1 Corinthians 7:1-16

Principles for Marriage: 1 Corinthians 7:1–16✞

Passage

I sometimes warn us away from assuming biblical writers are suddenly changing topics; because of the way we often read Scriptures verse by verse we can sometimes take very small passages of Scripture out of their context, as if all books of the Bible were just like Proverbs: just little nuggets of wisdom, verse by verse. But in this case Paul signals that he really is changing topics:

¹ Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

“Now,” Paul is saying, “let’s put that aside and talk about the questions you wrote about.” The quotations indicate where the translators believe is Paul quoting the Corinthians’ letter: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” Depending which version of the Bible you’re reading, you may or may not have the quotation marks; at a glance, I saw that ESV and NIV do, whereas KJV, NKJV, and NASB don’t. In this case, I don’t think it makes much difference: whether Paul is directly quoting the Corinthians’ letter or this is his own thought he’s declaring to them, he’s in general agreement with it. Yes, it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.

However, Paul will continue, life isn’t quite that simple, is it?

² 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. ⁵ Do not deprive one another, 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.

So it’s good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman (or, presumably, a woman not to have sexual relations with a man), but that’s not always realistic. Why would it not be realistic? Because most people have a sexual nature. That’s a term I’m making up, but I need some term to contrast with people who are like Paul, who have the gift of singleness; most people aren’t like Paul, we are sexual beings. Despite the impression you might get from reading this passage in isolation, the Bible overall promotes sex as something for husbands and wives to delight in with each other. Most of us are made with those desires as part of our being.

So it’s not realistic for everyone to live as Paul did, because most people have that sexual nature. And when it’s not realistic, people should get married! Not just get married, but get married and have sex with each other.

That last point might sound overly obvious, but given this context it’s part of the point Paul is making. In Paul’s mind there’s no such thing as a “sexless marriage.” If you’re a man and you get married you no longer have sole dominion over your own body; it now belongs to your wife. And if you’re a woman and you get married, your body now belongs to your husband. I wonder if, in the [slightly more] patriarchal society in which Paul lived, that sounded extreme. “Yes, of course the husband controls his wife’s body,” they might have thought, “but she has authority over his as well?!? Unheard of!”

I wouldn’t be surprised if people try to do all kinds of things with verse 5, coming up with special occasions or rituals or something by which husbands and wives can separate themselves to devote themselves to prayer, but if so, keep in mind that that’s not at all what Paul is trying to talk about here. All he’s saying is that husbands and wives should have relations with each other and not deprive each other; if they do have to deprive one another, it should be for a specific reason, and they should come back together again to continue as they were before.

So does this mean people shouldn’t travel for work? I don’t think so. All through history there have been jobs that required men to travel: sailors; those who traveled to sell their wares; soldiers; jobs like lumberjacks, where men lived away from home for extended periods of time; and many others. I don’t get the impression Paul is saying you’re not allowed to do that (or that you’re only allowed to travel for work if you bring your spouse along). The point is not that you need to be having relations on some kind of set schedule, the point is that you’re not to deprive one another. That’s the reason he talks about us not owning our own bodies, but our spouses having dominion over them: when I’m home, I’m not doing right by my wife if I refuse to have relations with her.

But then Paul comes back to something he was saying earlier: if it’s possible, it is good not to have sex, if that’s your gift.

⁶ Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. ⁷ I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

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 burn with passion.

In Christian circles I’ve often heard people referring to Paul as having the “gift of singleness.” Not everyone wants to get married, and not everyone feels that sexual urge. If that’s you, Paul would say that’s a gift! It’s good to be single! Are you unmarried? Or a widow? (Or, presumably, widower?) It’s good for you to stay single.

But if you don’t have that gift—if you have sexual urges—Paul says that it’s better for you to get married than to say single and try to fight those urges. It is not a noble endeavour to try to serve God as a single person, rejecting the person He made you to be, and simply fighting against your nature.

And finally, because Paul is talking so much about marriage, he also talks about divorce:

¹⁰ To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband ¹¹ (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

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. 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. ¹⁵ But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. ¹⁶ For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Firstly, I personally don’t make much of Paul saying “I’m saying this, but the Lord says this, but I say this.” He’s trying to make clear things he’s directly pulling from Scriptural laws (I presume) and the teachings of Jesus, as opposed to judgement calls he’s making without a direct word from God. In my opinion, however, if it’s in the Bible, it’s something we should be listening to, so I wouldn’t have a lot of patience for someone saying, “I don’t need to listen to that part, because that was just Paul’s opinion, not God’s Word.”

So the first thing Paul says in verses 10–11 is that Christian marriages shouldn’t end in divorce. He distinguishes between wives “separating” from their husbands vs. husbands “divorcing” their wives, but I don’t think he’s trying to make a theological point here; it was probably just more common for women to separate from their husbands but for husbands to outright divorce their wives. (Roman law permitted either husbands or wives to divorce.) What I’m sure Paul is not doing is getting overly specific: “Wives should not separate from their husbands, but they can divorce them; man shouldn’t divorce their wives but they can separate from them.” That would be a silly way of reading the text.

Also, I don’t think Paul is trying to negate what Jesus said about divorce, that it’s “permitted” in the case of infidelity. I’m absolutely certain that Paul is not saying, “Jesus allowed divorce in those cases but I don’t.” But both Paul and Jesus were clear: divorce is a big deal, and Christians shouldn’t be divorcing except in the most dire of cases.

