Now Concerning the Things Whereof Ye Wrote · 1 Corinthians 7
Marriage, Singleness, and Divorce
Chapter 7 answers questions the Corinthians actually asked Paul, not a treatise he chose to write. Read in that order, it corrects two opposite errors at once: marriage is not second-class, and singleness is not required, each is a real gift, and Paul commends his own preference without ever commanding it. The chapter carries real wounds too: a direct word from the Lord on separation, Paul’s own Spirit-carried instruction for a mixed marriage, and the single most argued clause in the letter, “not under bondage.” This page walks all of it in order, names the positions, and never issues a verdict the text’s own readers still dispute.
Moritz Daniel Oppenheim, The Wedding, 19th century. Public domain.
Summary
1 Corinthians 7 answers the Corinthians' own questions on marriage, singleness, and divorce, correcting an ascetic error without ever making singleness a command. The page walks the chapter in order: the marriage bed owed, singleness honored as a gift, the Lord's own word on separation, Paul's own instruction to mixed marriages, and the chapter's most contested clause, 'not under bondage,' with the historic positions named.
- 7:1-5: marriage is honorable, and the marriage bed is a mutual duty neither spouse may simply withhold
- 7:6-9: Paul commends singleness as his own gift and states plainly he is not commanding it
- 7:10-11: the Lord's own command against separation, tied to Mark 10:11-12
- 7:12-16: Paul's own Spirit-carried instruction to mixed marriages, explicitly marked off from a direct saying of Jesus, both delivered as Scripture
- 7:15's 'not under bondage' carries three historic positions on remarriage after an unbeliever's departure, each named with real holders, no house verdict
Now Concerning What You Wrote
7:1: the letter answered, not a treatise volunteered
Six times across this letter Paul opens a new subject with “now concerning” (7:1, 7:25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1, 16:12), each time picking up a question the Corinthians had actually put to him in a letter of their own. Chapter 7 is Paul answering, not volunteering a freestanding doctrine of marriage. The widely held reconstruction of what Corinth asked: an ascetic party in the church was arguing that real spirituality meant leaving marriage and sex behind entirely. Paul spends the whole chapter correcting that error without overcorrecting into the opposite one.
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good to abstain from sexual relations.“Good... not to touch a woman” is read by the gate’s own commentators as a period colloquialism for marrying, not a blanket suspicion of touch or affection between a husband and wife; the very next verses make that plain.
“Marriage is HONORABLE IN ALL, in opposition to ascetic and Romish notions of superior sanctity in celibacy. Another reason why in some cases celibacy may be a matter of Christian expediency is stated in 1Co 7:34, 35, ‘that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.’ But these are exceptional cases, and in exceptional times, such as those of Paul.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871
1 Cor 7:1
“It is good for a man - Who is master of himself. Not to touch a woman - That is, not to marry. So great and many are the advantages of a single life.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, 1755
1 Cor 7:1
The Marriage Bed
7:2-5: owed, and not withheld
But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. Do not deprive each other, except by mutual consent and for a time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.Verse 4 states the conjugal duty with a mutuality unusual for its period: the wife has authority over the husband’s body in the same breath the husband has authority over hers. Abstinence is permitted, but only by mutual consent, only for a season, only for the purpose of prayer, and Paul names a real danger in stretching it too far: it opens a door to temptation, not virtue.
“The dignity of marriage is set forth by Paul (Eph 5:25-32), in the fact that it signifies the mystical union between Christ and the Church. The duty of cohabitation on the part of the married. due benevolence - The oldest manuscripts read simply, ‘her due’; that is, the conjugal cohabitation due by the marriage contract (compare 1Co 7:4).”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871
1 Cor 7:2
“Persons expose themselves to great danger by attempting to perform what is above their strength, and at the same time not bound upon them by any law of God. If they abstain from lawful enjoyments, they may be ensnared into unlawful ones. The remedies God hath provided against sinful inclinations are certainly best.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1710
1 Cor 7:5
A Gift, Not a Command
7:6-9: Paul's own preference, honored without being imposed
I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and widows I say this: It is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.Verse 6 is explicit: “by way of concession, not of commandment.” Singleness is Paul’s own gift from God (v.7), not a superior achievement any believer can reach by trying hard enough; the unmarried and widows are told it is good if they can bear it, with marriage named as the plain, honorable alternative for anyone who cannot.
