{b) They are do justice and righteousness to every man, whatever may be his rank, character, or views. They are not to do any thing that will be calculated to give an unfavourable view of the religion which they profess to the men of the world.
(c) They are to discharge with fidelity all the duties of a father, husband, son, brother, friend, benefactor, or recipient of favours, towards those who are out of the church; or with whom they may be connected.
(c?) They are to do good to all men — to the poor, the afflicted, the needy, the widow, the fatherless.
(e) They are to endeavour so to live and act — so to converse, and so to form their plans as to promote the salvation of all others. They are to seek their spiritual welfare; and to endeavour by example, and by conversation; oy exhortation and by all the means in their power to bring them to the know-
go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
ledge of Christ For this purpose they are kept on the earth instead of being removed to heaven; and to this object they should devote their lives.
9 th. We see from this chapter who are not to be regarded as Christians, whatever may be their professions, ver.
11. A man who is, (1.) a fornicator; or, (2.) COVETOUS; or, (3.) an idolater; or, (4.) a railer; or, (5.) a drunkard; or, (6.) an extortioner, is not to be owned as a Christian brother. Paul has placed the covetous man, and the railer, and extortioners, in most undesirable company. They are ranked with foi nicators and drunkards. And yet how many such persons there are in the Christian church — and many, too, who would regard it as a special insult to be ranked with a drunkard or an adulterer. But in the eye of God both are alike unfit for his kingdom, and are to be regarded as having no claims to the character of Christians.
12, 13. The worid that is without the church — the mass of men that make no profession of piety, must give an account to God. They are travelling to his bar;. and judgment in regard to them is taken into God's own hands, and he will pronounce their doom. It is a solemn thing to be judged by a holy God; and they who have no evidence that they are Christians, should tremble at the prospect of being soon arraigned at his bar.
The main design of this chapter is to reprove the Corinthians for the practice of going to law before heathen courts, or magistrates, instead of settling their differences among themselves. It seems that after their conversion they were still in the habit of carrymg their causes before heathen tribunals, and this the apostle regarded as contrary to the genius and spirit of the Christian religion, and as tending to expose reli'
. gion to contempt in the eyes of the men of the world. He, therefore, (ver.l — 7,) reproves this practice, and shows them that their differences should be settled among themselves. It eeems also that the spirit of litigation and of covetousness had led them in some instances to practice fraud and oppression of each other, and he, therefore, takes occasion (ver. 8 — 11) to show that this was wholly inconsistent with the hope of heaven and the nature of Christianity.
It would seem, also, that some at Corinth had not only indulged in these and kindred vices, but had actually defended them. This was done by plausible, but sophistical arguments, drawn from the strong passions of men; from the fact that the body was made for eating and drinking, &^c. To these arguments the apostle replies in the close of the chapter, (ver. 12 — 20,) and especially considers the sin of fornication, to which they were particularly exposed in Corinth, and shows the heinousness of it, and its entire repugnance to the pure gospel of Christ.
1. Dare any of you. The reasons Why the apostle introduced this subject here may have been, (1.) That he had mentioned the subject of judging (ch. V. 13), and that naturally suggested the topic which is here introduced; and, (2.) This might have been a prevailing evil in the church of Corinth, and denianded correction. The word dare here implies that it was inconsistent with religion, and improper. ' Ca7i you do it; is it proper or right; or do vou presume so far to violate all the principles of Christianity as to do it.' 1 Having a matter. A subject of litigation; or a suit. There may be differences between men in regard to property and right, in which there shall be no blame on either side. They may both be desirous of having it equitably and amicably adjusted. It is not a difference between men that is in itself wrong, but it is the spirit with which ihe difference is adhered to, and the saints " shall judge the world?
unwillingness to have justice done that is so often wrong. ^ Against another* Another member of the church. A Christian brother. The apostle here directs his reproof against the plaintiff, as having the choice of the tribunal before which he would bring the cause, t Before the unjust. The heathen tribunals; for the word unjust here evidently stands opposed to the saints. The apostle does not mean that they were always unjust in their decisions, or that equity could in no case be hoped from them, but that they were classed in that division of the world v/hich was different from the saints, and is synonymous with unbelievers, as opposed to believers. ^ And not before the saints. Before Christians. Can you not settle your differences among yourselves as Christians, by leaving the cause to your brethren, as arbitrators, instead of going before heathen magistrates! The Jews would not allow any of their causes to be brought before the Gentile courts. Their rule was this, " He that tries a cause before the judges of the Gentiles, and before their tribunals, although their judgments are as the judgments of the Israelites, so this is an ungodly man," &c. Maimon. Hilch. Sanhedrim, ch. xxvi. § 7. They even looked on such an action as as bad as profaning the name of God.
2. Do ye not know, &c. The object of this verse is evidently to show that Christians were qualified to determine controversies which might arise among themselves. This the apostle shows by reminding them that they shall be engaged in determining matters of much more moment than those which could arise among the members of a church on earth; and that if qualified for that, they must be regarded as qualifier to express a judgment on the questions which might arise among their brethren in the churches. H The saints. Christiansy^ur the word is evidently used in the same sense as in ver. 1.
The apostle says that they knew this, or that this was so well estetblished a doctrine that none could doubt it. It was to be admitted on all hands. ^ Shall judge the world. A great variety of interpretations has been given to this passage. Grotius supposes it means that they shall be first judged by Christ, and then act as assessors to him in the judgment, or join with him in condemning the wicked; and he appeals to Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30, where Christ says that they which have followed him should " sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of-Israel." See Note on Matt. xix. 28. Whitby supposes that it means that Christians are to judge or condemn the world by their example, or that there shall be Christian magistrates, according to the prophecy of Isaiah (xlix. 23), and Daniel (vii.18). — Rosenmiiller supposes it means that Christians are to judge the errors and sins of men pertaining to religion, as in ch. ii. 13. 16; and that they ought to be able, therefore, to judge the smaller matters pertaining to this life. Bloomfield, and the Greek fathers, and commentators, suppose that this means, that the saints will furnish matter to condemn the world; that is, by their lives and example they shall be the occasion of the greater condemnation of the world. But to this there are obvious objections. (I.) It is an unusual meaning of the word judge. (2.) It does not meet the case before us. The apostle is evidently saying that Christians will occupy so high and important a station in the work of judging the world that tliey ought to be regarded as qualified to exercise judgment on the things pertaining to this life; but tlie fact that their holy lives shall be the occasion of the deeper condemnation of the world, does not seem to furnish any plain reason for this. — To the opinion, also, of Whitby, Iiightfoot, Vitringa, &c. that it refers to the fact that Christians would be magistrates, and governors, &c. according to the predictions of Isaiah and Daniel, there are obvious objections. (1.) The judgment to which Paul in this verse refers is different from that pertaining to things of this life (ver. 3), but the judgment which Christian magistrates would exercise, as such would relate to them. (2.) It is not easy to see in this interpretation how, or in what sense, the saints shall judge the angels, ver. 3. The common interpretation, that of Grotius, Beza, Calvin, Doddridge, &c. is that it refers to the future judgment, and that Christians will in that day be employed in some manner in judging the world. That this is the true interpretation, is apparent for the following reasons. (1.) It is the obvious interpretation— that which will strike the great mass of men, and is likely, therefore, to be the true one. (2.) It accords with the account in Matt. xix. 28, and Luke xxii. 30. (3.) It is the only one which gives a fair interpretation to the declaration that the saints should judge angels in ver. 3. If asked in what way this is to be done, it may be answered, that it may be meant simply that Christians shall be exalted to the right hand of the Judge, and shall encompass his throne; that they shall assent to, and approve of his judgment, that they shall be elevated to a post of honour and favour, as if they were associated with him in the judgment. They shall then be regarded as his friends, and express their approbation, and that with a deep sense of its justice, of the condemnation of the wicked. Perhaps the idea is, not that they shall pronounce sentence, which will be done by the Lord Jesus, but that they shall then be qualified to see the justice of the condemnation which shall be passed on the wicked; they shall have a clear and distinct
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more
view of the case; they shall even see the propriety of their everlasting punishment, and shall not only approve it, but be qualified to enter into the subject, and to pronounce upon it intelligently. And the argument of the apostle is, that if they would be qualified to pronounce on the eternal doom of men and angels; if they had such views of justice and right, and such integrity as to form an opinion and express it in regard to the everlasting destiny of an immense host of immortal beings, assuredly they ought to be qualified to express their sense of the smaller transactions in this life, and pronounce an opinion between man and man. ^ Are ye unworthy. Are you disqualified. \ The smallest matters. Matters of least consequence — matters of little moment, scarcely worth naming compared with the great and important realities of eternity. The " smallest matters" here mean, the causes, suits, and litigations relating to property, &c.
3. Shall judge angels. All the angels that shall be judged, good or bad. Probably the reference is to fallen angels, as there is no account that holy angels will then undergo a trial. The sense is, ' Christians will be qualified to see the justice of even the sentence which is pronounced on fallen angels. They will be able so to embrace and comprehend the nature of law, and the interests of justice, as to see the propriety of their condemnation. And if they can so far enter into these important and eternal relations, assuredly they ought to be regarded as qualified to discern the nature of justice among men, and to settle the unimportant differences which may arise in the church.' Or, perhaps, this may mean that the saints shall in the future world be raised to a rank in some respects more elevated than even idle angels in heaven. (Prof. Staart.) In what respects they will be thus elevated, if this is the true interpretation, can be only a matter of conjecture. It may be supposed that it will be because they have been favoured by being interested in the plan of salvation — a plan that has done so much to honour God; and that to have been thus saved by the immediate and painful intervention of the Son of God, will be a higher honour than all the privileges which beings can enjoy who are innocent themselves.
