To the rest, those cases in which one party was a believer and the other not (mixed marriages), "speak I, not the Lord." Yet, while St. Paul does not claim to expound and apply a formal law, he must not be considered as abnegating for the time his apostolic office and giving an opinion simply personal. The decision pronounced here is a very weighty one, and obviously it is an utterance of God's will. "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, what shall he do? That depends on the wife herself. The initiative step is not with the husband: "If she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." So of the wife with respect to her husband. Obviously, then, personal will is contemplated, and the difference between marriage where both parties are Christians, and marriage where only one party is a Christian, lies in the fact that, in the latter instance (mixed marriages), the continuance of the relationship is contingent on the adaptiveness of the parties each to the other and their ready disposition to be a mutual source of happiness. The will of the Lord is that they keep together, and they should endeavour to fulfil this will, but if controversies exist and the true ends of marriage are not only not met, but cannot be met, then at the option of the wife, the husband may put her away. The converse holds good, so that in the case of either party, individual will may interpose a bar to the continued union. "God hath called us to peace." In such a solemn act, no wilfulness, no passion, no worldly and selfish motives, must have place. "Peace," and "peace" only, can warrant the step. And in connection with "peace" he presents two views, one antecedent, the other subsequent, to the statement, that "a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." A Christian husband or wife sanctifies the marriage tie, and accordingly it was pleasing to God that the relationship should be perpetuated. "I am not the rose," says a Persian proverb, "but I live with the rose, and am therefore sweet" What grace comes to us through the tender associations of life, much of it unconscious, silent and secret, asking no leave, provoking no resistance, floating into us on the air and mingling with our blood, sweetening and purifying we know not how, and all the more precious because our agency is for a while quietly set aside, and the Spirit of the blessed Jesus asserts his Divine supremacy! "Children" too! The declaration is strong and unequivocal: "They are holy" Age was before the Fall; childhood came after; and childhood had net been possible but for the promise of the "Seed of the woman" antedating her other offspring. "Of such is the kingdom of heaven. Baptism does not create this holiness, but acknowledges its existence, and testifies, on the part of God and on behalf of the Church, that "your children" are in Christ and therefore "holy." What a motive this, that the marriage relation in these "mixed marriages" should be maintained! What an appeal to instinct, to memory and hope, to all the truest and noblest sentiments which are the strength and stay of home! All the grandest influences of Christianity come from the heart of Christ to our hearts; and whenever intellect is perplexed and doubts arise and logic confesses its weakness, we fall back on the great, sure, primal instincts of the heart, and work thence and upward into light and assurance. "Your heart shall live forever," and because it shall "live forever," it lives now amidst intellectual conflicts and bewildering questions with an inherent testimony to Christ and his truth such as could only spring from the immovable consciousness of its mortal birthright. Turn now to the subsequent statement contained in the sixteenth verse. Hatred and contentions may arise; if incurable, "peace" must be had by separation. But St. Paul is exceedingly anxious to prevent a severance of the marriage tie, and hence appeals to the believing husband or wife to continue in the holy relationship in view of the possible salvation of the unbelieving partner. By some learned men this interpretation is contested. According to their view, St. Paul meant to express uncertainty, to throw doubt on the sacred utility of the marriage union with regard to its prospective bearing on the salvation of the unbelieving party, and virtually to advise the believer to look after his or her own spiritual interest. This is not like St. Paul. It is not in accord with his generous solicitude to impress upon the parties the sanctity of their union. It is at variance with the declaration that Christianity recognizes the sanctification of the unbelieving party by the believing. It conflicts with his statement concerning the "holy" children, or at least abates much of its force as a reason why the marriage should not he disrupted. Congruity must be maintained, and congruity in this instance - so it seems to us - demands that this verse, "What knowest thou," etc., should be construed in close sympathy with the context. A break here would not only be at the expense of the general argument, but a violation of unity at its most essential point, viz. as a nexus between what precedes and what follows. Understand what the time was. Outwardly the sceptre of Rome ruled, tranquillity was maintained, and the disturbances which came on some years later scarcely gave a threatening sign of their approach. But, notwithstanding this condition of things, the foundations of society were undermined, and the instincts of men, though unable to foresee the changes that were to occur, were conscious of impending revolutions. Unrest was common, and unrest never appears alone. A host of apprehensions, an undefinable dread, a disposition to exaggerate dangers, never fail to attend it. St. Paul's disciples could not escape this atmospheric feverishness, and consequently one of his solicitudes was to keep them contented with their allotments in life. If Christianity proposed to regenerate human society, one of the conditions on which this vast result rested was: "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called" to be a Christian. Whether circumcised or uncircumcised, let him remain satisfied. Was he a servant? "Care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." Providence that had the past on its side was the best providence for them. "Therein abide with God," Was not this contentment one of the elements of that sanctification in marriage, and one of the means of holiness in children, and again one of the agencies for the furtherance of the Spirit's work in the unbelieving husband or wife? To this one point all the lines of his thought converge, viz. let peace be your object, and, in order to attain it, be contented with your position. Beyond question, St. Paul ardently desired to see certain of these positions changed, but he would not have his disciples to be agitators and revolutionizers. Is this a plea for blind conservatism, for an Oriental lethargy, for an unaspiring and unhoping slavishness to things as they were? Does the argument forestall progress? Nay, at that very moment a mighty revolution was going on in society. Christianity guarded all rights and interests; Christianity protected the marriage institution; Christianity, in due time, would make the slave a freedman. But "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," and Christianity must be left to do its work according to God's method. - L.