“For I would that all men were herein even as I - I would that all believers who are now unmarried would remain ‘eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.’ St. Paul, having tasted the sweetness of this liberty, wished others to enjoy it, as well as himself.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, 1755
1 Cor 7:7
“It is better to marry than to burn. Bishop Pearce translates the original thus: For it is better to marry than to be made uneasy. Πυρουσθαι signifies primarily to burn, but in a metaphorical sense, to be troubled, vexed, or made uneasy. It would be well to soften the sense of this word in reference to the subject of which the apostle speaks. He cannot mean burning with lust only, no more than Virgil means so when he says, Uritur infelix Dido, the unfortunate Dido is tormented.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible, 1832
1 Cor 7:9
What the Lord Himself Said
7:10-11: the one command in the chapter Paul marks off as dominical
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.Paul names his source directly: “not I, but the Lord.” This is the Synoptic divorce saying, the fullest form of which stands in Mark:
So He told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”“I command, yet not I, but the Lord - I do not give my own private opinion or judgment in this case; for the Lord Jesus commands that man shall not put asunder them whom God hath joined, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:6. And God has said the same, Gen 2.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible, 1832
1 Cor 7:10
“But his meaning is that the Lord himself, with his own mouth, had forbidden such separations, Matt. v. 32; xix. Man and wife cannot separate at pleasure, nor dissolve, when they will, their matrimonial bonds and relation. They must not separate for any other cause than what Christ allows.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1710
1 Cor 7:11
A genuine difference across the Gospel harmony, named honestlyMatt 5:32; 19:9 vs. Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18
Matthew’s two versions of this saying carry a “porneia” exception clause (“saving for the cause of fornication”); Mark and Luke state the principle without naming it. Mark also adds a detail absent from Matthew’s parallels, a wife herself “putting away” her husband (10:12), which many read as Mark writing for a Gentile, Greco-Roman audience where a wife could initiate divorce under Roman law, unlike under first-century Jewish practice. This page names the difference rather than harmonizing it away; the porneia-exception question is its own contested field, addressed on its own terms wherever the site treats Matthew’s Gospel directly.
“Not the Lord, but I”
7:12-16: Paul's own Spirit-carried instruction to mixed marriages
To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.Corinth had a case Jesus had not addressed in His earthly ministry: a spouse converts, the other does not. Paul answers it himself, “not the Lord.” This is not Paul disclaiming inspiration; he claims the Spirit outright at the chapter’s close (7:40). It distinguishes a case where he has a direct saying of Jesus to cite from a case where he must reason from principle as an apostle, both delivered as Scripture.
“Because it is a law expressly appointed by Christ which he is about to read to them about the ‘not putting away a wife without fornication,’ therefore he says, ‘Not I.’ True it is what was before spoken though it were not expressly stated, yet it also is His decree. But this, you see, He had delivered in express words. So that the words ‘I and not I’ have this difference of meaning. For that you might not imagine even his own words to be human, therefore he added, ‘For I think that I also have the Spirit of God.’”
John Chrysostom · Homily on 1 Corinthians 19, 407
1 Cor 7:10-11
“I have spoken in regard to the duties of the unmarried, and the question whether it is right and advisable that they should marry. I have also uttered the command of the Lord in regard to those who are married, and the question whether separation and divorce were proper. That was settled by divine authority. Not the Lord - I do not claim, in this advice, to be under the influence of inspiration; I have no express command on the subject from the Lord; but I deliver my opinion as a servant of the Lord, and as having a right to offer advice, even when I have no express command from God, to a church which I have founded, and which has consulted me on the subject.”
Albert Barnes · Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments, 1832-1869
1 Cor 7:12
“Not Under Bondage”
7:15: the chapter's most argued clause, three positions, real holders
But if the unbeliever leaves, let him go. The believing brother or sister is not bound in such cases. God has called you to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?When an unbelieving spouse leaves, the believer is “not under bondage.” What that phrase covers, freedom from guilt and from any obligation to fight for the marriage, or freedom to remarry, is the single most argued question in the chapter. Three positions hold real ground, each with named historic holders. No verdict is stamped here; Marcus’s own slot below carries where he lands.