4. Ye have judgments. Causes; controversies; suits. ^ Things pertaining to this life. Property, &c. ^ Set them to judge, &cc. The verb translated set (K-J.^i^'.ri) may be either in the imperative mood, as in our translation, and then it will imply a command; or it may be regarded as in the indicative, and to be rendered interrogatively, ' Do ye set or appoint them to judge who are of little repute for their wisdom and equity ]' i. e. heathen magistrates. The latter is probably the correct rendering, as according to the former no good reason can be given why Paul should command thom to select as judges those who had little repute for wisdom in the church. Had he designed this as a command, he would doubtless have directed them to choose their most aged, wise and experienced men, instead of those " least esteemed." It is manifest, therefore, that this is to be read as a question: ' Since you are abundantly qualified yourselves to settle your own differences, do you employ the heathen magistrates, in whom the church can have little confidence for their integrity and justice V It is designed, therefore, as a severe reproof for what they had been accustomed to do; and an implied injunction that they should do it no more. t Who are least esteemed (i^-.vd-m/uhov;). Who are contemned, or regarded as of no value or worth; in whose judgment and integrity you can have little or no confidence. According to the interpretation given above o of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one
the previous part of the verse this refers to the heathen magistrates — to men in* whose virtue, piety and qualifications for just judgment Christians could have little confidence; and whose judgment must be regarded as in fact of very little value, and as very little likely to be correct. That the heathen magistrates were in general very corrupt there can be no doubt. Many of them were men of abandoned character, of dissipated lives, men who were easily bribed, and men, therefore, in whose judgment Christians could repose little confidence. Paul reproves the Corinthians for going before them with their disputes when they could better settle them themselves. Others, however, who regard this whole passage as an instruction to Christians to appoint those to determine their controversies who were least esteemed, suppose that this refers to the lowest orders of judges among the Hebrews; to those who were least esteemed, or who were almost despised; and that Paul directs them to select even them in preference to the heathen magistrates. See Lightfoot. But the objection to this is obvious and insuperable. Paul would not have recommended this class of men to decide their causes, but would have recommended the selection of the most wise and virtuous among them. This is proved by ver. 5, where, in directing them to settle their matters among themselves, he asks whether there is not a "wise man" among them, clearly proving that he wished their difficulties adjusted, not by the most obscure and the least respected members of the church, but by the most wise and intelligent members. t In the chur«h. By the church. That is, the heathen magistrates evince such 10*
that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
a character as not to be worthy of the confidence of the church in settlmg matters of controversy.
5. I speak to your shame. I declare that which is a reproach to you, that your matters of dispute are carried before heathen tribunals. \ Is it so, &c. Can it be that in the Christian church — the church collected in refined and enlightened Corinth — there is not a single member so wise, intelligent and prudent that his brethren may have confidence in him, and refer their causes to him 1 Can this be the case in a church that boasts so much of its wisdom, and that prides itself so much in the number and qualifications of its intelligent members?
6. But brother, &c. One Christian goes to law with another. This is designed as a reproof This was wrong, (1.) Because they ought rather to take wrong and suffer themselves to be injured (ver. 7); (2.) Because ihey might have chosen some persons to settle the matter by arbitration without a formal trial; and, (3.) Because the civil constitution would have allowed them to have settled all their diflerences without a law-suit. Josephus says that the Romans (who were now masters of Corinth) permitted the Jews in foreign countries to decide private affairs, where nothing capital was in question, among themselves. And Dr. Lardner observes, that the Christians might have availed themselves of this permission to have settled their disputes in the same manner. Credibility, vol. i, p. 165.
7. There is utterly a fault. There is altogether a fault; or you are entirely wrong in this thing, f Thai ye go to law, &c. That is, in the sense under discussion, or before heathen magistrates. This was the point under discussion, and the interpretation should
terly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take "
be limited to this. Whatever may be the propriety or impropriety of going to law before Christian magistrates, yet the point which the apostle refers to was that of going to law before heathens. The passage, therefore, should not be interpreted as referring to all litigation, but only of that which was the subject of discussion. The apostle says that that was wholly wrong; that they ought by no means to go with their causes against their fellow Christians before heathen magistrates; that whoever had the right side of the question, and whatever might be the decision, the thing itself was unchristian and wrong; and that rather than dishonour religion by a trial or suit of this kind they ought to be willing to take wrong, and to suffer any personal and private injustice. The argument is, that greater evil would be done to the cause of Christ by the fact of Christians appearing before a heathen tribunal with their disputes than could result to either party from the injury done by the other. — And this is probably always the case; so that although the apostle refers here to heathen tribunals, the same reasoning, on the principle, would apply to Christians carrying their causes into the courts at all. t Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do you not suffer yourself to be injured rather than to dishonour the cause of religion by your litigations 1 They should do this, (1.) Because religion requires its friends to be willing to suffer wrong patiently. Prov. xx. 22. Matt. v. 39, 40. Rom. xii. 17. 19. 1 Thess. v. 15. (2.) Because great injury results to the -cause of religion from such trials. The private wrong which an individual would suffer, in perhaps all cases, would be a less evil on the whole than the public injury which is done to the cause of piety by the litigations
wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?*
and strifes of Christian brethren before a civil court. (3.) The differences among Christians could be adjusted among themselves, by a reference to their brethren. In ninety-nine cases of a hundred, the decision would be more likely to be just and satisfactory to all parties from an amicable reference, than from the decisions of a civil court. In the very few cases where it would be otherwise, it would be better for the individual to suffer, than for the cause of religion to suffer. Christians ought to love the cause of their Master more than their own individual interest They ought to be more afraid that the cause of Jesus Christ would be injured than that they should be a fevv dollars poorer from the conduct of others, or than that they should individually suffer in their character from the injustice of others. 1 To be defrauded? Receive injury; or suffer a loss of property. Grotius thinks that the word " take wrong" refers to personal insult; and the word " defrauded" refers to injury in property. Together, they are probably designed to refer to all kinds of injury and injustice. And the apostle means to say, that they had better submit to any kind of injustice than carry the cause against a Christian brother before a heathen tribunal. The doctrine here taught is, that Christians ought by no means to go to law with each other before a heathen ' tribunal; that they ought to be willing to suffer any injury from a Christian brother rather than do it. And by implication the same thing is taught in regard to the duty of all Christians, that they ought to suffer any infury to their persons and property rather than dis' honour religion by litigations before civil magistrates. It may be -asked then whether law suits are never proper; or whether courts of justice are never
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.
to be resorted to by Christians to secure their rights'? To this question we may reply, that the discussion of Paul 'elates only to Christians, when both parties are Christians, and that it is designed to prohibit such an appeal to courts by them. If ever lawful for Christians to depart from this rule, or for Christians to appear before a civil tribunal, it is conceived that it can be only in circumstances hke the following. (1.) Where two or more Christians may have a difference, and where they know not what is right, and what the law is in a case. In such instances there may be a reference to a civil court to determine it — to have what is called an amicable suit, to ascertain from the proper authority what the law is, and what is justice in the case. (2.) When there are causes of difference between Christians and the men of the world. As the men of the world do not acknowledge the propriety of submitting the matter to the church, it may be proper for a Christian to carry the matter before a civil tribunal. Evidently, there is no other way, in such cases, of settling a cause; and this mode may be resorted to not with a spirit of revenge, but with a spirit of love and kindness. Courts are instituted for the settlement of the rights of citizens, and men by becoming Christians do not alienate their rights as citizens. Even these cases, however, might commonly be adjusted by a reference to impartial men, better than by the slow, and expensive, and tedious, and often irritating process of carrying a cause through the courts. (3.) Where a Christian is injured in his person, character, or property, he has a right to seek redress. Courts are instituted for the protection and defence of the innocent and the peaceable against the fraudulent, the wicked, and the violent. And a Christian owes it to his country, to his family, and to himself, that the man who has injured him should re-
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
ceive the proper punishment. The peace and welfare of the community demand it. If a man murders my wife or child, I owe it to the laws and to my country, to justice and to God, to endeavour to have the law enforced. So if a man robs my property, or injures my character, I may owe it to others as well as to myself that the law in such a case should be executed, and the rights of others also be secured. But in all these cases, a Christian should engage in such prosecutions not with a desire of revenge, not with the love of litigation, but with the love of justice, and of God, and with a mild, tender, candid and forgiving temper, with a real desire that the opponent may be benefited, and that all his rights also should be secured. Comp. Notes on Rom. xiii,
8. Nay, ye do lurong, &c. Instead of enduring wrong patiently and cheerfully, they were themselves guilty of injustice and fraud. t And that your brethren. Your fellow Christians. As if they had injured those of their own -family — those to whom they ought to be attached by most tender ties. The offence in such cases is aggravated, not because it is in itself any worse to injure a Christian than another man, but because it shows a deeper depravity, when a man overcomes all the ties of kindness and love, and injures those who are near to him, than it does where no such ties exist. It is for this reason that parricide, infanticide, &c. are regarded everywhere as crimes of peculiar atrocity, because a child or a parent must have sundered all the tenderest cords of virtue before it could be done.
