schwegler, I. p. 163 f.[1052]), could be nothing else but favourable to marriage (see Lightfoot, Horae, p. 189). Olshausen (comp also Jaeger, Kniewel, Goldhorn, Ewald) decides for the Christ-party, in whose idealistic tendency he considers there were contained the germs both of moral indifference and of false asceticism. But this party’s idealism in general is a pure hypothesis, which is as little established by proof as their Essenism in particular, to which Ewald traces back the rejection of marriage among the Corinthians.[1054] In the last place, that it was the followers of Paul (Storr, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Pott, Neander, Räbiger, Osiander, Maier; Rückert refuses to give a decision), who—in opposition, perhaps, to the Petrine party, and appealing to the celibacy of Paul himself, he never having been married (see on 1 Corinthians 7:8)—overvalued celibacy, and pronounced marriage to stand lower in point of morality and holiness, is the most likely view, for this reason, that the apostle’s sentiments upon this point were in themselves, as we see from the chapter before us, quite of a kind to be readily misunderstood or misinterpreted by many of his disciples—more especially in partisan interests—as being unfavourable to marriage.[1055] It merely required that men should overlook or wish to overlook the conditional character of the advantages which he ascribes to single life. The opponents of marriage referred to in 1 Timothy 4:3 were of a totally different class. Those with whom we are now concerned did not forbid marriage and so endanger Christian liberty (otherwise Paul would have written regarding them in quite another tone), but simply undervalued it, placing it morally below celibacy, and advising against it, hence, too, as respects married persons, favouring a cessation from matrimonial intercourse and even divorce (1 Corinthians 7:3 ff., 1 Corinthians 7:10 ff.).

καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ] With respect to what you have written to me (ΠΕΡῚ Κ.Τ.Λ[1056], absolute, as in 1 Corinthians 16:1; 1 Corinthians 16:12; Bernhardy, p. 261; Bremi, a[1057] Demosth. Ol. p. 194; Maetzner, a[1058] Antiph. p. 170), it is good for a man, etc., that is to say: it is morally salutary[1059] for an (unmarried) man not to touch a woman. That, in a general theoretical point of view, is the prevailing axiom, which I hereby enunciate as my decision; but in a practical point of view, seeing that few have the gift of continence, the precept must come in: because of fornication, etc., 1 Corinthians 7:2. In Paul’s eyes, therefore, the γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι is, indeed, something morally salutary in and by itself; but this affirmation, made from a general point of view, finds its necessary limitation and restriction in the actual facts of the case, so that just according to circumstances marriage may be equally a duty. Hence the καλὸν κ.τ.λ[1060] is not appropriate for the defence of celibacy in general (“si bonum est mulierem non tangere, malum ergo est tangere,” Jerome, a[1061] Jovin. i. 4, and see especially Cornelius a Lapide in loc[1062]).

ἍΠΤΕΣΘΑΙ, like tangere in the sense of sexual intercourse (Genesis 20:16; Genesis 21:11; Proverbs 6:29). See Wetstein and Kypke, II. p. 204 f. Marriage is the particular case coming under this general γυναικὸς ἅπτεσθαι, to be treated of in detail hereafter. Rückert, failing to recognise this progress in the apostle’s argument (so, too, Kling in the Stud. u. Krit. 1839, p. 444), holds that the reference is to sexual intercourse in marriages already formed (and that nothing is said of entering into matrimonial connections). Did Paul, as Kling supposes, here give it as his opinion that “a chaste life, as of brother and sister, was more consonant, on the part of married persons, with delicacy of moral feeling” (καλόν); this would be a sentimental error, which ought not to be attributed to him, whether considered in itself, or in view of his high appreciation of marriage as a union of the sexes (2 Corinthians 11:2; Romans 7:4; Ephesians 5:28 ff.).

The axiom is enunciated without a μέν, because it is, in the first place, conceived simply in itself; the limitation which follows is added with δέ by way of antithesis. Comp on Ephesians 5:8, and Fritzsche, a[1064] Rom. II. p. 433. Precisely so, too, in 1 Corinthians 7:8.

[1050] If the opinion that fornication was lawful (1 Corinthians 6:12 ff.) arose at Corinth out of an Epicurean libertinism, the doubts regarding the lawfulness of marriage must have flowed from the opposite source, to wit, from the perverted moral extravagance of others, who, because of the intercourse of sex involved, counted marriage also an impure thing, and would have the maxim: καλὸν ἀνθμώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι, to be of absolute and universal application.