I. IF BOTH PARTIES ARE BELIEVERS — according to our Lord's command.

1. Not by divorce.

2. But by mutual conciliation.

II. IF ONE PARTY IS AN UNBELIEVER — according to apostolic prescription.

1. Not by divorce.

2. But by patience in the believing party, .that by example, &c., the unbelieving party and the children may be saved.

III. IF THE UNBELIEVING PARTY BRINGS ABOUT A SEPARATION.

1. By submission, love to God must predominate.

2. God can overrule it for good.

3. Everyone must content himself with the appointments of Providence.

(J. Lyth, D. D.)

The Cherokee marriage ceremony is very expressive. The man and woman join hands over running water, to indicate that their lives are thenceforth to flow in one stream.

is —

I. A SAD EVIDENCE OF HUMAN DEPRAVITY. Except in the case of confirmed lunacy —

1. It originates —

(1)In marrying out of impure motives.

(2)In the loss of affection,

(3)In the unfaithfulness of one or both parties.

2. Is opposed —(1) To the express command of our Lord (Matthew 5:31; Matthew 19:1-12), which is founded on the deep significance of the marriage bond (Matthew 19:6; Ephesians 5:32).(2) To the diffusion of the kingdom of God, as exerting a deleterious influence on the general welfare of mankind.

II. CANNOT BE ENTIRELY DISALLOWED.

1. The Lord permits it in certain instances (Matthew 5:39), and the apostle extends the permission m an exceptional case (ver. 15).

2. Yet so long as there is hope of reconciliation, every means must be used to maintain an unbroken union.

3. Separation is therefore allowable when it is evident that a perpetuated union will only be a source of sin, or that it will prove perilous to the salvation of the innocent party.

(J. Lyth, D. D.)

Having spoken of celibacy and marriage, the apostle now deals with the case of those already married.

I. WHERE BOTH PARTIES ARE CHRISTIAN. In this case Christ has decided, and Paul refers them to His words (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9).

1. The marriage bond is indissoluble. This arises from the relationship itself, as well as from the Divine appointment. Husband and wife are ideally one; the bond has no parallel in the world; God has made the union sacred by blessing it.

2. Separation is not to be final. The cause of separation (ill-treatment, &c.) may or may not be sufficient to justify it, but it must not be regarded as severing the tie. The wife must remain unmarried, or she must be reconciled to her husband. The latter is the desirable course, inasmuch as husband and wife cannot go apart without scandal to the Christian name. Let them reconsider their position, and remove every barrier to union.

II. WHERE ONE PARTY IS CHRISTIAN AND THE OTHER HEATHEN. Christ had given no utterance on mixed marriages, and therefore Paul gives his inspired judgment regarding them. Consider the case where —

1. The unbelieving partner is content to remain. The Christian spouse is not to seek a separation as if the marriage were unholy (ver. 14). The apostle does not mean that an unbeliever by conjugal union with a believer becomes personally holy; but that he or she is consecrated. As the altar sanctifies the gift (Matthew 23:19), so the Christian reflects something of his character on everything connected with him. His property, business, family, are all in a sense holy as belonging to one who is in covenant with God, and are under His special protection. Hence the pagan partner is a privileged person on the ground of union with a Christian. The reason is significant (ver. 14). It was an accepted maxim that the children of such marriages were born within the Church. This principle was recognised among the Jews, as the case of Timothy shows (Acts 16:1-3). If, then, the children of such marriage are reckoned holy, the marriage from which they spring cannot be inconsistent with the law of God (Romans 11:6 and conversely). The children take their standing from the Christian parent, who is regarded as the nobler of the two.

