Vv. 8, 9 re-state the answer given in vv. I, 2 to the question concerning celi- bacy v. marriage. ‘“‘But I say to the unmarried and the widows, it is right (καλόν; cf. 1) for them if they remain as indeed I (am).” The Ap. extends the
-6—11.
Το. Τοῖς δὲ * γεγαµηκόσι © παραγγέλλω, οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Κύριος, ἕ γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι :Ἰ 11. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ " χωρισθῇ, pevétw 7 ἄγαμος ἢ τῷ ἀνδρὶ ' καταλλαγήτω: καὶ ἄνδρα yuvaixa μὴ
Gospp. Eph. ii. 16; Col. i. 20 f.; διαλλ., MU. ν. 24.
Ὦ In tmis sense, Mt. xix. 6; Judges iv. rr.
825
xi. 173 10 times be- sides in Ρ.; freq. in Acts; 8 times in Syn. i2 Cor. v. 18 #.; Rom. v. 10; αποκαταλλ.ι
1 χωριζεσθαι, ADG (Western).
‘reassurance given in ver. 1, and fortifies it by his own example, so that those out -of wedlock who were under no constraint ‘to enter its bonds might be free from "missiving and reproach. τοῖς ἀγάμοις, in contrast to τοῖς γεγαμηκόσιν, ver. 10; the term is masc.—‘‘to unmarried men’; the case of ‘maidens’ is discussed later (25 ff.). ‘*The widows,” ‘who would frequently have the dis- posal of themselves, are included here —they are advised again to the like eftect in vv. 39 f. Holsten omits καὶ ταῖς χήραις as out of place; Bois ingeniously suggests that this may be a primitive corruption for καὶ τοῖς χήροις, “the widowers”.— As the ποργείαι ‘without (2), so ἀκρασία within (5) might make abstention from marriage perilous; hence the qualification added in ver. 9: “But if they have not self-control, let them marry; for better it is to marry than to burn on (with desire) ”.—wvputo@at, pr. of continued state —‘occulta Hamma -concupiscentiz vastari’’ (Aug.); the vb. is used ot any consuming passion, as in 2 Cor. xi. 29. Not “better in so far as marriage is sinless, burning is sinful (Matt. v. 28),”—so Mr.; if marriage and parenthood are holy (14), the fire which ‘burns toward that end surely may be so —‘ the sacred lowe ο’ weel-placed love”’ ; but “better” as the unsatisfied craving is a continual temptation, and according το the rule of ver. 35. Better to marry than to burn; but if marriage is impos- sible, better infinitely to burn than to sin.
§ 21. PROHIBITION OF DiIvoRCE, Vii. 10-16. Pagan sentiment and law, while condoning fornication, were exceedingly lax in permitting divorce (see Hermann- Stark, Griech. Privat-alterthimer, §§ 30. 15, 17), aS Jewish practice was on the side of the husband (Matt. v. 31 f., xix. 7 ff.); and marriages were often con- tracted without affection. Unfit unions became irksome in the extreme, with the stricter ethics and high ideal of the new faith; in many cases one of the partners remained a heathen (12 f.). It was asked -whether Christians were really “‘ bound” Μδεδουλωμένοι, 15) by the ties of the old
life tormed under unholy conditions, and whether it was right for man and wife to live together while one was in the king- dom of God and the other in that of Satan. These questions, propounded in the letter from Cor., Paul has now to answer—(qa) as respects Christian couples (ro f.), (6) as respects married pairs divided in religion (12-16).
Vv. το, 11. ‘But in the case of those that have married (τ. γεγαµηκόσιν, pf. of settled tact), I charge . . . wife not to separate trom husband . . . and husband not to send away (or let go) wife.” The parenthesis, “not I but the Lord’’ (it is His command, not mine), refers the indissolubility of marriage to the authority of Christ. The exceptional cause of divorce allowed by Jesus, πα- pextos λόγου πορνείας (Matt. v. 32, xix. g; also unmentioned in Mark x. 11, Luke xvi. 18), is not contemplated in the instance of wedded Christians (Paul is addressing both partners at once). The Apostle’s tone is changed (cf. 6 ff.); he is laying down the law, and on Supreme Authority. He cites Christ’s words in distinction from his own (12), not as though his word was insufficient (see, to the contrary, 40, ii. 16, v. 3 f., xiv. 37, etc.), but inasmuch as this was a prin- ciple upon which “the Lord” had pro- nounced categorically.—It is noticeable that the case of the woman seeking se- paration comes first and is dwelt upon; Christianity had powerfully stirred the feminine mind at Cor. (see xi. 5 ff., xiv. 34 f.). In some cases, not so much in- compatibility as ascetic aversion (cy. 3 f.) caused the wish to separate.—The γυναῖκα μὴ χωρισθῆναι is qualified by the paren- thesis ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ: “ but if indeed she have separated, let her remain un- married, or be reconciled to her husband ”. P. is not allowing exceptions from thé rule of Christ, but advising in cases where the mischief was done; the aor. sbj., Χωρισθῇ, is timeless, taking its oc- casion from the context: see Bn., § 98. Her remaining unmarried is virtually included in the law of Christ (Matt. v. 32, xix. 9). καταλλαγήτω, pass., “let