[1051] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1052] One section of the Essenes even declared itself against celibacy, Josephus, Bell. ii. 8. 13; Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 185.

[1054] According to Ewald (comp. too, his Gesch. der apost. Zeit. p. 503 f.), the Christ-party appealed to the example of Christ in regard to this point especially. But had that been the case, we should surely have found some traces of it in Paul’s way of discussing the question, whereas, on the contrary, the reference which he deems it due to make is rather to his own example (ver. 7). Looking at the matter as a whole, it is prima facie improbable that any one should have adduced the unwedded life of Christ as an argument against marriage—in the first place, because He, as the incarnate Son of God, held too lofty a place in the believing consciousness to present a standard for such earthly relationships; and secondly, because He Himself in His teaching had so strongly upheld the sanctity of marriage.

[1055] Just as they were often misinterpreted, as is well known, in after times in the interests of the celibate system, of nunneries and monasteries.

[1056] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1057] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1058] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1059] That we have in καλὸν κ.τ.λ. a moral axiom, a statement of what is ethically salutary, not a mere utilitarian principle of practical prudence, is clear, especially from the comparison in the last clause of ver. 9, and from vv. 32–34, where the ethical benefit of it is explained.

[1060] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1061] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1062] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1064] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 7:2. In order, however, that offences in the way of fornication (see on this plural of the abstract, Kühner, II. p. 28; Maetzn. a[1065] Lycurg. p. 144 f.) may be avoided in practice, the rule holds good: Let every man have[1066] a wife of his own (properly belonging to himself in marriage), etc. On διά, comp Winer, p. 372 [E. T. 497]. Rückert, de Wette, and Maier are wrong in maintaining that ἐχέτω is permissive merely,

Rückert, indeed, making it so only to the extent of a man’s retaining his wife. The latter is disproved by 1 Corinthians 7:9-10, and the former by the fact that the immediately following ἀποδιδότω in 1 Corinthians 7:3 is not to be taken as permissive, any more than the γαμησάτωσαν which answers to ἐχέτω in 1 Corinthians 7:9. It is opposed, further, by the consideration that διὰ τὰς πορνείας is a determining element of a moral kind, which must therefore necessarily lead not to a mere permissibility, but to a positive obligation (already noted by Erasmus). This injunction, however, is a moral rule, to which exceptions may occur from higher considerations in cases where no danger of fornication is apprehended and there is the “donum continentiae,” as Paul himself had shown by his own example,—in which, nevertheless, no support whatever is given to any sort of celibacy enforced by law, a thing which, on the contrary, our text decidedly discountenances. Rückert thinks further that Paul exhibits here a very poor opinion of marriage; and Baur (in the theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 15 ff.) has more fully developed this idea so as to assert that the apostle’s view of marriage is at variance with the moral conception of it which now prevails.[1068] Comp also Rothe, Ethik, III. p. 614. But can it be true, then, that he, who looked upon the union with Christ itself as the analogue of wedded life, valued marriage only as a “temperamentum continentiae”? No! what he does is this: out of all the different grounds on which marriage rested in his mind, he selects just that one which, in the first place, specially concerned his readers (remember the κορινθιάζεσθαι), and in the second place, had peculiar weight in connection with the nearness of the Parousia. That approaching catastrophe might furnish him with sufficient reasons for leaving unmentioned those higher ends of marriage which reached forth into a more remote future, and confining himself to the immediate practical relations of the brief, momentous present. See 1 Corinthians 7:26 ff. Keeping in view the present ἀνάγκη, the near approach of the Lord, and the necessity, therefore, of an undivided surrender to Him, Paul had, under these given circumstances, recognised in the state of single life what in and by itself was καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ, if only no fornication and heat were conjoined therewith. It is from this point of view, which was presented to him by the then existing condition of things (and hence without at all contradicting Genesis 2:18), that the apostle handles the subject, discussing it accordingly in a special aspect and from one particular side, while the wider and higher moral relations of marriage lie beyond the limits of what he has now in hand.

Observe, further, how sharply and decisively the expression in 1 Corinthians 7:2 (comp Ephesians 5:22; Ephesians 5:25) excludes not only concubinage and sexual intercourse apart from marriage generally, but also all polygamy.

[1065] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1066] This ἔχειν is nothing else but the simple habere (to possess); it does not mean intercourse in marriage, which ought to be continued (Kling, Heydenreich, following Cameron and Estius). Paul comes to that only in ver. 3.

