Teks -- 1 Corinthians 7:1 (NET)

Celibacy and Marriage

7:1 Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

Tafsiran/Catatan -- Catatan Kata/Frasa (per frasa)

Robertson: 1Co 7:1 - Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote ( peri de hōn egrapsate ).

An ellipsis of peri toutōn , the antecedent of peri hōn , is easily supplied as in papyri. The church had written Paul a letter in which a number of specific problems about marriage were raised. He answers them seriatim . The questions must be clearly before one in order intelligently to interpret Paul’ s replies. The first is whether a single life is wrong. Paul pointedly says that it is not wrong, but good (kalon ). One will get a one-sided view of Paul’ s teaching on marriage unless he keeps a proper perspective. One of the marks of certain heretics will be forbidding to marry (1Ti 4:3). Paul uses marriage as a metaphor of our relation to Christ (2Co 11:2; Rom 7:4; Eph 5:28-33). Paul is not here opposing marriage. He is only arguing that celibacy may be good in certain limitations. The genitive case with haptesthai (touch) is the usual construction.

Vincent: 1Co 7:1 - It is good

It is good ( καλὸν )

See on Joh 10:11. Not merely expedient, but morally salutary. The statement, however, is made in the light of circumstances, see 1Co 7:26, and is to be read with others, such as 2Co 11:2; Rom 7:4; Eph 5:28-33, in all which marriage is made the type of the union between Christ and His Church. See also Heb 13:4.

Wesley: 1Co 7:1 - It is good for a man

Who is master of himself.

Wesley: 1Co 7:1 - Not to touch a women

That is, not to marry. So great and many are the advantages of a single life.

JFB: 1Co 7:1 - good

That is, "expedient," because of "the present distress"; that is, the unsettled state of the world, and the likelihood of persecutions tearing rudely asunder those bound by marriage ties. Heb 13:4, in opposition to ascetic and Romish notions of superior sanctity in celibacy, declares, "Marriage is HONORABLE IN ALL." 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.

Clarke: 1Co 7:1 - The things whereof ye wrote unto me

The things whereof ye wrote unto me - It is sufficiently evident that the principal part of this epistle was written in answer to some questions which had been sent to the apostle in a letter from the Corinthian Church; and the first question seems to be this: "Is it proper for a man to marry in the present circumstances of the Church?"The question concerning the expediency or inexpediency of marriage was often agitated among the ancient philosophers; and many, though inclined to decide against it, because of the troubles and cares connected with it, tolerated it in their opinions; because, though an evil, it was judged to be a necessary evil. The words of Menander are full to this effect: Γαμειν, εαν τις την αληθειαν σκοπῃ, κακον μεν εστιν, αλλ ’ αναγκαιον κακον· "If a man consider marriage in a proper point of view, it is an evil; but then it is a necessary evil."Metellus Numidicus spoke of it nearly in the same way. Si sine uxore possemus, Quirites, esse, omnes ea molestia careremus; sed quoniam ita natura tradidit, ut nec Cum Illis salis commode, nec Sine Illis ullo modo vivi possit, saluti perpetus potius quam brevi voluptati consulendum . "If, O ye Romans, we could live unmarried, we should be saved from a great deal of trouble; but, seeing that nature has so ordered it that we cannot live very comfortably with wives, and without them cannot live at all, marriage should be adopted, not for the sake of the short-lived pleasure, but rather for perpetual safety."But this was not the common opinion; the Jews absolutely required that every man should marry, and reputed those as murderers who did not. - See on 1Co 7:6 (note). By the laws of Lycurgus unmarried persons were prohibited from seeing the public games. By the laws of the Spartans bachelors were punished. And Plato declares all such unworthy of any honor. And to this the commentator says, Amen

Clarke: 1Co 7:1 - Not to touch a woman

Not to touch a woman - Γυναικος μη ἁπτεσθαι· The learned reader need not be informed in what sense ἁπτομαι is used among the Greeks, and langere among the Latins. For examples Wetstein may be consulted.

Calvin: 1Co 7:1 - NO PHRASE

As he had spoken of fornication, he now appropriately proceeds to speak of marriage which is the remedy for avoiding fornication. Now it appears, that, notwithstanding the greatly scattered state of the Corinthian Church, they still retained some respect for Paul, inasmuch as they consulted him on doubtful points. What their questions had been is uncertain, except in so far as we may gather them from his reply. This, however, is perfectly well known, that immediately after the first rise of the Church, there crept into it, through Satan’s artifice, a superstition of such a kind, that a large proportion of them, through a foolish admiration of celibacy, ³⁶⁷ despised the sacred connection of marriage; nay more, many regarded it with abhorrence, as a profane thing. This contagion had perhaps spread itself among the Corinthians also; or at least there were idly-disposed spirits, who, by immoderately extolling celibacy, endeavored to alienate the minds of the pious from marriage. At the same time, as the Apostle treats of many other subjects, he intimates that he had been consulted on a variety of points. What is chiefly of importance is, that we listen to his doctrine as to each of them.

