1 Corinthians 7:1,2

“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman; 2. but, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

The form περὶ δέ, now concerning, is common in the classics (see Heinrici, p. 60). Paul thereby intimates that he is passing to a new subject, but one which has already been raised. The περὶ ὧν ought certainly to be grammatically expanded in this way: περὶ ἐκείνων περὶ ὧν ἐγράψατέ μοι λέγω τάδε.

The δέ, now, lightly marks the contrast between the questions which Paul had treated at his own hand and those which were put to him by the letter of the Corinthians.

The pronoun μοί has been added rather than omitted by the copyists; there was no reason for rejecting it.

In what sense are we to take the word καλόν, it is good? Jerome, the great partisan of celibacy, took it in the moral sense: “it is holy...; ” and he did not fear to draw from it the conclusion: “If it is good not to touch, then it is bad to touch.” The logic of this argument is by no means unassailable. Anyhow, this consequence does not agree with the true notion of marriage according to St. Paul. To evade it, some have given the word καλόν, good, a purely utilitarian sense: “It is expedient...” And the possibility of this sense seems clearly to result from the comparison of Matthew 5:29 with Matthew 18:8, where in the same saying of Jesus the term συμφέρειν is used the first time, and καλόν the second. But the question is whether the word συμφέρειν itself has in the mouth of Paul and Jesus a purely utilitarian sense. In any case, it is not so in our Epistle, where, in the passages 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:23, and in 1 Corinthians 7:35 of our chapter, the word συμφέρειν certainly contains the notion of moral utility. With stronger reason ought it to be so with the word καλόν. In the well-known epithet καλὸς κἀγαθός, by which the Greeks designated the man every way honourable, man as he should be in all respects, the first adjective expressed the idea of beauty linked to that of goodness, the high propriety which distinguishes moral worth. Such, it seems to me, is the notion which the apostle would here express by the word καλόν. He proclaims aloud that the state of celibacy in a man is absolutely becoming and worthy, has nothing in it contrary to the moral ideal. There were assuredly at Corinth persons who maintained the contrary. This first verse has often been taken as a concession: “ No doubt it is well to... but ” (1 Corinthians 7:2). In this case, Paul must have said: καλὸν μέν. It becomes then a positive declaration, independent of what follows. Thereafter will come the restriction indicated by δέ.

In speaking thus, Paul felt himself supported by a decisive example, that of Jesus Christ, the realization of supreme moral beauty in human form, and moreover by the saying of Jesus, Luke 20:34-35: “The children of this world marry and are given in marriage; but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage,” a saying from which it followed that the splendour of the ideal shines still more perfectly in the person of the celibate than of the married Christian. No doubt there might have been quoted in objection to the apostle the words of God Himself: “It is not good that man should be alone,” οὐ καλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον (Gen 2:18). But the answer would not have been difficult. The believer who lives in union with Christ is no longer in the same position as the natural man. He has in the Lord that complement of his personal life, which the latter seeks in marriage. No doubt that does not prove and St. Paul, we shall see, does not seek to affirm that celibacy in itself is holier than married life. The point in question is one of dignity, propriety. The apostle means simply to assert that there is nothing unbecoming in a man's living in celibacy.

The expression μὴ ἅπτεσθαι, not to touch, does not refer, as Rückert has thought, to the conduct of those united in marriage; it is at a later stage (1 Corinthians 7:3-5) that Paul treats this point. He wishes to tranquillize unmarried persons who are uncertain about the line of conduct they have to follow. The expression used is probably borrowed from the letter of the Corinthians. Holsten thinks that the expression also applies to illicit relations. But in chap. 6 Paul had completely exhausted this subject.

After clearly reserving the honourableness of celibacy, Paul passes to the practical truth which he is concerned to establish, the general necessity of marriage. For, as Reuss says, “his object is rather to protest against ascetic exaggerations than to favour them.'

Vv. 2. The δέ is adversative: “ but, honourable as celibacy is, it should not be the rule.” The plural fornications refers to the numerous acts and varied temptations which abounded at Corinth. When he says, every man, every woman, Paul of course understands the exception pointed out in 1 Corinthians 7:7, and the case which he will treat specially 1 Corinthians 7:25-38 (virgins). Baur, Rothe, Scherer, Holsten, and even Reuss accuse the apostle of proceeding on a view of marriage much inferior to the moral ideal of the relation. It would seem that he regards it only as a makeshift intended to remove a greater evil. But it is forgotten that the apostle is not here framing a theory of marriage in general; he is answering precise questions which had been put to him, and of whose tendency and tenor we are ignorant. In our very chapter, 1 Corinthians 7:14 proves clearly that he knows the moral side of the relation perfectly; the same is true of the words 1 Corinthians 11:3, which make marriage the analogue of the most exalted of all things: the relation between Christ and the human soul; nay, even of the relation between God and Christ. Reuss acknowledges “that in other Epistles, marriage is spoken of from a less contemptuous point of view;” comp. Ephesians 5:25-27. Now, as it is improbable that Paul modified his conception of marriage, and as the passages of our Epistle quoted above show that in fact there is nothing of the kind, it must be concluded that in this exposition the apostle desired to keep strictly within the limits traced out for him by the questions of the Corinthians on the subject. But still, that marriage may correspond to the end pointed out, the life in this state must be in accordance with its nature. This is the meaning of the 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, which are a short digression; after which the apostle follows up in 1 Corinthians 7:6 the idea of 1 Corinthians 7:2.