[1068] Comp. in opposition to this, Ernesti, Ethik des Ap. Paulus, p. 115 f.

1 Corinthians 7:3-4. The occasion for this injunction, which otherwise might very well have been dispensed with, must have been given by the statement in the letter from Corinth of scruples having arisen on the point. See on 1 Corinthians 7:1.

τὴν ὀφειλήν] the due in the matter (Romans 13:7), i.e. according to the context, as euphemistically expressed, the debitum tori.[1071] See 1 Corinthians 7:4. The word does not occur at all in Greek writers; see Lobeck, a[1072] Phryn. p. 90. Nor does it in the LXX. and the Apocrypha.

ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου σώμ. κ.τ.λ[1073]] Explanatory of 1 Corinthians 7:3. The wife has no power over her own body, namely, as regards cohabitation, but the husband has that power; likewise (ὁμοίως) also, on the other hand, the converse holds, so that “neutri liceat alteri conjugale debitum poscenti denegare,” Estius. Corresponding statements of the Rabbins may be seen in Selden, uxor. Hebr. iii. 6, 7.

Bengel says happily respecting ἰδίου, that it forms with ΟὐΚ ἘΞΟΥΣΙΆΖΕΙ, an elegans paradoxon.

[1071] If we adopted the common reading τὴν ὀφειλομ. εὔνοιαν, we should not take it, with Grotius, al., in the same sense as given above, but generally, with Calvin and others, as benevolentiam. For the expression for that special idea is not εὔνοια (not even in Philo, de Abr. p. 384), but φιλότης (Homer), μίξις, συνουσία. The author of the gloss, therefore, must either have misunderstood τὴν ὀφειλήν, or, understanding it rightly, have used a wrong expression to explain it. The reading ὀφειλομένην τιμήν in Chrysostom points to the former alternative.

[1072] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1073] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 7:5. Withhold not yourselves from each other, unless it were perhaps (nisi forte, comp 2 Corinthians 13:5; Luke 9:13) that ye did so as occasion emerged (ἄν), by agreement for a time (supply ἀποστερῆτε ἀλλήλ.; see on Luke 9:13). The obvious meaning is euphemistically expressed by ἈΠΟΣΤΕΡ.; ἌΓΑΝ ΤΟΊΝΥΝ ἉΡΜΟΔΊΩς ΤΟῦΤΟ ΤΈΘΕΙΚΕΝ ἘΠῚ ΤῶΝ Οὐ ΣΥΜΦΏΝΩς ΤῊΝ ἘΓΚΡΆΤΕΙΑΝ ΑἹΡΟΥΜΈΝΩΝ, Theodoret.

ἽΝΑ ΣΧΟΛΆΣΗΤΕ Κ.Τ.Λ[1075]] ἵνα introduces the design of the concession just made ἐκ συμφών. πρὸς καιρόν: in order that ye may have free leisure for prayer—may be able to give yourselves to it without being drawn away and distracted by sensual desire and the pleasures of sense. What Paul means is not the ordinary praying of the Christian heart, which ought to ascend ἀδιαλείπτως (1 Thessalonians 5:17; Ephesians 6:18), but such extraordinary exercises in prayer as they might have determined specially to devote themselves to for a longer period (a series of days). We are not to assume that such domestic devotions, as the apostle here plainly supposes to be engaged in by husband and wife in common, had been already then connected with Christian festivals; probably they were still entirely dependent upon the wants and wishes of individuals. But the idea of cohabitation being excluded for a time by religious exercises, is found both among the Jews (Exodus 19:15; 1 Samuel 21:4) and the heathen. See Wetstein and Dougt. Anal. II. p. 111 f. Comp Test. XII. Patr. p. 673: καιρὸς γὰρ συνουσίας γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ καιρὸς ἐγκρατείας εἰς προσευχὴν αὐτοῦ.

καὶ πάλιν ἦτε] still dependent on ἵνα, indicates σεμνῶς the being together again for matrimonial intercourse. With respect to ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό,[1077] comp on Acts 1:15.