9. Kjiovj ye not, &c. The apostle introduces the declaration in this verse to show the evil of their course, and especially of the injustice which they did one to another, and their attempt to enforce and maintain the evil by an appeal to the heathen tribunals. He assures them, therefore, that the uniust
kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither " fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor ef-
could not be saved, f The unrighteoics The unjust (aJiKot) — such as he had just mentioned — they who did injustice to others, and attempted to do it under the sanction of the courts. t Shall not inherit. Shall not possess; shall not enter into. The kingdom of heaven is often represented as an inheritance. Matt. xix. 39; xxv. 34. Mark X. 17. Luke x. 25; xviii. 18. 1 Cor. XV. 50. Eph. i. 11. 14; v. 5. t The kingdom of God. Cannot be saved; cannot enter into heaven. See Note, Matt. iii. 2. This may refer either to the kingdom of God in heaven; or to the church on earth — most probably the former. But the sense is the same essentially, whichever is meant. The man who is not fit to enter into the one is not fit to enter into the other. The man who is fit to enter the kingdom of God on earth, shall also enter into that in heaven. ^ Be not deceived. A most important direction to be given to all. It implies, (1.) That they were in danger of being deceived, (a) Their own hearts might have deceived them. (6) They might be deceived by their false opinions on these subjects, (c) They might be in danger being deceived by their leaders, who perhaps held the opinion that some of the persons who practised these things could be saved. (2.) It implies, that there was no necessity of their being deceived. They might know the truth. They might easily understand these matters. It might be plain to them that those who indulged in these things could not be saved. (3.) It implies that it was of high importance that they should not be deceived. For, (a) The soul is of infinite value, {h) To lose heaven — to be disappointed in regard to that, will be a tremendous loss, (c) To inherit hell and its woes will be a tremendous curse. O how
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
anxious should all be that they be:aot deceived, and that while they hope for life, they do not sink down to everlasting death! ^ Neither fornicators. See Gal. V. 19—21. Eph. v. 4, 5. Heb. xii. 14; xiii. 4. Note, Rom. i. 29. t ^or effeminate (/iaxkuku). This word occurs in Matt. xi. 8, and Luke vii. 25, where it is applied to clothing, and translated " soft raiment;" that is, the light, thin garments worn by the rich and great. It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament except here. Applied to morals, as it is here, it denotes those who give themselves up to a soft, luxurious, and indolent way of living; who make self-indulgence the grand object of life; who can endure no hardship, and practice no self-denial in the cause of duty and of God. The word is applied in the classic writers to the Cinsedi, the Pathics, or Catamites; those who are given up to wantonness and sensual pleasures, or who are kept to be prostituted to others. Diog. Laer. vii. 5. 4. Xenoph. Mem. iii. 7. 1. Ovid Fast. iv. 342. The connexion here seems to demand such an interpretation, as it occurs in the description of vices of the same class — sensual and corrupt indulgences. — It is well known that this vice was common among the Greeks — and particularly prevailed at Corinth. If Abusers of themselves with maiijiind (ugviv^Koiroi). Pajderastse or Sodomites. Those who indulged in a vice that was common among all the heathen. See Notes, Rom. i. 27.
] 0. Nor covetous. See Note, ch. v. 10. It is remarkable that the apostle always ranks the covetous with the most abandoned classes of men. t Nor revilers. The same word which in ch. V. 11, is rendered railer. See Note on that place. 1 Nor extortioners. Note, ch. V. 11. 'I, Shall inherit. Shall enter; shall be saved, ver. 9.
11 And such •* were some of you; but ye are washed, * but
11. And such. Such drunkards, lascivious, and covetous persons. This shows, (1.) The exceeding grace of God that could recover even such persons from sins so debasing and degrading. (2.) It shows that we are not to despair of reclaiming the most abandoned and wretched men. (3.) It is well for Christians to look back on what they once were. It will produce (a) humility, {b) gratitude, (c) a deep sense of the sovereign mercy of God, (c?) an earnest desire that others may be recovered and saved in like manner. Comp. Eph. ii. 1, 2; v. 8. Col. iii. 7. Tit. iii. 3. 6. — The design of this is to remind them of what they were, and to show them that they were now under obligation to lead better lives — by all the mercy which God had shown in recovering them from sins so degrading, and from a condition so dreadful. 1 But ye are ivashed. Heb. x. 22. Washing is an emblem of purifying. They had been made pure by the Spirit of God. They had been, indeed, baptized, and their baptism was an emblem of purifying, but the thing here particularly referred to is not baptism, but it is something that had been done by the Spirit of God, and must refer to his agency on the heart in cleansing them from these pollutions. Paul here uses three words, washed, sanctified, justified, to denote the various agencies of the Holy Spirit by which they had been recovered from sin. The first, that of ivashing, I understand of that work of the Spirit by which the process of purifying was commenced in the soul, and which was especially signified in baptism — the work of regeneration or conversion to God. By the agency of the Spirit the defilement of these pollutions had been washed away or renioved — as filth is removed by ab-
ye are sanctified, ' but ye are justified '^ in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the 8pirit of our
lution. — The agency of the Holy Ghost in regeneration is elsewhere represented by washing. Tit. iii. 5, " The washing of regeneration." Comp. Heb. X. 22. f Ye are sanctified. This denotes the progressive and advancing process of purifying which succeeds regeneration in the Christian. Regeneration is the commencement of it — its close is the perfect purity of the Christian in heaven. See Note, John xvii. 1 7. It does not mean that they were perfect — for the reasoning of the apostle shows that this was far from being the case with the Corinthians; but that the work was advancing, and that they were in fact under a process of sanctification. 1 But ye are justified. Your sins are pardoned, and you are accepted as righteous, and will be treated as such on account of the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. See Note, Rom. i. 17; iii. 25,26; iv. 3. The apostle does not say that this was last in the order of time, but simply says that this was done to them. Men are justified ivhen they believe, and when the work of sanctification commences in the soul. ^ In the name of the Lord Jesus. That is, by the Lord Jesus; by his authority, appointment, influence. Note, Acts iii. 6. All this had been accompli.shed through the Lord Jesus; that is, in his name remission of sins had been proclaimed to them (Luke xxiv. 47); and by his merits all these favours had been conferred on them, t And by the Spirit of our God. The Holy Spirit. All this had been accomplished by his agency on the heart. — This verse brings in the whole subject of redemption, and states in a most emphatic manner the various stages by which a sinner is saved, and by this single passage, a man may obtain
12 All lliing^ are lawful unto me, but all things are not ^ expedient: all things are lawful
all the essential knowledge of the plan of salvation. All is condensed here in few words. (1.) He is by nature a miserable and polluted sinner — without merit, and without hope. (2.) He is renewed by the Holy Ghost, and washed by baptism. (3.) He is justified, pardoned, and accepted as righteous, through the merits of the Lord Jesus alone. (4.) He is made holy — becomes sanctified — and more and more like God, and fit for heaven. (5.) All this is done by the agency of the Holy Ghost. (6.) The obligation thence results that he should lead a holy life, and forsake sin in every form. 13. All things are lawful unto me. The apostle here evidently makes a transition te another subject from that which he had been discussing — a consideration of the propriety of using certain things which had been esteemed lawful. The expression, " all things are lawful," is to be understood as used by those who palliated certain indulgences, or who vindicated the vices here referred to, and Paul designs to reply to them. His reply follows. He had been reproving them for their vices, and had specified several. It is not to be supposed that they would indulge in them without some show of defence; and the declaration here has much the appearance of a proverb, or a common saying — that all things were lawful; that is, • God has formed all things for our use, and there can be no evil if we use them.' By the phrase "all things" here, perhaps, may be meant mayiy things; or things in general; or there is nothing in itself unlawful. That there were many vicious persons who held this sentiment there can be no doubt; and though it cannot be supposed that there were any in the Christian church who would openly advocate it, yet the design of Paul was to cut up the plea altogether wherever
for me, but I will not be brought under the power * of any.