2. The unbelieving partner refuses to remain. In this case the Christian is to acquiesce. For —(1) He or she "is not under bondage" (ver. 15). The marriage is not to be dissolved at the instance of the believing partner; but if the other refuses to remain, the contract is no longer binding. It would be a case of bondage if the one were held to a union which the other has wilfully broken up.(2) "God hath called us in peace." The gospel is not intended to produce strife; but if this be the result of the heathen partner continuing to dwell with the Christian, it were better to let him have his wish.(3) The Christian partner is not to prevent the departure of the other in the hope of being instrumental to conversion. This is at best uncertain, and peace is not to be hazarded therefore. And if such a union is not to be maintained for the sake of a possible conversion, much less is it to be contracted with that view. Conclusion:

1. This passage is generally adduced as the Bible warrant for the view that wilful desertion is a sufficient reason for divorce. Such desertion is a de facto rupture of the marriage bond, and stands on the same footing as adultery.

2. The evil of mixed marriages. They —

(1)Render the complete fellowship of husband and wife impossible.

(2)Break up domestic peace.

(3)Prevent family religion.

(4)Interfere with the religious training of children.

(H. Bremner, B. D.)

1. St. Paul makes a distinction between those things which he speaks by commandment and by permission; between what he says as being taught of God, and that which he speaks only as a servant, "called of the Lord and faithful."

2. It is plain that there are many questions in which right and wrong are fixed; while there are others where these terms depend on circumstances, e.g., there may be circumstances in which it is the duty of a Christian to be married, and others remain unmarried. In the case of a missionary it may be right to be married; in the case of a pauper, unable to maintain a family, it may be proper to remain unmarried. No fixed law can be laid down upon this subject.

3. These, therefore, are questions of casuistry, which depend upon the particular case: from which "casuistry" is derived. On these points the apostle speaks not by commandment, but by permission. This distinction is not between inspired and uninspired, but between a decision in matters of Christian duty, and advice in matters of Christian prudence. God cannot give advice; He can only issue a command. When we come to advice the human element is introduced.

4. There are three main questions on which the apostle here gives his inspired decision.

I. CONCERNING THE SANCTITY OF THE MARRIAGE BOND BETWEEN TWO CHRISTIANS (ver. 10).

1. Of all earthly unions almost this is the only one permitting of no change but that of death. It is that engagement in which man exerts his most awful and solemn power — that of parting with his freedom. And yet it is perhaps that relationship which is spoken of and entered into most carelessly. It is not an union merely between two creature, but between two spirits; and the intention of that bond is to perfect the nature of both, by giving to each sex those excellences in which it is naturally deficient.

2. There is no earthly relationship which has so much power to ennoble (ver. 16). The very power of saving belongs to it, and that of ruin too. For there are two rocks on which the soul must either anchor or be wrecked. The one is the "Rock of Ages," on which if the human soul anchors, it lives the blessed life of faith; against which if the soul be dashed, there ensues atheism — the worst ruin of the soul. The other rock is of another character. Blessed is the man or woman whose life-experience has taught a confiding belief in the excellences of the sex opposite to their own. And the ruin is second only to perdition. And it is the worst of these alternatives which the young risk when they form an inconsiderate union, and which parents risk when they bring up their children with no higher view than that of a rich and honourable marriage.

II. THE SANCTITY OF THE MARRIAGE BOND BETWEEN A CHRISTIAN AND A HEATHEN.

1. The question arose, Is not the marriage null and void? As if it were an union between one dead and one living. And that perpetual contact with a heathen, and therefore an enemy of God, is not that defilement? The apostle decides this with his usual inspired wisdom — the marriage bond is sacred still (vers. 12, 13).