1. It is good for a man. The answer consists of two parts. In the first, he teaches that it were good for every one to abstain from connection with a woman, provided it was in his power to do so. In the second, he subjoins a correction to this effect, that as many cannot do this, in consequence of the weakness of their flesh, these persons must not neglect the remedy which they have in their power, as appointed for them by the Lord. Now we must observe what he means by the word good, when he declares that it is good to abstain from marriage, that we may not conclude, on the other hand, that the marriage connection is therefore evil — a mistake which Jerome has fallen into, not so much from ignorance, in my opinion, as from the heat of controversy. For though that great man was endowed with distinguished excellences, he labored, at the same time, under one serious defect, that when disputing he allowed himself to be hurried away into great extravagancies, so that he did not keep within the bounds of truth. The inference then which he draws is this “It is good not to touch a woman: it is therefore wrong to do so.” ³⁶⁸ Paul, however, does not make use of the word good here in such a signification as to be opposed to what is evil or vicious, but simply points out what is expedient on account of there being so many troubles, vexations, and anxieties that are incident to married persons. Besides, we must always keep in view the limitation which he subjoins. Nothing farther, therefore, can be elicited from Paul’s words than this — that it is indeed expedient and profitable for a man not to be bound to a wife, provided he can do otherwise. Let us explain this by a comparison. Should any one speak in this way: “It were good for a man not to eat, or to drink, or to sleep” — he would not thereby condemn eating, or drinking, or sleeping, as things that were wrong — but as the time that is devoted to these things is just so ³⁶⁹ much taken from the soul, his meaning would be, that we would be happier if we could be free from these hindrances, and devote ourselves wholly ³⁷⁰ to meditation on heavenly things. Hence, as there are in married life many impediments which keep a man entangled, it were on that account good not to be connected in marriage.

But here another question presents itself, for these words of Paul have some appearance of inconsistency with the words of the Lord, in Gen 2:18, where he declares, that it is not good for a man to be without a wife. What the Lord there pronounces to be evil Paul here declares to be good I answer, that in so far as a wife is a help to her husband, so as to make his life happy, that is in accordance with God’s institution; for in the beginning God appointed it so, that the man without the woman was, as it were, but half a man, and felt himself destitute of special and necessary assistance, and the wife is, as it were, the completing of the man. Sin afterwards came in to corrupt that institution of God; for in place of so great a blessing there has been substituted a grievous punishment, so that marriage is the source and occasion of many miseries. Hence, whatever evil or inconvenience there is in marriage, that arises from the corruption of the divine institution. Now, although there are in the meantime some remains still existing of the original blessing, so that a single life is often much more unhappy than the married life; yet, as married persons are involved in many inconveniences, it is with good reason that Paul teaches that it would be good for a man to abstain. In this way, there is no concealment of the troubles that are attendant upon marriage; and yet, in the meantime, there is no countenance given to those profane jests which are commonly in vogue with a view to bring it into discredit, such as the following: that a wife is a necessary evil, and that a wife is one of the greatest evils. For such sayings as these have come from Satan’s workshop, and have a direct tendency to brand with disgrace God’s holy institution; and farther, to lead men to regard marriage with abhorrence, as though it were a deadly evil and pest.

The sum is this, that we must remember to distinguish between the pure ordinance of God and the punishment of sin, which came in subsequently. According to this distinction, it was in the beginning good for a man, without any exception, to be joined to a wife, and even yet, it is good in such a way, that there is in the meantime a mixture of bitter and sweet, in consequence of the curse of God. To those, however, who have not the gift of continency, it is a necessary and salutary remedy in accordance with what follows.

TSK: 1Co 7:1 - good // touch

good : 1Co 7:8, 1Co 7:26, 1Co 7:27, 1Co 7:37, 1Co 7:38; Mat 19:10,Mat 19:11

touch : Gen 20:6; Rth 2:9; Pro 6:29

Tafsiran/Catatan -- Catatan Kata/Frasa (per Ayat)

Poole: 1Co 7:1 - it is good for a man not to touch a woman

1Co 7:1-9 Marriage is to be used as a remedy against fornication. 1Co 7:10,11 Christ hath forbidden to dissolve the bond thereof. 1Co 7:12-16 Directions how to act where one of the parties is an

unbeliever. 1Co 7:17-24 Every man must abide in and fulfil the duties of the

state wherein he was called. 1Co 7:25-38 Directions concerning the marriage of virgins,

respecting the distress of the times, 1Co 7:39,40 and concerning the second marriage of widows.