it might be urged, and to show that it was false and unfounded. The particular things which Paul here refers to, are those which have been called adiaphoristic, or indifterent; i. e. pertaining to certain n>eats and drinks, &c. With this Paul connects also the subject of fornication — the subject particularly under discussion. This was defended as " lawful," by many Greeks, and was practised at Corinth; and was the vice to which the Corinthian Christians were particularly exposed. Paul designed to meet all that could be said on this subject; and to show them that these indulgences could?iot be proper for Christians, and could not m any way be defended. — We are not to understand Paul as admitting that fornication is in any case lawful; but he designs to show that the practice cannot possibly be defended in any way, or by any of the arguments which had been or could be used. For this purpose, he observes, (1.) That admitting that all things were lawful, there were many things which ought not to be indulged; (2.) That admitting that they were lawful, yet a man ought not to be under the power of any improper in. dulgencc, and should abandon any habit when it had the mastery. (3.) That fornication was positively wrong, and against the very nature and essence of Christianity, ver. 13 — 20. t Are not expedient. This is the first answer to the objection. Even should we admit that the practices under discussion are lawful, yet there are many things which are not expedient; that is, which do r\oi profit, for so the word {(Tvy.p'ieii) properly signifies; they are injurious and hurtful. They might injure the body; produce scandal; lead others to offend or to sin. Such was the case with regard to the use of certain meats, and even with regard to the use of wine. Paul's rule on this sub-
13 Meats " for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall
ject is stated in 1 Cor, viii. ] 3. That if these things did injury to others, he would abandon them for ever; even though they were in themselves lawful. See Note on ch. viii. and on Rom. xiv. 14 — 23. There are many customs which, perhaps, cannot be strictly proved to be unlawful or sinful, which yet do injury in some way if indulged in; and which, as their indulgence can do no good, should be abandoned. Any thing that does evil — however small — and no good, should be abandoned at once. ^ All things are laivful. Admitting this; or even on the supposition that all things are in themselves right, t But I will not be brought under the power. I will not be subdued by it; I will not become the slave of it. ^ Of any. Of any custom, or habit, no matter what it is. This was Paul's rule; the rule of an independent mind. The principle was, that even admitting that certain things were in themselves right, yet his grand purpose was not to be the slave of habit, not to be subdued by any practice that might corrupt his mind, fetter his energies, or destroy his freedom as a man and as a Christian. We may observe, (1.) That this is a good rule to act on. It was Paul's rule (1 Cor. ix. 27), and it will do as well for us as for him. (2.) It is the true rule of an independent and noble mind. It requires a high order of virtue; and is the only way in which a man may be useful and active. (3.) It may be applied to many things now. Many a Christian and Christian minister is a slave; and is coaipletely under the power of some habit that destroys his usefulness and happiness. He is the SLAVE of indolence, or carelessness, or of some vile habit — as the use of tobacco, or of wine. He has not independence enough to break the cords that bind him; and the consequence is, that life is passed in indolence, or in Relf-indulgence, and time, and strength, destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for * fornication, and property are wasted, and religion blighted, and souls ruined. (4.) The man that has not courage and firmness enough to act on this rule should doubt his piety. If he is a voluntary slave to some idle and mischievous habit, how can he be a Christian ] If he does not love his Saviour and the souls of men enough to break off from such habits which he knows are doing injury, how is he fit to be a minister of the self-denying Redeemer 1
13. Meats for the belly, &c. This has every appearance of being an adage or proverb., Its meaning is plain. * God has made us with appetites for food; and he has made food adapted to such appetites, and it is right, therefore, to indulge in luxurious living.' The word belly here {kukiu.) denotes the stomach,- and the argument is, that as God had created the natural appetite for food, and had created food, it was right to indulge in eating and drinking to any extent which the appetite demanded. The word meats here {^pJr fAXTJi) does not denote animal food particularly, or flesh, but any kind of food. This was the sense of the English word formerly. Matt. iii. 4; vi. 25; ix. 10; X. 10; xiv. 9, &c. f But God shall deslroy. This is the reply of Paul to the argument. This reply is, that as both are so soon to be destroyed, they were unworthy of the care which was bestowed on them, and that attention should be directed to better things. It is unworthy the immortal mind to spend its time and thought in making provi sion for the body which is soon to perish. And especially a man should be wifling to abandon indulgences in these things when they tended to injure the mind, and to destroy the soul. It is unworthy a mind that is to live for ever, thus to be anxious about that which is so soon to be destroyed in the grave. We may observe here, (1.) This is the great rule of the mass of the world. The pampering of the
1 4 And God ' hath both rais-
appetites is the great purpose for which they live, and the only purpose. (2.) It is folly. The body will soon be in the grave; the soul in eternity. How low and grovelling is the passion wliich leads the immortal mind always to anxiety about what the body shall eat and drink! (3.) Men should act from higher motives. They should be thankful for appetites for food; and that God provides for the wants of the body; and should eat to obtain strength to serve him, and to discharge the duties of life. Man often degrades himself below — far below — the brutes in this thing. They never pamper their appetites, or create artificial appetites. Man, in death, sinks to the same level; and all the record of his life is, that ' he lived to eat and drink, and died as the brute dieth.' How low is human nature fallen! How sunken is the condition of man! If Now the body is not, &c. ' But {it) the body is not designed for Hcentiousness, but to be devoted to the Lord.' The remainder of this chapter is occupied with an argument against indulgence ill licentiousness — a crime to which the Corinthians were particularly exposed. See the Introduction to this ejfistle. It cannot be supposed that any members of the church would indulge in this vice, or would vindicate it; but it was certain, (1.) That it was the sin to which they were particularly exposed; (2.) That they were in the midst of a people who did both practise and vindicate it. Compare Rev. ii. 14, 15. Hence the apostle furnished them with arguments against it, as well to guard them from temptation, to enable them to meet those who did defend it, and also to settle the morality of the question on an immovable foundation. The first argument is here stated, that the body of man was designed by its Maker to be devoted to him, and should be consecrated to the purposes of a ]}\xxe
ed Up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
and holy life. We are, therefore, bound to devote our animal as well as our rational powers to the service of the Lord alone, t And the Lord for the body. ' The Lord is in an important sense for the body, that is, he acts, and plans, and provides for it. He sustains and keeps it; and he is making provision for its immortal purity and happiness in heaven. It is not right, therefore, to take the body, which is nourished by the kind and constant agency of a holy God, and to devote it to purposes of pollution.' That there is a reference in this phrase to the resurrection, is apparent from the following verse.. And as God will exert his mighty power in raising up the body, and will make it glorious, it ought not to be prostituted to purposes of licentiousness.
14. And God hath both raised up, &c. This is the second argument against indulgences in this sin. It is this. ' We are united to Christ. God has raised him from the dead, and made his body glorified. Our bodies will be like his (comp. Phil. iii. 21); and since our body is to be raised up by the power of God; since it is to be perfectly pure and holy, and since this is to be done by his agency, it is wrong that it should be devoted to purposes of pollution and lust.' It is unworthy (1.) Of our connexion with that pure Saviour who has been raised from the dead — the image of our resurrection from the death and defilements of sin (comp. Notes, Rom. vi. 1 — 12); and (2.) Unworthy of the hope that our bodies shall be raised up to perfect and immortal purity in the heavens. No argument could be stronger. A deep sense of our union with a pure and risen Saviour, and a lively hope of immortal purity, would do more than all other things to restrain from licentious indulgences.
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members " Of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid!
16 What! know ye not that
15, 16. Know ye not, &c. This is the third argument against licentiousness. It is, that we as Christians are united to Christ (comp. Notes, John XV. 1, (fee.); and that it is abominable to take the members of Christ and subject them to pollution and sin. Christ was pure — wholly pure. We are professedly united to him. We are bound therefore to be pure, as he was. Shall that which is a part, as it were, of the pure and holy Saviour be prostituted to impure and unholy embraces? f God forbid! Note, Rom. iii. 4. This expresses the deep abhorrence of the apostle at the thought. It needed not argument to show it. The whole world revolted at the idea; and language could scarcely express the abomination of the very thought, t Know ye not, &c. This is designed to confirm and strengthen what he had just said. 1 He which is joined. Who is attached to; or who is connected with. 1 Is owe body. That is, is to be regarded as one; is closely and intimately united. Similar expressions occur in classic writers. See Grotius and Bloomfield. t Far two, saith he, &c. This Paul illustrates by a reference to the formation of the marriage connexion in Gen. ii. 14. He cannot be understood as affirming that that passage had original reference to illicit connexions; but he uses it for purposes of illustration. God had declared that the man and his wife became one; in a similar sense in unlawful connexions the parties became one.
The true Christian, united by faith to the Lord Jesus. See John xv. 1, seq.
he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, * saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one " spirit.
18 Flee '^ fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without
similar to that in which a man and his wife are one body. It is not to be taken literally; but the sense is, that there is a close and intimate union; they are united in feeling, spirit, intention, disposition. The argument is beautiful. It is, * As the union of souls is more important than that of bodies; as that union is more lasting, dear, and enduring than any union of body with body can be, and as our union with him is with a Spirit puie and holy, it is improper that we should sunder that tie, and break that sacred bond, by being joined to a harlot. The union with Christ is more intimate, entire, and pure than that can be between a man and woman; and that union should be regarded as sacred and inviolable.' O, if all Christians felt and regarded this as they should, how would they shrink from the connexions which they often form on ^arth! Comp. Eph. iv. 4.
18. Flee fornication. A solemn command of God — as explicit as any that thundered from Mount Sinai. None can disregard it with impunity — none can violate it without being exposed to the awful vengeance of the Almighty. There is force and emphasis in the word Jlee ((pi-J-yam). Man should escape from it; he should not stay to reason about it; to debate the matter; or even to contend with his propensitiei?, and to try the strength of his virtue. There are some sins which a man can resist; some about which he can reason without danger of pollution. But this is a sin where a man is safe only when he flies; free from pollution only when he refuses to entertain a thought of it; secure when he seeks a victory by flight, and a conquest by retreat. Let a man the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What! know ye not that your " body is the temple of the Holy Gh'ost ivhich is in you,
which ye have of God, and ye are not ^ your own?
20 For ye are bought *= with a price: therefore glorify ^ God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
turn away from it without reflection on It, and he is safe. Let him think, and reason, and he may be ruined. " The very passage of an impure thought through the mind leaves pollution behind it." An argument on the subject often leaves pollution; a description ruins; and even the presentation of motives against it may often fix the mind with dangerous inclination on the crime. There is no way of avoiding the pollution but in the manner prescribed by Paul; tht re is no man safe who will not follow his direction. How many a young man would be saved from poverty, want, disease, curses, tears, and hell, could these two words be made to blaze before him like the writing before the astonished eyes of Belshazzar (Dan. v.), and could they terrify him from even the momentary contemplation of the crime. ^ Every sin, &CC. This is to be taken comparatively. Sins in general; the common sins which men commit do not immediately and directly affect the body, or waste its energies, and destroy life. Such is the case with falsehood, theft, malice, dishonesty, pride, ambition, &c. They do not immediately and directly impair the constitution and waste its energies. «| Is without the body. Does not immediately and directly affect the body. The more immediate effect is on the mind; but the sin under consideration produces an immediate and direct effect on the body itself. 1 Sinneth against his own body. This is the fourth argument against indulgence in this vice; and it is more striking and forcible. The sense is, ' It wastes the bodily energies; produces feebleness, weakness, and disease; it impairs the strength, enerv ites the man, and short- ens life.' Were it proper, this might be proved to the satisfaction of every man by an examination of the effects of licentious indulgence. Those who wish to see the effects stated, may find them in Dr. Rush on the Diseases of the Mind. Perhaps no single sin has done so much to produce the most painful and dreadful diseases, to weaken the constitution, and to shorten life, as this. Other vices, as gluttony and drunkenness, do this also, and all sin has some effect in destroying the body, but it is true of this sin in an eminent degree.