2. Now for us the decision is not of so much importance as the reason in support of it, which amounts to this: If this were no marriage, but an unhallowed alliance, it would follow that the offspring could not be the children of God; but it is the instinctive conviction of every Christian parent, "My child is a child of God," or, in the Jewish form of expression, "My child is clean" (ver. 14). It follows if the children are holy in this sense of dedicated to God, then the marriage relation was not unhallowed, but sacred and indissoluble. The value of this argument in the present day depends on its relation to baptism. This question is whether we are baptized because we are the children of God, or, whether we are the children of God because we are baptized. Here the apostle's argument is unanswerable. He does not say that these children were Christian, or clean, because they were baptized, but because they were the children of one Christian parent.

3. Observe also the important truth which comes out collaterally from this argument — namely, the sacredness of impression, which arises from the close connection between parent and child. Possibly from the very first moments of consciousness we begin to impress ourselves on our children. There is scarcely one here who cannot trace back his religious character to some impression from one or other of his parents — a tone, a look, a word, a habit, or even, it may be, a bitter exclamation of remorse.

III. EXISTING RELATIONS (vers. 17, 20, 24). Christian men were to remain in them, and in them to develop the Christian life. Paul applies this principle in two ways.

1. Ecclesiastically (ver. 18). The Jews, after their conversion, were to continue Jews, if they would. Christianity required no change in these outward things. Paul circumcised Timothy, and used Jewish customs. It was not the duty of a Christian to overthrow the Jewish system, but to throw into it a Christian feeling. Let us apply this to modern duties. The great desire among men now appears to be to alter, and so have perfect institutions, as if they would make perfect men. Mark the difference between this feeling and that of the apostle (ver. 20). No man will get true rest for his soul in these days of controversy, until he has learned the significance of these wise words.

2. Civilly — to that relationship which, of all others, was the most difficult to harmonise with Christianity — slavery (ver. 21). Recollect —(1) That Christianity had made much way among slaves. No wonder that they embraced with joy a religion which taught the dignity of the human soul, and declared that rich and poor, master and slave, were equal in the sight of God. And yet it was to be feared lest men should be tempted to compel their masters and oppressors to do them right.(2) That all this occurred in an age in which slavery had reached its worst and most fearful form. And yet fearful as it was, the apostle says, "Care not for it." And hence we understand the way in which Christianity was to work. No doubt it will at length abolish slavery, war, &c., but there is not one case where we find Christianity interfering with institutions, as such: Onesimus Paul sent back to his master, but he told him of a higher feeling that would make him free with the shackle upon his arm. And so it was possible for the Christian then, as it is now, to be possessed of the highest liberty even under tyranny. It many times occurred that Christian men found themselves placed under an unjust government, and compelled to pay unjust taxes. The Son of Man showed His freedom not by refusing, but by paying them. His glorious liberty could do so without any feeling of degradation. Conclusion: It is possible from all this to draw a most inaccurate conclusion. Some men have spoken of Christianity as if it was entirely indifferent about public questions. This indifference is not to be found in the Apostle Paul. While he asserts that inward liberty is the only true liberty, he still goes on to say, "If thou mayest be free use it rather." Christianity gave to the slave the feeling of his dignity as a man, at the same time it gave to the Christian master a new view of his relation to his slave, and taught him to regard him "not now as a servant, but a brother beloved." And so by degrees slavery passed into freed servitude, and freed servitude, under God's blessing, may pass into something else.

(F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

The distinction here is not between his uninspired and inspired commands. If we say that he usually writes under Divine inspiration, but that when he speaks about celibacy it fails him, to return suddenly when he enters on the question of divorce, again to desert him when he writes on the case of mixed marriages, inspiration becomes at once(1) arbitrary, because there is nothing in the nature of the subjects to account for the difference; and(2) mechanical, because it comes and goes independently of the writer's mental activity. The explanation is that on the question of divorce Christ had legislated (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9); but on the other questions gave no direct decision. The question of divorce touches the inmost nature of marriage, as it was instituted by God at the beginning, and afterwards connected by Christianity with the union between Christ and the Church. For this reason Christ, as the Divine lawgiver, rescinded the Mosaic permission to divorce for other causes than adultery, and restored the original idea of marriage. Paul never dared to rescind a law of Moses. Yet the apostle draws various inferences from the words of Christ. One distinction between the teaching of Christ and of His apostles must necessarily be that Christ always commands. He never arrived at a conclusion through a process of reasoning, much less discussed a question and left it unanswered. This absolute certitude is essential in the revelation of central principles. But it would be destructive of all that is valuable in human effort if it extended to the minute details of life; if it decided beforehand every possible case of conscience, and reduced our moral activity to a mechanical conformity with unswerving and merely authoritative regulations. The danger attaches to all books of casuistry; but in a book accepted by the doubting conscience as containing Divinely-inspired casuistry, the effect is fatal. The writings of the apostles abound, on the other hand, in argument and inference, which sometimes end in practical decisions, sometimes only in the expression of an opinion. The decision is often left to the enlightened conscience of the spiritual man (cf. ver. 25). But apart from the teaching of Christ, the fons et origo of revelation, the inspiration of the apostles would have been an altogether different thing from what it is. We need not suppose that Christ gave the apostle an immediate revelation on the question of divorce. The general tradition of the Early Church and the narrative in the Acts points to an intimate connection between Paul and Luke. Indeed, our Lord's doctrine on that subject was in that age singular, and cannot fail to have been known among Christians throughout the world.