ἵνα μὴ πειράζῃ κ.τ.λ[1079]] design of the ΚΑῚ ΠΆΛΙΝ … ἮΤΕ: in order that Satan may not tempt you to sin (to breach of the marriage-vow) on account of your incontinency, because ye are incontinent; for “Satanas vitiorum scintillas excitat,” Grotius. Ἀκρασία, which occurs again in the N. T. in its older form of ἈΚΡΆΤΕΙΑ, Matthew 23:25, comes from ἈΚΡΑΤΉς (ΚΡΑΤΕῖΝ), and is the opposite of ἘΓΚΡΆΤΕΙΑ. See Lobeck, a[1080] Phryn. p. 524; Stallbaum, a[1081] Plat. Rep. p. 461 B. Rückert conjectures that the word means: not mingling in matrimonial intercourse (on account of your non-participation therein). This is quite against usage; for ἀκρᾱσία (with the Α long, from ἌΚΡΑΤΟς), in the Ionic form ἈΚΡΗΣΊΗ, means bad mixture, as opposed to εὐκρασία. See Theophrastus, c. pl. iii. 2. 5; TDio Cassius, lxxvii. 22. Paul had reason enough to affirm incontinency of the Corinthians generally, and to call their attention in warning to this lack of moral strength, on which the devil would base his attempts to find access to them with his temptations. Comp 2 Corinthians 2:11.

[1075] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1077] Erasmus remarks rightly: “ut intelligas, eos ante fuisse separatos thalamis.”

[1079] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1080] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1081] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 7:6. Τοῦτο] does not refer to what follows (J. Cappellus, Rosenmüller), which it does not suit; nor to 1 Corinthians 7:2 (Beza, Grotius, de Wette, Gratama, Baur, Hofmann); nor to all that has been said from 1 Corinthians 7:2 onwards (Bengel, Pott, Flatt, Billroth, Rückert, Osiander), for 1 Corinthians 7:2-4 contain precepts actually obligatory; nor to κ. πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἦτε (Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, Cornelius a Lapide, al[1083]), which is but a subordinate portion of the preceding utterance. It is to this utterance: μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε … ἀκρ. ὑμῶν, which directly precedes the ΤΟῦΤΟ, that it can alone be made to refer without arbitrariness,—an utterance which might have the appearance of an ἘΠΙΤΑΓΉ, but is not intended to be such. What Paul means is this: Although I say that ye should withhold yourselves from each other by mutual agreement only perhaps for the season of prayer, and then come together again, so as to escape the temptations of Satan; yet that is not to be understood by way of command, as if you might not be abstinent at other times or for a longer period ἐκ συμφώνου, but by way of indulgence (“secundum indulgentiam,” Vulgate), so that thereby concession is made to your lack of continency, it is allowed for. Theophylact puts it well: συγκαταβαίνων τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ὑμῶν, and Erasmus: “consulo vestris periculis.”

ΣΥΓΓΝΏΜΗ occurs here only in the N. T. (Ecclus., pref. 1 and 1 Corinthians 3:13), but very often in Greek writers,—not, however, in the LXX. It means invariably either forgiveness, or, as here, forbearance, indulgence, γνώμη κριτικὴ τοῦ ἐπιεικοῦς ὀρθή, Aristotle, Eth. vi. 11. Hammond and Pott transgress the laws of the language by making it the same as κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην. So even Valckenaer; comp Calovius, Flatt, Heydenreich, al[1085] Ewald, too, renders without any support from the usage of the language: “with the best conscience.”

[1083] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1085] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

1 Corinthians 7:7. I do not say by way of command that you should withhold yourselves only for the time of prayer and then be together again; but indeed (δέ) I wish that every one had the gift of continency, as I myself, and so could restrain himself, not merely at such isolated periods for some particular higher end; still (and that justifies what I said: κατὰ συγγνώμην) this gift is not vouchsafed to all. There is no more ground for supposing that μέν should be supplied (after λέγω) in connection with this δέ, than there is in 1 Corinthians 7:2 (against Rückert).

ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν] as also I myself, that is to say, endued with the donum continentiae, ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ, Chrysostom. See what follows. He does not mean his state of single life, but its charismatic basis. The καί is, as for instance in Acts 26:29, the quite commonly used καί of comparison.

χάρισμα] a special endowment bestowed by divine grace, fitting him for the purposes of the kingdom of God. Comp on 1 Corinthians 12:1-4; Romans 12:6. It is of course, and necessarily (because communicated through the Spirit), conceived as existing within the church. The words πάντας ἀνθρώπους do not contradict this; for Paul could most warrantably wish to all men that gracious gift, which he as a Christian was conscious that he possessed, and as to which he knew that even within the Christian pale it was vouchsafed to one and withheld from another.