The Erasmian, majority Protestant reading.Desertion by an unbeliever, like the porneia exception in Matthew, dissolves the marriage bond and frees the abandoned believer to remarry. The reading traces historically to Erasmus’s sixteenth-century annotations on Matthew 19 and was adopted broadly across Reformed and evangelical confessional tradition; Matthew Henry states it plainly.
“In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. And some think that such a malicious desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage-covenant as death itself. For how is it possible that the two shall be one flesh when the one is maliciously bent to part from or put away the other?”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1710
1 Cor 7:15
The permanence reading. The believer is freed from guilt and from any duty to keep chasing a marriage an unbeliever has ended, and from any requirement to renounce the faith to save it, but the phrase itself grants no right to remarry; only death dissolves the bond. Albert Barnes and Adam Clarke both state this explicitly, writing well after Erasmus, which shows both readings were already live options within Protestant commentary by the nineteenth century.
“But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. You cannot prevent it, and you are to submit to it patiently, and bear it as a Christian. A brother or a sister is not under bondage. Many have supposed that this means that they would be at liberty to marry again when the unbelieving wife or husband had gone away, as Calvin, Grotius, Rosenmuller. But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle.”
Albert Barnes · Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Old and New Testaments, 1832-1869
1 Cor 7:15
The Catholic frame, named as reception history.The Catholic tradition holds the marriage bond dissoluble only by death, distinguishing it from a declaration that a marriage was never validly contracted in the first place, a separate question from divorce. Thomas Aquinas states the seed of the distinction plainly in the thirteenth century, separating “bed and board” from “the bond” itself.
“But if she does separate, namely, on account of fornication, let her remain unmarried, as long as the husband is alive, because although the marriage is dissolved as to bed and board, not as to bond. Or else be reconciled to her husband.”
Thomas Aquinas · Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 1274
1 Cor 7:11
What this page does not settle
This page names three positions with real historic holders and stops there. It does not adjudicate which reading is correct, and it does not tell a reader currently living any of this chapter’s hardest verses what to do. Wherever a reader lands, the text itself is pastoral before it is a rulebook: “God hath called us to peace” (7:15), and the chapter closes trusting Paul’s own judgment to the Spirit, not to a formula.
Remain As You Were Called
7:17-24: one principle, three test cases
Each one should remain in the situation he was in when he was called. Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let it concern you—but if you can gain your freedom, take the opportunity. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman. Conversely, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each one should remain in the situation he was in when God called him.The chapter’s own refrain, “remain as you were called” (7:17, 7:20, 7:24), applies one principle to three separate cases: marital status, circumcision, and slavery. The gospel does not require a change in social station to be received.
“Or, But if there be no hope of gaining over the unbeliever, still let the general principle be maintained, ‘As the Lord hath allotted to each, as God hath called each, so let him walk’; let him walk in the path allotted to him and wherein he was called.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871
1 Cor 7:17
“Now, says the apostle, art thou called being a servant? Be not over-solicitous about it. It is not inconsistent with thy duty, profession, or hopes, as a Christian.”
Matthew Henry · Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1710
1 Cor 7:20
7:21's genuine grammatical ambiguity“use it rather”
“Use it rather” can be read two ways in the Greek: a slave offered freedom should seize it, or a slave offered freedom should waive it and remain a slave in order to serve Christ better where he already is. Both readings are grammatically live; the chapter’s own point, that a person’s standing before God does not depend on social station, holds either way, so this page does not adjudicate between them.
The Present Distress
7:25-31: circumstance-shaped counsel, offered as Paul's own judgment
Now about virgins, I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think it is good for a man to remain as he is.Paul ties his counsel toward singleness explicitly to an unspecified crisis of the moment, read by the gate’s commentators as ongoing persecution and hardship, not a timeless preference for celibacy over marriage in every era. Paul says so himself: “I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment.”