(Principal Edwards.)

Corinthians, PaulCorinthBeliever, Believeth, Christian, Consents, Content, Desire, Divorce, Dwell, Husband, Leave, Pleased, Separate, Unbeliever, Unbelieving, Willing1. He discusses marriage;
4. showing it to be a remedy against sinful desires,
10. and that the bond thereof ought not lightly to be dissolved.
20. Every man must be content with his vocation.
25. Virginity wherefore to be embraced;
35. and for what respects we may either marry, or abstain from marrying.

1 Corinthians 7:1-13

     5736   singleness

1 Corinthians 7:8-16

     5711   marriage, restrictions

1 Corinthians 7:10-13

     8341   separation

1 Corinthians 7:10-15

     5398   loss

1 Corinthians 7:10-16

     5745   women

1 Corinthians 7:12-13

     7105   believers

1 Corinthians 7:12-16

     6257   unbelievers

Forms Versus Character
'Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.'--1 COR. vii. 19. 'For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.'--GAL. v. 6. 'For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.'--GAL. vi. 16 (R.V.). The great controversy which embittered so much of Paul's life, and marred so much of his activity, turned upon the question whether a heathen man could come …
Alexander Maclaren—Romans, Corinthians (To II Corinthians, Chap. V)

Slaves and Free
'He that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's free man: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.'--1 COR. vii. 22. This remarkable saying occurs in a remarkable connection, and is used for a remarkable purpose. The Apostle has been laying down the principle, that the effect of true Christianity is greatly to diminish the importance of outward circumstance. And on that principle he bases an advice, dead in the teeth of all the maxims recognised by worldly …
Alexander Maclaren—Romans, Corinthians (To II Corinthians, Chap. V)

The Christian Life
'Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.'--1 COR. vii. 24. You find that three times within the compass of a very few verses this injunction is repeated. 'As God hath distributed to every man,' says the Apostle in the seventeenth verse, 'as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches.' Then again in the twentieth verse, 'Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he is called.' And then finally in our text. The reason for …
Alexander Maclaren—Romans, Corinthians (To II Corinthians, Chap. V)

Marriage and Celibacy.
Preached January II, 1852. MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. "But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep as though they wept not; and they that rejoice as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away."--1 Corinthians vii. 29-31. The subject of our exposition last Sunday was an essential portion …
Frederick W. Robertson—Sermons Preached at Brighton

A Drama in Five Acts
Dear brethren, the important lesson which we endeavor to teach this morning is just this--that because time is so short, and the things of this world so frail and fleeting, it becomes us always to look at the things which are seen in their true character, and never to build substantial hopes on unsubstantial comforts, nor seek for solid joy from unreal things. In order that I may make this matter very plain, and may be the more likely to enlist your attention, and to secure the friendship of your …
Charles Haddon Spurgeon—Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 8: 1863

How to Use the Present Life, and the Comforts of It.
The divisions of this chapter are,--I. The necessity and usefulness of this doctrine. Extremes to be avoided, if we would rightly use the present life and its comforts, sec. 1, 2. II. One of these extremes, viz, the intemperance of the flesh, to be carefully avoided. Four methods of doing so described in order, sec. 3-6. 1. BY such rudiments we are at the same time well instructed by Scripture in the proper use of earthly blessings, a subject which, in forming a scheme of life, is by no mean to be …
Archpriest John Iliytch Sergieff—On the Christian Life