It seemeth, that though this church was very much corrupted, yet some of them retained a reverence for this great apostle, and had wrote one or more letters to him about some points, to which he returneth answer. It seemeth that one thing they had wrote to him about, was about marriage; not about the lawfulness of marrying, (that doctrine of devils was not broached so early in the world), but concerning the advisableness of marriage, and men’ s use of their wives, in that afflicted state of the church. The apostle answereth, that

it is good for a man not to touch a woman When he saith: It is good, he means only more convenient, or better, with respect to the troubled state of the church, or that persons might be more at liberty for the service of God and the duties of religion. Upon these accounts it were more convenient for a man not to marry, for that he meaneth by touching a woman.

Haydock: 1Co 7:1 - Now concerning // It is good

Now concerning. The heads of the Church of Corinth had written to St. Paul, desiring to know whether he thought it more expedient to marry or not. This was a question which the sages of antiquity had frequently taken into consideration. To this question St. Paul here delivers his opinion. (Calmet) ---

Others, with greater probability, suppose the chief question proposed to St. Paul was, whether they were not bound, upon their conversion, to abstain from their infidel wives. (St. Jerome, cont. Jovin. chap. iv.; St. John Chrysostom, on this location, hom. xix. ---

To this he answers in v. 12. and 13. ---

It is good. That is, according to the style of the Scriptures, it is better, if we consider the advantage of every particular, &c. (Witham)

Gill: 1Co 7:1 - Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me // it is good for a man not to touch a woman

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me,.... Though the false apostles had greatly influenced the members of this church, yet there were many among them that had a very great respect for the apostle, and kept up a correspondence with him, though at a distance from him, by writing; in which way they informed him of their doubts and difficulties, that arose in their minds about certain things, and desired his judgment in them, to which they paid a very great deference. The things they wrote to him about, here referred to, may be collected from the contents of this chapter, and some others following; as whether a Christian man ought not to abstain from the use of women; whether a believer ought to live with an unbelieving yoke fellow; whether such as had been circumcised should not make use of some methods to draw on the foreskin of their flesh; whether apprentices, who were called by the grace of God, ought to serve out their time with their masters; and concerning celibacy or virginity, the eating of things offered to idols, and the maintenance of ministers: and he begins with the first; to which he answers,

it is good for a man not to touch a woman; which is to be understood, not of merely touching a woman, which can neither be criminal, nor in all cases inexpedient, or be attended with any ill, or dangerous consequences; nor of the matrimonial contract, which is lawful and honourable; but of the act of carnal copulation with a woman: in this sense the Jews use the phrase,

"there are three (they say ^r) that fled from transgression, and the blessed God joined his name with them; and they are these, Joseph, and Joel, and Phalti. Joseph, as appears from what is said, Psa 81:5 "a testimony in Joseph is his name"; what is the meaning of the phrase "in Joseph?" this testifies concerning him, שלא נגע באשת פוטיפר, "that he did not touch Potiphar's wife" (i.e. he did not lie with her); Jael, as is clear from what is said, Jdg 4:18 "and Jael went forth to meet Sisera, and she covered him with a mantle"; what is the meaning of the phrase, בשמיכה? (which is rendered, "with a mantle";) our Rabbins here (in Babylon) say with a linen cloth; but our Rabbins there (in the land of Israel) say with bed clothes; says Resh Lekish, if we run over the whole Scripture, we shall not find any household goods so called; wherefore what is it? it is all one as שמי כה, "my name is thus": and the meaning is, my name witnesses concerning her, שלא נגע בה אותו רשע, "that that wicked one (Sisera) did not touch her" ^s; (i.e. had not carnal knowledge of her;) Phalti, as is evident from hence, one Scripture says, "and Saul gave Michal his daughter to Phalti", 1Sa 25:44 and another Scripture says Phaltiel; sometimes he is called Phalti, and sometimes he is called Phaltiel; who takes Phalti? and who gives Phaltiel? but I testify concerning him; שלא נגע באשת דוד, "that he did not touch David's wife"; (i.e. did not lie with her;)''

see Gen 20:6. And in this sense also is the word "touch" used, both by Greek and Latin authors. The apostle's meaning is not that it is unlawful to marry, or that it is sinful to lie with a woman in lawful wedlock; but that it is much better, and more expedient on several accounts, to abstain from the use of women, when persons have the gift of continency.