19. WJiat.' know ye not, &c. This is the fifth argument against this sin. The Holy Ghost dwells in us; our bodies are his temples; and they should not be defiled and polluted by sin. Note, ch. iii. 16, 17. As this Spirit is in us, and as it is given us by God, we ought not to dishonour the gift and the giver by pollution and vice. 1 And ye are not your 0W71. This is the sixth argument which Paul uses. We are purchased; we belong to God; we are his by redemption; by a precious price paid; and we are bound, tlierefore, to devote ourselves, body, soul, and spirit, as he directs, to the glory of his name, not to the gratification of the flesh. See Note, Rom. xiv. 7, 8.
20. For ye are bought. Ye Christians are purchased; and by right of purchase should therefore be employed as ho directs. This doctrine is often taught in the New Testament, and the argument is often urged that, therefore, Christians should be devoted to God. See ch. vii. 23. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; ii. 9; 2 Pet. ii. 1. Rev. v. 9. See Note on Acts XX. 28. f With a price (rt/uii). A price is that whicli is paid for an article, and which, m the view of the seller, is a fair compensation, or a valuable consideration why he should part with it; that is, the price paid is as valuable to him as the thing itself would be. It may not be the same thing either in quality or quantity, but it is that which to him is a sufficient consideration why he should part with his property. When an article is bought for a valuable consideration, it becomes wholly the property of the purchaser. He may keep it, direct it, dispose of it. Nothing else is to be allowed to control it without his consent. — The language here is figurative. It does not mean that there was strictly a commercial transaction in the redemption of the church, a literal quid pro quo, for the thing spoken of pertains to moral government, and not to commerce. It means, (1.) That Christians have been redeemed, or recovered to God; (2.) That this has been done by a valuable consideration, or that which, in his view, was a full equivalent for the sufferings that they would have endured if they had suffered the penalty of the law; (3.) TJiat this valuable consideration was the blood of Jesus, as an atoning sacrifice, an offering, a ransom, which would accomplish the same great ends in maintaining the truth and honour of God, and the majesty of his law, as the eternal condemnation of the sinner would have done; and which, therefore, may be called, figuratively, tJie price which was paid. For if the same ends of justice could be accomplished by his atonement which would have been by the death of the sinner himself, then it was consistent for God to pardon him. (4.) Nothing else could or would have done this. There was no price which the sinner could pay, no atonement which he could make; and, consequently, if Christ had not died, the sinner would have been the slave of sin, and the servant of the devil for ever. (5.) As the Christian is thus purchased, ransomed, redeemed, he is bound to devote himself to God only, and to keep his commands, and to flee from a licentious life. *{ Glorify
God. Honour God; live to him. See Note, Matt v. 16. John xii. 28; xvii. 1. 'i In your body, &c. Let 3''our entire person be subservient to the glory of God. Live to him; let your life tend to his honour. No stronger arguments could be adduced for purity. of life, and they aro such as all Chris* tians must feel.
1st. We see from this chapter (ver. 1 — 8) the evils of law-suits, and of contentions among C/hristians. Every law-suit between Christians is the means of greater or less dishonour to the cause of religion. The conention and strife; the time lost and thj money wasted; the hard feelings engendered, and bitter speeches caused; th(> ruffled temper, and the lasting animosities that are produced, always inji re the cause of religion, and often injure it for years. Probably no law-suit v as ever engaged in by a Christian that did not do some injury to the cause of C hrist. Perhaps no law-suit was ever coi ducted between Christians that ever did any good to the cause of Christ.
2d. A contentious spirit, a fondness for the agitation, the escitement, and the strife of courts, is inv',onsistent with the spirit of the gospe\ Religion is retiring, peaceful, calm. It seeks the peace of all, and it ne^e^ rejoices in contentions.
3d. Christians should do nothing that will tend to injure the cause of religion in the eye of the world, vor. 7, 8. How much better is it that I should lose a few dollars, than that my Saviour should lose his honour! How much better that my purse should be empty of glittering dust, even by the injustice of others, than that a single gem should be taken from his diadem! And how much better even that I should lose all, than that my hand should be reached out to pluck away one jewel, by my misconduct, from his crawn! Can silver, can gold, can diamonds be compared in value to the honour of Christ and of his cause 1
4th. Christians should seldom go to law, even with others; never, if they can avoid it Every other means should be tried first; and the law should be resorted to only when all else fails. How few law-suits there would be if man had no bad passions! How seldom is the law applied to from the simple love of Justice; how seldom from pure benevolence; how seldom for the gloiy of God! In nearly all cases that occur between men, a friendly reference to others would settle all the difficulty; always if there were a right spirit between the parties. Comparatively few suits at law will be approved of, when men come to die; and the man who has had the least to do with the law, will have the least, usually, to regret when he enters the eternal world.
5th. Christians should be honest — strictly honest — always honest, ver. 8. They should do justice to all; they should defraud none. Few things occur that do more to disgrace religion than the suspicions oi fraud, and overreaching, and deception, that often rest on professors of religion. How can a man be a Christian, and not be an honest man 1 Every man who is not strictly honest and honourable in his dealings, should be regarded, whatever may be his pretensions, as an enemy of Christ and his cause.
6th. The unholy cannot be saved. ver. 9, 10. So God has determined; and this purpose cannot be evaded or escaped. It is fixed; and men may think of it as they please, still it is true that there arc large classes of men who, if they continue such, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The fornicator, the idolater, the drunkard, and the covetous, cannot enter heaven. So the Judge of all has said, and who can unsay it? So he has decreed, and who can change his fixed decree? And so it should be. What a place would heaven be, if the drunkard, and the adulterer, and the idolater were there! How impure and unholy would it be! How would it destroy all our hopes, dim all our prospects, mar all our joys, if we were told that they should sit down with the just in heaven! Is it not one of our fondest hopes that heaven will be pure, and that all its inhabitanta shall be holy ] And can God admit to his eternal embrace, and treat as his eternal friend, the man who is unholy; whose life is stained with abomination; who loves to corrupt others; and whose happiness is found in the sorrows, and the wretchedness, and vices of others 1 No; religion is pure, and heaven is pure; and whatever men may think, of one thing they may be assured, that the fornicator, and the drunkard, and the reviler shall not inherit the kingdom of
7th. If none of these can be saved as they are, what a host are travelling down to hell! How large a part of every community is made up of such persons! How vast is the number of drunkards that are known! How vast the host of extortioners, and of covetous men, and revilers of all that is good! How many curse their God and their fellov/ men! How difficult to turn the corner of a street without hearing an oath! How necessary to guard against the frauds and deceptions of others! How many men and women are known to be impure in their lives! In all communities how much does this sin abound! and how many shall be revealed at the great day as impure, who are now unsuspected! how many disclosed to the universe as all covered with pollution, who now boast even of purity, and who are received into the society of the virtuous and the lovely! Verily, the broad road to hell is thronged! And verily, the earth is pouring into hell a most dense and wretched population, and rolling down a tide of sin and misery that shall fill it with groans and gnashing of teeth for ever.
8th. It is well for Christians to reflect on their former course of life, as contrasted with their present mercies, ver. 11. Such were they, and such they would still have been but for the mercy of God. Such as is the victim of uncleanness and pollution, siich as is the profane man and the reviler, such we should have been but for the mercy of God. That alone has saved us, ami that only can keep us. How EhouU
OW concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: we praise God for his mercy, and how are we bound to love and serve him for his amazing compassion in raising us from our deep pollution, and saving us from hell!
9th. Christians should be pure. ver. 11 — 19. They should be above suspicion. They should avoid the appearance of evil. No Christian can be too pure; none can feel too much the obligation to be holy. By every sacred and tender consideration God urges it on us; and by a reference to our own happiness as well as to his own glory, he calls on us to be holy in our lives.
10th. May we remember that we are not our own. ver. 20. We belong to God. We have been ransomed by sacred blood. By a reference to the value of that blood; by all its preciousness and worth; by all the sighs, and tears, and groans that bought us; by the agonies of the cross, and the bitter pains of the death of God's own Son, we are bound to live to God, and to him alone. When we are tempted to sin, let Us think of the cross. When Satan spreads out his allurements, let us recall the remembrance of the sufferings of Calvary, and remember that all these sorrows were endured that we might be pure. O how would sin appear were we beneath the cross, and did we feel the warm blood from the Saviour's open veins trickle upon us! Who would dare indulge in sin there 1 Who could do otherwise than devote himself, body, and soul, and spirit, unto God ]
This chapter commences the second part or division of this epistle, or, the discussion of those points which had been submitted to the apostle in a letter from the church at Corinth, for his instruction and advice. See the Introduction to the epistle. The letter in which they proposed the questions which are here discussed, has been lost. \i is manifest that, if we now had it, it 11*
It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
would throw some light on the answers which Paul has given to their inquiries in this chapter. The^r*^ question which is discussed (ver. 1 — 9) is, whether it were lawful and proper to enter into the marriage relation. How this question had arisen, it is not now possible to determine with certainty. It is probable, however, that it arose from disputes between those of Jewish extraction, who held not only the lawfulness, but the importance of the marriage relation, according to the doctrines of the Old Testament, and certain followers or friends of some Greek philosophers, who might have been the advocates of celibacy. But why they advocated that doctrine is unknown. It is known, however, that many even of the Greek philosophers, among whom were LycuTgus, Thales, Antiphanes, and Socrates (see Grotius), thought that, considering "the untractable tempers of women, and how troublesome and fraught with danger was the education of children," it was the part of wisdom not to enter into the marriage relation. From them may have been derived the doctrine of celibacy in the Christian church; a doctrine that has been the cause of so much corruption in the monastic system, and in the celibacy of the clergy among the papists. The Jews, however, everywhere defended the propriety and duty of marriage They regarded it as an ordinance of God. And to this day they hold that a man who has arrived to the age of twenty years, and who has not entered into this relation, unless prevented by natural defects, or by profound study of the law, sins against God. Between these two classes, or those in the church who had been introduced there from these two classes, the question would be agitated whether marriage was lawful and advisable.