Family Religion.
"Lo! where yon cottage whitens through the green, The loveliest feature of a matchless scene; Beneath its shading elm, with pious fear, An aged mother draws her children near, While from the Holy Word, with earnest air, She teaches them the privilege of prayer. Look! how their infant eyes with rapture speak; Mark the flushed lily on the dimpled cheek; Their hearts are filled with gratitude and love, Their hopes are centered in a world above!" The Christian home demands a family religion. This makes …
Samuel Philips—The Christian Home

The Apostolic Scriptures.
"And I think that I also have the Spirit of God."--1 Cor. vii. 40. We have seen that the apostolate has an extraordinary significance and occupies a unique position. This position is twofold, viz., temporary, with reference to the founding of the first churches, and permanent, with regard to the churches of all ages. The first must necessarily be temporary, for what was then accomplished can not be repeated. A tree can be planted only once; an organism can be born only once; the planting or founding …
Abraham Kuyper—The Work of the Holy Spirit

It Is, Therefore, the Present Necessity that we are to Avoid...
14. It is, therefore, the present necessity that we are to avoid, but yet such as is a hindrance to somewhat of the good things to come; by which necessity the married life is forced to have thought of the things of the world, how to please, the husband the wife or the wife the husband. Not that these separate from the kingdom of God, as there are sins, which are restrained by command, not by counsel, on this account, because it is matter of condemnation not to obey the Lord when He commands: but …
St. Augustine—Of Holy Virginity.

But Lest any Should Think that of Two Works...
19. But lest any should think that of two works, the good and the better, the rewards will be equal, on this account it was necessary to treat against those, who have so interpreted that saying of the Apostle, "But I think that this is good by reason of the present necessity," [2056] as to say that virginity is of use not in order to the kingdom of heaven, but in order to this present time: as though in that eternal life, they, who had chosen this better part, would have nothing more than the rest …
St. Augustine—Of Holy Virginity.

After that the Same Apostle Adds, and Says...
15. After that the same Apostle adds, and says, "Thou art bound to a wife, seek not loosening: thou art loosed from a wife, seek not a wife." [2050] Of these two, that, which be set first, pertains unto command, against which it is not lawful to do. For it is not lawful to put away a wife, save because of fornication, [2051] as the Lord Himself saith in the Gospel. But that, which he added, "Thou art loosed from a wife, seek not a wife," is a sentence of counsel, not of command; therefore it is lawful …
St. Augustine—Of Holy Virginity.

Yet He Added, "But Such Shall have Tribulation of the Flesh...
16. Yet he added, "But such shall have tribulation of the flesh, but I spare you:" [2053] in this manner exhorting unto virginity, and continual continence, so as some little to alarm also from marriage, with all modesty, not as from a matter evil and unlawful, but as from one burdensome and troublesome. For it is one thing to incur dishonor of the flesh, and another to have tribulation of the flesh: the one is matter of crime to do, the other of labor to suffer, which for the most part men refuse …
St. Augustine—Of Holy Virginity.

Far be It, Therefore, that the Apostle So Said...
20. Far be it, therefore, that the Apostle so said, unto such as are married or are about to marry, "But I spare you," as if he were unwilling to say what punishment is due to the married in another life. Far be it that she, whom Daniel set free from temporal judgment, be cast by Paul into hell! Far be it that her husband's bed be unto her punishment before the judgment seat of Christ, keeping faith to which she chose, under false charge of adultery, to meet either danger, or death! To what effect …
St. Augustine—Of Holy Virginity.

For not Even Herein Ought Such as are Married to Compare Themselves with The...
10. For not even herein ought such as are married to compare themselves with the deserts of the continent, in that of them virgins are born: for this is not a good of marriage, but of nature: which was so ordered of God, as that of every sexual intercourse whatever of the two sexes of human kind, whether in due order and honest, or base and unlawful, there is born no female save a virgin, yet is none born a sacred virgin: so it is brought to pass that a virgin is born even of fornication, but a sacred …
St. Augustine—Of Holy Virginity.

Here Some one Will Say, what Has this to do with Holy virginity...
21. Here some one will say, What has this to do with holy virginity, or perpetual continence, the setting forth of which was undertaken in this discourse? To whom I make answer in the first place, what I mentioned above, that the glory of that greater good is greater from the fact that, in order to obtain it, the good of married life is surmounted, not the sin of marriage shunned. Otherwise it would be enough for perpetual continence, not to be specially praised, but only not to be blamed: if it …
St. Augustine—Of Holy Virginity.