Then, in verses 12–16, Paul says something very straightforward – with one very confusing point buried in the middle! But first for the straightforward part: If you’re Christian, and you find yourself married to a non-Christian, you don’t need to divorce them. Stay married! I’m presuming Paul has in mind the case of someone who gets married and then comes to Christ but their spouse doesn’t, but it could just as easily apply if a Christian marries a non-Christian, regardless of whether they were supposed to in the first place.

However, if you’re in that situation and your non-Christian spouse wants to leave you, then you should let them go. I’m going to make another assumption here and say Paul probably means if they’re leaving you because you’re a Christian, and the religious differences are the problem; if they’re leaving you for other reasons, just like with any other marriage, you’d probably be better off trying to work things out with them. But if they want to divorce you because they simply can’t live with a Christian, then you should let them go.

And… to me, this always seemed very straightforward. Life is complicated; it’s messy. People come to Christ at all stages of life, so yes, some will become Christians when they’re already married – and in some cases, one spouse will but the other won’t. We also make mistakes, so a Christian might very well decide to marry a non-Christian, for a variety of reasons, only to find later on that there were unanticipated difficulties. Or maybe to think things through and start to feel guilty. “I did something I shouldn’t have done – should I divorce them?” No, Paul would say, you shouldn’t – but if they divorce you, you can let them go.

However.

As straightforward as all of that is, Paul throws in verse 14 for us:

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.

WHAT is Paul TALKING about??? How does being married to a Christian make a non-Christian “holy?!?” What does Paul mean by “unclean” vs. “holy” children?

Let me state the obvious – what even the newest Christian, who knows little about the Christian faith, knows: Paul is not talking about salvation. We are saved through faith in Jesus Christ; marrying a Christian person doesn’t mean the non-Christian person is now also a Christian, or saved. That non-Christian spouse can come to faith later, and become a Christian, by having faith in Jesus, just like anyone else, but they don’t get to remain unsaved and yet somehow also get an eternity with God because of their marriage.

And all of that applies to the kids, too. Whether one, both, or none of your parents is Christian, you yourself will become a Christian through faith in Jesus Christ, or you won’t become a Christian at all. Faith in Jesus is the only way to be saved, it’s not something that’s passed down in your genes.

So… that’s what it’s not, but it doesn’t help us understand what Paul means by spouses or children being “made holy.” Because we don’t really know what the word “holy” means in the first place! Which is actually kind of simple: to be “holy” just means “to be set apart for God.” The utensils in the Old Testament Temple, that were holy? They were holy because they were set apart for that use; they weren’t used for anything else. They weren’t magic. They didn’t have special properties. They were knives and forks and whatnot; but they were only to be used for that one purpose.

And just because something was holy—was set apart for God—doesn’t mean it was actually used for God. If you were a goldsmith making knives and forks out of gold for the Temple, you were making things that were only to be used for that one purpose, so they were holy – but not every knife and fork that was made necessarily got used in the Temple.

I’m stretching the point a little bit, because I’m sure the majority of utensils and other holy items that were made for the Temple were actually used there, but a non believing spouse or a child could be “holy” in a sense (and I think Paul is using this word in an evocative sense, not in a legalistic sense), but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll come to faith. To quote the ESV Study Bible:

1 Cor. 7:14 made holy . . . are holy. These are the same terms (Gk. hagiazō, hagios) used earlier for God’s separation of Corinthian Christians from their pagan environment as his special people (1:2; 3:17; 6:1, 2, 11). The unbelieving spouse and children in a family with a believing spouse are not saved by this association (7:16), but they do come under the believing spouse’s Christian influence and so, Paul notes, they are much more likely to be saved in due course through their own faith. Thus they are in a real sense “set apart” (the basic meaning of hagiazō and hagios) from other unbelievers and from the evil of the world. Thus the positive spiritual and moral influence of the believing parent outweighs the negative influence of the unbelieving parent.

ESV Study Bible

When I say Paul is using the term “holy” in an evocative sense, I guess what I really mean is that he’s using a figure of speech. He’s not claiming that an unbelieving spouse or a child has some kind of special status with God because of the one Christian spouse/parent in the marriage, but it is a very warm, comforting word for Paul to use! He is trying to comfort the Christian spouse/parent in the marriage: just because your spouse isn’t a Christian, doesn’t mean all hope is lost!

Thoughts

I’m guessing this passage is a tough one for many people in North America to read – especially single women. Because Paul’s advice for those who have a sexual nature is simple: get married! Instead of staying single and trying to battle against your desires, just marry someone! Of course, the Bible also makes it clear that Christians should marry other Christians. And… many local churches in North America are missing that one key ingredient needed to make those marriages happen: single men. So who are these single, Christian women supposed to marry?

And of course, they don’t just want to get married because Paul is advising them to in this passage, they want to get married because they want to get married. It’s a normal desire that most people have! So they read this passage and I’m guessing there’s an immense temptation to get bitter. “All I want to do is get married, and here Paul is advising marriage as a solution to my desires, but God hasn’t given me anyone to marry!”

So, for many people, the only solution available to them is the very one Paul advises against here: for whatever reason they remain single, so they have to fight their temptations. And I would say that, even though it’s not Paul’s preferred way to handle the situation, it is possible; you can have self control. Despite me saying that most of us have a “sexual nature,” we’re not animals! We have the Holy Spirit; we have self control directly from Him. Paul’s point is that it’s not easy to go against your nature, and it’s better not to have to in the first place, but it can be done, even if it’s something you hadn’t wanted to do in the first place.

By all means, keep praying for someone to come into your life that you can marry. And, in the meantime, keep praying for self control. And if you fail, pick yourself back up and pray some more, that you won’t fail again. There are no unforgivable sins.