Another question which, it seems had arisen among them was, whether it
2 Nevertheless, to cvoid fornication, let every man have his was proper to continue in tl e married state in the existing conditi,)n of the church, as exposed to trials a«id persecutions; or whether it was \ roper for those who had become comerted, to continue their relations in life with those who were unconverted. This the apostle discusses in ver. 10 — 2 t. Probably many supposed that it was unlawful to live with those who w ere not Christians; and they thence inferred that the relation which subsisted before conversion should be dissolved. And this doctrine they carried to the r^'lation Dctween master and servant, as v> ell as between husband and wife. The general doctrine which Paul states in aiswer to this is, that the wife was not to (^rpart from her husband (ver. 10); b.it if she did, she was not at liberty to n tarry again, since her former marriage Avas still binding, ver. 11. He added that a believing man, or Christian, should not put away his unbelieving wife l^ver. 13), and that the relation should ccntinue, notwithstanding a difference of religion; and that //"a separation ensi icd, it should be in a peaceful manner, and the parties were not at liberty to marry again, ver. 13 — 17. So, also, in regard to the relation of master and slave. It was not to be violently sundered. The relations of life were not to be broken up by Christianity; but every man was to remain in that rank of life in which he was when he was converted, unless it could be changed in a peaceful and lawful manner, ver. 18 — 24.
A third subject submitted to him was, whether it was advisable, in existing circumstances, that the unmarried virgins who were members of the church should enter into the marriage relation, ver. 25 — 40. This the apostle answers in the remainder of the chapter. The sum of his advice on that question is, that it would be lawful for fhem to marry, but that it was not then advisable; and that, at all events, they should so act as to remember that life was short,
own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
and so as not be too much engrossed with the affairs of this life, but should live for eternity. He said that though it was lawful, yet, (1.) In their present distress it might be unadvisable. ver. 26. (2.) That marriage tended to an increase of care and anxiety, and it might not be proper then to enter into that relation, ver. 32—35. (3.) That they should live to God. ver. 29—31. (4.) That a man should not be oppressive and harsh towards his daughter, or towards one under his care; but that, if it would be severe in him to forbid such a marriage, he should allow it. ver. 36. And, (5.) That on the whole it was advisable, under existing circumstances, 7iot to enter into the marriage relation, ver. 38 — 40.
1. Now, coyicerning, «fec. In reply to your inquiries. The first, it seems, was in regard to the propriety of marriage; that is, whether it was lawful and expedient, t ^t is good. It is well. It is fit, convenient; or, it is suited to the present circumstances; or, the thing itself is well and expedient in certain circumstances. The apostle did not mean that marriage was unlawful, for he says (Heb. xiii. 4) that " marriage is honourable in all." But he here admits, with one of the parties in Corinth, that it was well, and proper in some circumstances, not to enter into the marriage relation. Sec ver. 7, 8. 26, 28. 3 1, 32. ^ Not to touch a ivoman. Not to be connected with her by marriage. Xenophon (Cyro. b. 1^ uses the same word (aJTra, to touch) to denote marriage. Comp. Gen. xx. 4. 6; xxvi. 11. Prov. vi. 29.
2. Nevertheless. But (tft). Though this is" to be admitted as proper where it can be done, when a man has entire control of himself and his passions, and though in present circumstances it would be expedient, yet it may be proper also to enter into the marriage connexion. ^ To iiv Old fur nicfit ion. Gr. On account of (cfw) fornication. The word fornication
3 Let the " husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power
is used here in the large sense of licentiousness in general. For the sake of the purity of society, and to avoid the evils of sensual indulgence, and the corruptions and crimes vv-hich attend an illicit intercourse, it is proper that the married state should be entered. To this vice they were particularly exposed in Corinth. See the Introduction. Paul would keep the church from scandal. How much evil, how much deep pollution, how many abominable crimes would have been avoided, which have since grown out of the monastic system, and the celibacy of the clergy among the papists, if Paul's advice had been followed by all professed Christians! Paul says that marriage is honourable, and that the relations of domestic life should be formed to avoid the evils which would otherwise result. The world is the witness of the evils which flow from the neglect of his advice. Every community where the marriage tie has been lax and feeble, or where it has been disregarded or dishonoured, has been full of pollution, and it ever will be. Society is pure and virtuous, just as marriage is deemed honourable, and as its vows are adhered to and preserved. ^ Let every man, &c. Let the marriage vow be honoured by all. t Have his own ivife. And one wife to whom he shall be faithful. Polygamy is unlawful under the gospel; and divorce is unlawful. Let every man and woman, therefore, honour the institution of God, and avoid the evils of illicit indulgence.
3. Let the husband, &c. "Let them not imagine that there is any virtue in living separate from each other, as if they were in a state of celibacy." — Doddridge. They are bound to each other; in every way they are to evince kindness, and to seek to promote the happiness and purity of each other. There of her own body, but the hus band: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
is a great deal of delicacy used here by Paul, and his expression is removed aa far as possible from the grossness of heathen writers. His meaning is plain; but instead of using a word to express it which would be indelicate and offensive, he uses one which is not indelicate in the slightest degree. The word which he uses (hvuxv, benevolence) denotes kindness, good-will, affection of mind. And by the use of the word "due" (o<pii-Ac>Avyiv), he reminds them of the sacredness of their vow, and of the fact that in person, property, and in every respect, they belong to each other. It was necessary to give this direction, for the contrary might have been regarded as proper by many who would have supposed there was special virtue and merit in living separate from each other; — as facts have shown that many have imbibed such an idea; — and it was not possible to give the rule with more delicacy than Paul has done. Many MSS., however, instead of " due benevolence," read l^^uxw, a debt, or that which is owed; and this reading has been adopted by Griesbach in the text. Homer, with a delicacy not unlike the apostle Paul, uses the word ipiKiriiru., friendship, to express the same idea.
4. The wife hath not power, &c. By the marriage covenant that power, in this respect, is transferred to the husband, t ^nd likewise, also, the husband. The equal rights of husband and wife, in the Scriptures are everywhere maintained. They are to regard themselves as united in most intimate union, and in most tender ties.
5. Defraud ye riot, &c. Of the right mentioned above. Withdraw^ not from the society of each other. ^ Except it be ivith consent. "With a mutual understanding, that you may engage in the extraordinary duties of religion.
except it be " with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that '' Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Comp. Ex. xix. 15. 1 And come together again, &c. Even by mutual consent, the apostle would not have this separation to be perpetual; since it would expose them to many of the evils which the marriage relation was designed to avoid. ^ That Satan, &c. That Satan take not advantage of you, and throw you into temptatrion, and fill you with thoughts and passions which the marriage compact was designed to remedy.
6. But I speak this hy permission, &c. It is not quite certain whether the word " this" (to-;to), in this verse, refers to what precedes, or to what follows. On this commentators are divided. The more natural and obvious interpretation would be to refer it to the preceding statement. I am inclined to think that the more natural construction is the true one, and that Paul refers to what he had said in ver. 5. Most recent commentators, as Macknight and Rosenmiiller, however, suppose it refers to what follows, and appeal to similar places in Joel i. 2. Ps. xlix. 2. 1 Cor. X. 23. Calvin supposes it refers to what was said in ver. 1. t By perm.ission (o-vyyvl/uiyiv). This word means indulgence, or perniission, and stands opposed to that which is expressly enjoined. Comp. ver. 25. ' I am allowed to say this; I have no express command on the subject; I give it as my opinion; I do not speak it directly under the influence of divine inspiration.' Sec ver. 10. 25. 40. Paul here docs not claim to be under inspiration in these directions which he specifies. But this is no argument against his inspiration in general, but rather the contrary. For, (1.) It shows that he was an honest man, and was disposed to state the exact truth. An impostor, pretending to inejjiration, would have claimed to have
6 But I speak this by permission, a)id not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But
been always inspired. Who ever heard of a pretender to divine inspiration admitting that in any thing he was not under divine guidance 1 Did Mahomet ever do thisl Do impostors now ever do it ] (2.) It shows that in other cases, where no exception is made, he claimed to be inspired. These few exceptions, which he expressly makes, prove that in everywhere else he claimed to be under the influence of inspiration. (3.) We are to suppose, therefore, that in all his writings where he makes no express exceptions, (and the exceptions are very few in number,) Paul claimed to be inspired. Macknight, however, and some others, understand this as mere advice, as an inspired man, though not as a command, f Not of commandment. Not by express instruction from the Lord. See ver. 25. I do not claim in this to be under the influence of inspiration; and my counsel here may be regarded, or not, as you may be able to receive it.