Let Marriages Possess their Own Good, not that they Beget Sons...
12. Let marriages possess their own good, not that they beget sons, but that honestly, that lawfully, that modestly, that in a spirit of fellowship they beget them, and educate them, after they have been begotten, with cooperation, with wholesome teaching, and earnest purpose: in that they keep the faith of the couch one with another; in that they violate not the sacrament of wedlock. All these, however, are offices of human duty: but virginal chastity and freedom through pious continence from all …
St. Augustine—Of Holy Virginity.

And Now by Plainest Witnesses of Divine Scriptures...
22. And now by plainest witnesses of divine Scriptures, such as according to the small measure of our memory we shall be able to remember, let it more clearly appear, that, not on account of the present life of this world, but on account of that future life which is promised in the kingdom of heaven, we are to choose perpetual continence. But who but must observe this in that which the same Apostle says a little after, "Whoso is without a wife has thought of the things of the Lord, how to please …
St. Augustine—Of Holy Virginity.

And not Without Just Cause a Doubt is Raised...
14. And not without just cause a doubt is raised, whether he said this of all married women, or of such as so many are, as that nearly all may be thought so to be. For neither doth that, which he saith of unmarried women, "She, that is unmarried, thinkest of the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit:" [1973] pertain unto all unmarried women: whereas there are certain widows who are dead, who live in delights. However, so far as regards a certain distinction and, as it were, character …
St. Augustine—On the Good of Marriage

And yet not to These Themselves is Marriage a Sin...
11. And yet not to these themselves is marriage a sin; which, if it were chosen in comparison of fornication, would be a less sin than fornication, and yet would be a sin. But now what shall we say against the most plain speech of the Apostle, saying, "Let her do what she will; she sinneth not, if she be married;" [1966] and, "If thou shalt have taken a wife, thou hast not sinned: and, if a virgin shall have been married, she sinneth not." [1967] Hence surely it is not lawful now to doubt that marriage …
St. Augustine—On the Good of Marriage

There is this Further, that in that Very Debt which Married Persons Pay One...
4. There is this further, that in that very debt which married persons pay one to another, even if they demand it with somewhat too great intemperance and incontinence, yet they owe faith alike one to another. Unto which faith the Apostle allows so great right, as to call it "power," saying, "The woman hath not power of her own body, but the man; again in like manner also the man hath not power of his own body, but the woman." [1943] But the violation of this faith is called adultery, when either …
St. Augustine—On the Good of Marriage

Further, in the Very Case of the More Immoderate Requirement of the Due Of...
6. Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage. Therefore married persons owe one another not only …
St. Augustine—On the Good of Marriage

Therefore the Good of Marriage Throughout all Nations and all Men Stands in The...
32. Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place, not even where …
St. Augustine—On the Good of Marriage

Therefore as Many Women as There are Now...
19. Therefore as many women as there are now, unto whom it is said, "if they contain not, let them be married, [1986] ^" are not to be compared to the holy women then, even when they married. Marriage itself indeed in all nations is for the same cause of begetting sons, and of what character soever these may be afterward, yet was marriage for this purpose instituted, that they may be born in due and honest order. But men, who contain not, as it were ascend unto marriage by a step of honesty: but …
St. Augustine—On the Good of Marriage

But I Marvel, If, as it is Allowed to Put Away a Wife Who...
7. But I marvel, if, as it is allowed to put away a wife who is an adulteress, so it be allowed, having put her away, to marry another. For holy Scripture causes a hard knot in this matter, in that the Apostle says, that, by commandment of the Lord, the wife ought not to depart from her husband, but, in case she shall have departed, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband; [1950] whereas surely she ought not to depart and remain unmarried, save from an husband that is an adulterer, …
St. Augustine—On the Good of Marriage

1 Corinthians 7:13 NIV
1 Corinthians 7:13 NLT
1 Corinthians 7:13 ESV
1 Corinthians 7:13 NASB
1 Corinthians 7:13 KJV

1 Corinthians 7:13 Bible Apps
1 Corinthians 7:13 Parallel
1 Corinthians 7:13 Biblia Paralela
1 Corinthians 7:13 Chinese Bible
1 Corinthians 7:13 French Bible
1 Corinthians 7:13 German Bible

1 Corinthians 7:13 Commentaries

Bible Hub