ὁ μὲν οὕτως Κ.Τ.Λ[1087]] is not to be understood as if the first οὕτως meant the gift of continence, and the second a man’s suitableness for wedded life (de Wette, with older commentators, beginning with Theodoret and Theophylact), but in a quite general sense: the one has his peculiar gift of grace after this fashion, the other in that; the one so, the other so. Under this general statement, the possession of continence, or some other gracious endowment in its place, is included. As to the double οὕτως, comp LXX. 2 Samuel 11:25 : ποτὲ μὲν οὕτως καὶ ποτὲ οὕτως καταφάγεται ἡ ῥομφαία, also Jdg 18:4; 2 Kings 5:4; 2 Samuel 17:15. It is not so used in Greek writers.

[1087] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Λέγω δὲ] leads on from what is contained in 1 Corinthians 7:7 (from the subjective wish of the apostle and its objective limitation) to the rules flowing therefrom, which he has now to enunciate. Rückert holds that the transition here made by Paul is from the married to the unmarried. But were that the case, τοῖς δὲ ἀγάμοις would require to stand first (comp 1 Corinthians 7:10); the emphasis is on λέγω.

τοῖς ἀγάμοις] what is meant is the whole category, all without distinction, including both sexes, not simply widowers (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Estius, al[1090], including Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth, Ewald); for the phrase opposed to it, τοῖς γεγαμηκόσι, in 1 Corinthians 7:10, embraces both sexes; and hence ἀγάμ. cannot apply to the unmarried men alone (Rückert). The additional clause, κ. ταῖς χήραις, by no means justifies a restrictive rendering; for in it the καί does not mean also (Hofmann), but, as the connective and, singles out specially from the general expression something already included in it: and in particular the widows. The idiom is an ordinary one both in classical and N. T. Greek (Matthew 8:33; Mark 16:7; and often elsewhere); see Fritzsche, a[1091] Marc. p. 11, 713. Comp here Soph. O. R. 1502: χέρσους φθαρῆναι κἀγάμους. It was a special wish of Paul’s, therefore, that the widows should remain unwedded, doubtless in the interests of the church (Romans 16:1; 1 Timothy 5:9 ff.).

καλὸν (as in 1 Corinthians 7:1) αὐτοῖς, sc[1093] ἐστι; comp 1 Corinthians 7:40.

ἐὰν μείνωσιν κ.τ.λ[1095]] if they shall have remained as I also (have remained), i.e. unmarried. The opposite of this is γαμησάτωσαν, 1 Corinthians 7:9. The Ὡς ΚἈΓΏ therefore receives here from the context a different meaning than in 1 Corinthians 7:7. Luther, Grotius, and others infer from this passage that Paul was a widower;[1096] so, too, Ewald. But this conclusion rests upon the assumption, which is linguistically inadmissible, that ἀγάμοις denotes widowers alone (i.e. χῆροι); and, moreover, would not be a safe inference even were the assumption sound. Acts 7:58, moreover, is against this; for one could not place Paul’s marriage after the stoning of Stephen.

οὐκ ἐγρατεύονται] to be closely joined together: are incontinent. See Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 122; Maetzner, a[1097] Antiph. p. 267; Ameis on Hom. Od. ii. 274. The verb ἐγκρατεύεσθαι (Sir 19:6) is foreign to the older Greek, although this precise phrase: ΟὐΚ ἘΓΚΡΑΤ., is sanctioned by Thomas, p. 30, and Phryn. p. 442. See Lobeck, a[1098] Phryn. l.c[1099]

γαμησάτ.] Regarding the later form of the aorist ἘΓΆΜΗΣΑ, see Lobeck, a[1100] Phryn. p. 742.

ΠΥΡΟῦΣΘΑΙ] to be in a flame, of vehement emotions (2 Corinthians 11:29; 2Ma 4:38; 2Ma 10:35; 2Ma 14:45; of love, Anacreon, 1 Corinthians 10:13); it means here, “occulta flamma concupiscentiae vastari,” Augustine, de sancta, virginit. 34. Comp Suicer, Thes. II. p. 895; from the Rabbins, the history of Amram in Lightfoot, Horae, p. 190; from the classics, Jacobs, Del. Epigr. v. 34.

κρεῖσσον] not because it is the least of two evils (Rückert, Kling; comp Estius), but because to marry is no sin (1 Corinthians 7:28; 1 Corinthians 7:36), while to burn is sinful (Matthew 5:28).

[1090] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1091] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1093] c. scilicet.

[1095] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1096] The prevalent and correct tradition of the ancient church was that Paul was never married (Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostom, al.). The contrary is stated in Clem. Alex. (in Eus. H. E. iii. 30).

[1097] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1098] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1099] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[1100] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.