7. For I would, &lc. I would prefer. 1 That all men, &c. That Paul was unmarried is evident from 1 Cor. ix. 5. But he does not refer to this fact here. When he wishes that all men were like himself, he evidently does not intend that he would prefer that all should be unmarried, for this would be against the divine institution, and against his own precepts elsewhere. But he would be glad if all men had control over their passions and propensities as he had; had the gift of continence, and could abstain from marriage when circumstances of trial, &c., would make it proper. We may add, that when Paul wishes to exhort to any thing that is dillicult, he usually adduces his own example to show that // may he done; an example which it would be well for all ministers to be able to follow. ^ Uui
» every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows. It is good
every man hath his proper gift. Every man has his own peculiar talent, or excellence. One man excels in one thing, and another in another. One may not have this particular virtue, but he may be distinguished for another virtue quite as valuable. The doctrine here is, therefore, that we are not to judge of others by ourselves, or measure their virtue by ours. We may excel in some one thing, they in another. And because they have not our peculiar virtue, or capability, we are not to condemn or denounce them. Comp. Matt, xix. 11, 12. 1 Of God. Bestowed by God, either in the original endowments and faculties of body or mind, or by his grace. In either case it is the gift of God. The virtue of continence is his gift as well as any other; and Paul had reason, as any other man must have, to be thankful that God had conferred it on him. So if a man is naturally amiable, kind, gentle, large-hearted, tender, and tttfectionate, he should regard it as the gift of God, and be thankful that he has not to contend with the evils of a morose, proud, haughty, and severe temper. It is true, however, that all these virtues may be greatly strengthened by discipline, and that religion gives vigour and comeliness to them all. Paul's virtue in this was strengthened by his resolution; by his manner of Ufe; by his frequent fastings and trials, and by the abundant employment which God gave him in the apostleship. And it is true ^till, that if a man is desirous to overcome the lusts of the flesh, industry, and Hardship, and trial, and self-denial will enable him, by the grace of God, to do it. Idleness is the cause of no small part of the corrupt desires of men; and God kept Paul from these, (1.) By giving him enough to do; and, (3.) By giving him enough to suffer.
for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let * them marry: for it is bettei to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I
8. It is good for them. It may bo advisable, in the present circumstances of persecution and distress, not to be encumbered with the cares and anxieties of a family. See ver. 26. 32 — 34. The word unmarried (lydjuct^) mayrefer either to those who had never been married, or to widowers. It here means simply those who were at that time unmarried, and his reasoning applies to both classes. ^ And to widows. The apostle specifies these, though he had not specified widowers particularly. The reason of this distinction seems to be, that he considers more particularly the case of those females who had never been married, in the close of the chapter, ver. 25. f That they abide. That they remain, in the present circumstances, unmarried. See ver. 26.
9. But if they cannot contain. If they have not the gift of continence; if they cannot be secure against temptation; if they have not strength of virtue enough to preserve them from the danger of sin, and of bringing reproach and scandal on the church. 1 It is better. It is to be preferred. ^ Than to burn. The passion here referred to is often compared to a fire. See Virg. ^n. IV. 68. It is better to marry, even with all the inconveniences attending the marriage life in a time of distress and persecution in the church (ver. 26), than to be the prey of raging, consuming, and exciting passions.
10. A7id unto the married. This verse commences the second subject of inquiry; to wit, whether it was proper, in the existing state of things, for those who were married to continue this relation, or whether they ought to separate. The reasons why any may have supposed that it was best to separate, may hav been, (1.) That their troubles and per secutions might be such that they might
command, yet not -I, but the Lord, Let " not the wife depart from her husband:
1 1 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be re-
judge it best that families should be broken up; and, (2.) Probably many supposed that it was unlawful for a Christian wife or husband to be connected at all with a heathen and an idolater, t / command, yet not I, hut the Lord. Not I so much as the Lord. This injunction is not to be understood as advice merely, but as a solemn, divine command, from which you are not at liberty to depart. Paul here professes to utter the language of inspiration, and demands obedience. The express command of " the Lord" to which he refers, is probably the precept recorded in Matt. V. 33, and xix. 3 — 10. These precepts of Christ asserted that the marriage tie was sacred and inviolable. t Let not the wife depart, &c. Let her not prove faithless to her marriage vows; let her not, on any pretence, desert her husband. Though she is a Christian, and he is not, yet let her not seek, on that account, to be separate from him. — The law of Moses did not permit a wife to divorce herself from her husband, though it was sometimes done (comp. Mark. x. 12); but the Greek and Roman laws allowed it. — Groiius. But Paul here refers to a formal and legal separation before the magistrates, and not to a voluntary separation, without intending to be formally divorced. The reasons for this opinion are, (1.) That such divorces were known and practised among both Jews and heathens. (2.) It was important to settle the question whether they were to be allowed in the Christian church. (3.) The claim would be set up, probably, that it might be done. (4.) The question whether a voluntary separation might not be proper, where one party was a Christian and the other not, he discusses in the following verses. ver. 12 — 17. Here, therefore, he so-
conciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his
lemnly repeats the law of Christ, that divorce, under the Christian economy, was not to be in the power either of the husband oi wife.
11. But and if she depart. If she have withdiawn by a rash and foolish act; if she has attempted to dissolve the marriage vow, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled. She is not at liberty to marry another. This may refer, I supi'ose, to instances where wives, ignorant of the rule of Christ, and supposing that they had a right to separate themselves from their husbands, had rashly left them, and had supposed that the marriage contract was dissolved. Paul tells them that this was impossible; and that if they had so separated from their husbands, the pure laws of Christianity did not rticognise this right, and they must eithei be reconciled to their husbands, or rem;iin alone. The marriage tie was so sacred that it could not be dissolved by the will of either party, t Let her remain unma ••ried. That is, let her not marry anothei. ^ Or be reconciled to her husband. Let this be done, if possible. If it camiot be, let her remain unmarried. It was a duty to be reconciled, if it was pt>ssible. If not, she should not violate her vows to her husband so far as to m irry another. It is evident that this n le is still binding, and that no one who has separated from her husband, whatever be the cause, unless there be a regular divorce, according to the law of Christ (Matt. v. 32), can be at liberty to marry again, f Arid let not the husband. See Note, Matt. V. 32. This right, gi anted under the Jewish law, and practised among all the heathen, v»ras to be taken away wholly under the gospel. The marriage tie was to be regarded as sacred •, and the tyranny of man over woman was to cease. 12. But to the rest. * I have spoken
hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
in regard to the duties of the unmarried, and the question whether it is right and advisable that they should marry, ver. 1 — 9. 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. Now in regard to the rest of the persons and cases referred to, I will deliver my opinion.' The rest, or remainder, here referred to, relates particularly to the cases in which one party was a Christian and the other not. In the previous verses he had delivered the solemn, explicit law of Christ, that divorce was to take place on neither side, and in no instance, except agreeably to the law of Christ. Matt. v. 32. That was settled by divine authority. In the subsequent verses he discusses a different question; whether a voluntary separation was not advisable and proper when the one party was a Christian and the other not. The word rest refers to these instances, and the questions which would arise under this inquiry. ^ Not the Lord. Note, ver. 6. ' 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 (ver. 40), 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.' This was a case in which both he and they were to follow the principles of Christian prudence and propriety, when there was no express commandment. Many such cases may occur. But few, perhaps none, can occur, in which some Christian principle shall not be found, that will be sufficient to direct the anxious inquirer after truth and duty. •[ If any brother. Any Christian. ^ That believeth not. That is not a Christian; that is a heathen. ^ And if she be pleased. If it seems best to her; if she
13 And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to
consents; approves of living together still. There might be many cases where the wife or the husband, that was not a Christian, would be so opposed to Christianity, and so violent in their opposition, that they would not be willing to live with a Christian. When this was the case, the Christian husband or wife could not prevent the separation. When this was not the case, they were not to seek a separation themselves. t To dwell tuith him. To remain in connexion with him as his wife, though they differed on the subject of religion. 1 Let him not put her away. Though she is a heathen, though opposed to his religion, yet the marriage vow is sacred and inviolable. It is not to be sundered by any change which can take place in the opinions of either party. It is evident that if a man were at liberty to dissolve the marriage tie, or to discard his wife when his own opinions were changed on the subject of religion, that it would at once destroy all the sacredness of the marriage union, and render it a nullity. Even, therefore, when there is a difierence of opinion on the vital subject of religion, the tie is not dissolved; but the only effect of religion should be, to make the converted husband or wife more tender, kind, affectionate, and faithful than they were before; and all the more so as their partners are without the hopes of the gospel, and as they may be won to love the Saviour
13. Let her not leave him. A change of phraseology from the last verse, to suit the circumstances. The wife had not power to put away the husband, and expel him from his own home; but she might think it her duty to be separated from him. The apostle counsels her not to do this; and this advice should still be followed. She should still love her husband and seek his welfare; she should be still a kind, affectionate, and faithful wife; and all the her, let her not more so that she may show him the excellence of religion, and win him to love it She should even bear much, and bear it long; nor should she leave him unless her life is rendered miserable, or in danger; or unless he wholly neglects to make provision for her, and leaves her to suffering, to want, and to tears. In such a case no precept of religion forbids her to return to her father's house, or to seek a place of safety and of comfort. But even then it is not to be a separation on account of a difference of religious sentiment, but for brutal treatment. Even then the marriage tie is not dissolved, and neither party are at liberty to marry again.
14. For the unhelieving husband. The husband that is not a Christian; who still remgdns a heathen, or an impenitent man. The apostle here states reasons why a separation should not take place when there was a difference of religion between the husband and the wife. The first is, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. And the object of this statement seems to be, to meet an objection which might exist in the mind, and which might, perhaps, be urged by some. ' Shall I not be polluted by such a connexion! Shall I not be defiled, in the eye of God, by living in a close union with a heathen, a sinner, an enemy of God, and an opposer of the gospel V This objection was natural, and is, doubtless, often felt. To this the apostle replies, ' No; the contrary may be true. The connexion produces a species of sanctification, or diffuses a kind of holiness over the unbelieving party by the believing party, so far as to render their children holy, and therefore it is improper to seek for a separation.' ^ Is sanctified (iiyUa-T-M). There has been a great variety of opinions in regard to the sense of this word. It docs not comport with my design to state these opinions. The usual meaning of the word is, to make holy; to set apart to a sacred use; to consecrate, &c. See
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife.