What I am saying, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who weep, as if they did not; those who are joyful, as if they were not; those who make a purchase, as if they had nothing; and those who use the things of this world, as if not dependent on them. For this world in its present form is passing away.“And this, also, was not their private opinion, but a divine rule of faith and practice. As one whom God hath made faithful in my apostolic office, who therefore faithfully deliver what I receive from him. This is good for the present distress - While any church is under persecution.”
John Wesley · Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament, 1755
1 Cor 7:25
“The image is drawn from a shifting scene in a play represented on the stage. Paul inculcates not so much the outward denial of earthly things, as the inward spirit whereby the married and the rich, as well as the unmarried and the poor, would be ready to sacrifice all for Christ's sake.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871
1 Cor 7:31
Free from Anxiety
7:32-38: two real, different advantages, neither a verdict on the other
I want you to be free from concern. The unmarried man is concerned about the work of the Lord, how he can please the Lord. But the married man is concerned about the affairs of this world, how he can please his wife, and his interests are divided. The unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the work of the Lord, how she can be holy in both body and spirit. But the married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world, how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but in order to promote proper decorum and undivided devotion to the Lord.The married person’s “divided” interest (v.34) is named honestly as a real, unavoidable feature of married life, not a defect, set beside the single person’s undivided devotion as a genuine, different advantage. Neither cancels the other; the doctrine of marriage itself, Genesis through the household codes, lives on its own page.
“Without carefulness - I would have you to be not merely ‘without trouble,’ but ‘without distracting cares.’ Careth - if he uses aright the advantages of his condition.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871
1 Cor 7:32
“The single man has very little trouble comparatively; the married man has a great deal. The single man is an atom in society; the married man is a small community in himself. The married man, far from being in a state of inferiority to the single man, is beyond him out of the limits of comparison. He can do all the good the other can do, and he can do ten thousand goods that the other cannot possibly do. Only for the present distress he gave his opinion that it was best for those who were single to continue so.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible, 1832
1 Cor 7:33
7:36-38’s father-and-virgin-daughter case is culturally specific, paternal authority over a daughter’s marriage in a first-century household, and is read here as that, not as a timeless procedure for any household.
Free, Only in the Lord
7:39-40: the widow's freedom closes the chapter where it opened
A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, as long as he belongs to the Lord. In my judgment, however, she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.Remarriage after a spouse’s death is fully free, restricted only by faith (“only in the Lord”), not by any further mourning period or family claim. Paul closes the chapter exactly as he opened it, distinguishing his own apostolic judgment from an explicit command of the Lord while still claiming the Spirit for it.
“The wife is bound by the law - This seems to be spoken in answer to some other question of the Corinthians: ‘May a woman remarry whose husband is dead?’ To which he replies, That as long as her husband is living the law binds her to him alone; but, if the husband die, she is free to remarry, but only in the Lord; she must not marry a heathen nor an irreligious man, and she should not only marry a genuine Christian, but one of her own religious sentiments.”
Adam Clarke · Commentary on the Bible, 1832
1 Cor 7:39
“Happier - I think also - ‘I also think’; just as you Corinthians and your teachers think much of your opinions, so I also give my opinion by inspiration; so in 1Co 7:25, ‘my judgment,’ or opinion.”
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown · Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871
1 Cor 7:40
- 6דnow concerning” across the letter
- 3positions named on 7:15, no verdict stamped
- 40verses, one continuous argument
- Mark 10:11-12the dominical saying 7:10-11 echoes
The Word Behind “Depart”
chōrízō, the chapter's own verb for marital separation
The words underneath
chorizo: to separate/leave
Greek · G5563Strong's entry: to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away
The verb behind “depart” and “separateth” at 7:10, 7:11, and twice at 7:15: to place room between, to part. Thirteen New Testament occurrences; this chapter carries four of them, more than any other.
13 times in the New Testament · chorizo, in full →
aphiemi: to release: permit
Greek · G863Strong's entry: to send forth, in various applications (as follow)
The verb behind “leave not” at 7:11-13, what the believing spouse is told NOT to do. One hundred forty-three occurrences across the New Testament; here it names the act Paul forbids, set directly against chōrízō, the act he permits an unbeliever to take.
143 times in the New Testament · aphiemi, in full →
Word studies
The Hebrew and Greek under this study, each word in its own room.
Keep studying
On this page