Note, John xvii. 17. But the expression cannot mean here, (1.) That the unbelieving husband would become holy, or be a Christian, by the mere fact of a connexion with a Christian, for this would be to do violence to the words, and would be contrary to facts everywhere; nor, (2.) That the unbelieving husband had been sanctified by the Christian wife (Whitby), for this would not be true in all cases; nor, (3.) That the unbelieving husband would gradually become more favourably inclined to Christianity, by observing its effects on the wife (according to Semler); for, though this might be true, yet the apostle was speaking of something then, and which rendered their children at that time holy; nor, (4.) That the unbelieving husband might more easily be sanctified, or become a Christian, by being connected with a Christian wife (according to Rosenmiiller and Schleusner), because he is speaking of something in the connexion which made the children holy; and because the word byix^a is not used in this sense elsewhere. But it is a good rule of interpretation, that the words which are used in any place are to be limited in their signification by the connexion; and all that we are required to understand here is, that the unbelieving husband was sanctified in regard to the subject under discussion; that is, in regard to the question whether it was proper for them to live together, or whether they should be separated or not. And the sense may be, ' They are by the marriage tie one flesh. They are indissolubly united by the ordinance of God. As they are one by his appointment, as they have received his sanction to the marriage union, and as one of them is holy, so the other is to be regarded as sanctified, or made so holy by the divine sanction to the union, that it is proper for them to live together in the marriage relation.' And in proof of this, Paul says if it were n(tt so, if the connexion was to be regarded as impure and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were and abominable, then their children were to be esteemed as illegitimate and unclean. But now they were not so regarded, and could not so be; and hence it followed that they might lawfully continue together. So Calvin, Baza, and Doddridge interpret the expression, f Else were your children unclean {aKa^stqra). Impure; the opposite of what is meant by holy. Here observe, (1.) That this is a reason why the parents, one of whom was a Christian and the other not, should not be separated; and, (2.) The reason is founded on the fact, that if they were separated, the offspring of such a union must be regarded as illegitimate, or unholy; and, (3.) It muat be improper to separate in such a way, and for such a reason, because even iher/ did not believe, and could not believe, that tb^ir children were defiled, and polluted, ai/u subject to the shame and disgrace attending illegitimate children. This passage has often been interpreted, and is often adduced to prove that children are " federally holy," and that they are entitled to the privilege of baptism on the ground of the faith of one of the parents. But against this interpretation there are insuperable objections. ( 1.) The phrase *' federally holy" is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scriptures, and what can be meant by it? (2.) It does not accord with the scope and design of the argument. There is not one word about baptism here; not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a separation between man and wife, where the one was a Christian and the other not. Paul states, that if such a separation should take place, it would imply that the marriage was improper; and of course the children must be regarded as unclean. Bat how would the sup-
your children unclean; but now " are they holy.
position that they were federally holy, and the proper subjects of baptism, bear - on this 1 Would it not be equally true that it was proper to baptize the children whether the parents were separated or not! Is it not a doctrine among Pedobaptists everywhere, that the children are entitled to baptism on the faith of either of the parents, and that that doctrine is not affected by the question here agitated by Paul 1 Whether it was proper for them to live together or not, was it not equally trae that the child of a believing parefit was to be baptized 1 But, (3.) The supposition that this means that the children would be regarded as illegitimate if such a separation should take place, is one that accords with the whole scope and design of the argument. ' When one party is a Christian and the other not, shall there be a separation!' This was the question. * No,' says Paul; ' if there be 6uch a separation, it must be because the marriage is improper,- because it would be wrong to live together in such circumstances.' What would follow from this 1 Why, that all the children that have been born since the one party became a Christian, must be regarded as having been born while a connexion existed that was improper, and unchristian, and unlawful, and of course they must be regarded as illegitimate. But, says he, you do not believe this yourselves. It follows, therefore, that the connexion, even according to your own views, is proper. (4.) This accords with the meaning of the word unclean (dxaS-rtgra). It properly denotes that which is impure, defiled, idolatrous, unclean (a) In a Levitical sense. Lev. v. 2. (6) In a moral sense. Acts x. 28. 2 Cor. vi. 17. Eph. v. 5. The word will appropriately express the sense of illegitimacy; and the argument, [ think, evidently requires this. It may be summed up in a few words. ' Your separation would be a proclamation to all that you regard the marriage as in-
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage
/alid and improper. From this it would follow that the offspring of such a niar- 'iage would be illegitimate. But you, are not prepared to admit this; you do not believe it. Your children you esteem to be legitimate, and they are so. The marriage tie, therefore, should be regarded as binding, and separation unnecessary and improper.' See, however, Doddridge and Bloomfield for a different view of this subject. — I believe infant baptism to be proper and right, and an inestimable privilege to parents and to children. But a good cause should not be made to rest on feeble supports, nor on forced and unnatural interpretations of the Scriptures. And such I regard the usual interpretation placed on this passage. \ But now art they holy. Holy in the same sense as the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; for different forms of the same word are usual. That is, they are legitimate. They are not to be branded and treated as bastards, as they would be by your separation. You regard them as having been born in lawful wedlock, and they ar^ so; and they should be treated as such by their parents, and not be exposed to shame and disgrace by your separation.
15. But if the unbelieving depart. If they choose to leave you. 1 Let him depart. You cannot prevent it, and you are to submit to it patiently, and bear it as a Christian, t A brother or a sister is not under bondage, &c. 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, Rosenmiiller, &c. But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle. The sense of the expression "is not bound," <S6C. is, that if they forcibly depart, the one that is left is not bound by the marriage tie to make provision for the one that departed; to in such cases: but God hath called" us * to peace.
16 For what knowest thou,
I do acts that might be prejudicial to rej ligion by a violent effort to compel the departing husband or wife to live with I the one that is forsaken; but is at liber- { ty to live separate, and should regard [ it as proper so to do. t God hath j called us to peace. Religion is peaceful. It would prevent contentions and broils. This is to be a grand principle. If it cannot be obtained by living together, there should be a peaceful separation; and where such a separation has taken place, the one which has departed should be suffered to remain separate in peace. God has called us to live in peace with all if we can. This is the general principle of religion on which we are always to act. In our relation to our partners in hfe, aa well as in all other relations and circumstances, this is to guide us. Calvin supposes that this declaration pertains to the former part of this verse; and that Paul means to say, that if the unbelieving depart, he is to be suffered to do so peaceably rather than to have contention and strife, for God has called us to a life of peace.
16. For luhat knowest thou, &c. The apostle here assigns a reason why the believing party should not separate from the other needlessly, or why he should not desire to be separated. The reason is, the possibility, or the probability, that the unbelieving party might be converted by the example and entreaties of the other. \ Whether then., &c. How do you know but this may be done ] Is there not a possibility, nay a probability of it, and is not this a sufficient reason for continuing together 1 T[ Save thy husband. Gain him over to the Christian faith; bo the means of his conversion and salvation. Comp. Rom. xi. 26. — We learn from this verse, (1.) That there is a possibility that an unbelieving partner in life may be converted by the
O wife, whether thou shalt save " thy husband? or how ^ know-
example of the other. (2.) That this should be an object of intense interest to the Christian husband or wife, because (a) It will promote the happiness of the other; {b) It will promote their usefulness; (c) It will be the means of blessing their family, for parents should be united on the subject of religion, and in their example and influence in training up their sons and daughters; and {d) Because the salvation of a beloved husband or wife should be an object of intense interest, (3.) This object is of so much importance that the Christian should be willing to submit to much, to bear much, and to bear long, in order that it may be accomplished. Paul said that it was desirable even to live with a heathen partner to do it; and so also it is desirable to bear much, very much, with even an unkind and fretful temper, with an unfaithful and even an intemperate husband, or with a perverse and peevish wife, if there is a prospect that they may be converted. (4.) This same direction is elsewhere given. 1 Pet. iii. 1, 2. (5.) It is often done. It is not hopeless. Many a wife has thus been the means of saving a husband; many a husband has been the means of the salvation of the wife. — In regard to the yneans by which this is to be hoped for, we may observe that it is not by a harsh, fretful, complaining temper; it is to be by kindness, and tenderness, and love. It is to be by an exemplification of the excellency of religion by example, by patience when provoked, meekness when injured, love when despised, forbeararice when words of harshness and irritation are used, and by showing hnw a Christian can live, and what is the true nature of religion: by kind and affectionate conversation when alone, when the heart is tender, when calamities visit the family, and when the thoughts are drawn along by the events of Providence towards
est thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
17 But as God hath distri-
death. Not by harshness or severity of manner, is the result to be hoped for, but by tender entreaty, and mildness of life, and by prayer. Pre-eminently this is to be used. When a husband will not hear, God can hear; when he is angry, morose, or unkind, God is gentle, tender, and kind; and when a husband or a wife turn away from the voice of gentle entreaty, God's ear is open, and God is ready to hear and to bless. Let one thing guide the life. We are never to cease to set a Christian example; never to cease to live as a Christian should live; never to cease to pray fervently to the God of grace, that the partner of our lives may be brought under the full influence of Christian truth, and meet us in the enjoyments of heaven.
17. But as God hath distributed, &c. As God hath divided (i/ui^nriv); i- e. given, imparted to any one. As God has given grace to every one. The words it fj.yi denote simply but in the beginning of this verse. The apostle here introduces a new subject; or an inquiry varying somewhat from tbat preceding, though of the same general nature. He had discussed the question whether a husband and wife ought to be separated on account of a difference in religion. He now says that the general principle there stated ought to rule everywhere; that men who become Christians ought not to seek to change their condition or calling in life, but to remain in that situation in which they were when they became Christians, and show the excellence of their religion ix that particular calling. The object of Paul, therefore, is to preserve order, industry, faithfulness in the relations of life, and to show that Christianity does not design to break up the relations of social and domestic intercourse. This discussion continues to ver. 24. The phrase " as God hath distributed" refers to the condition in