The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Corinthians — Section 224

permission " to Christians, not " by way of I, but the Lord. Because the role hitcl been injunction." He meane to say that be laid down by Christ himself (Mark x. 11, leaves the details of their lives, whether 12; Matt. v. 32 ; xix. 6 ; Luke xvi. 18). celibate or married, to their individual con- Let not the wife depart. By divorce or sciences, though with large-hearted wisdom otherwise. The wife is mentioned, perhaps, and charity he would emancipate them because the Christian wife, in the new sense from human and unauthorized restrictions. of dignity and sacredness which Christianity The clause is not, therefore, a parallel to had bestowed upon her, might be led to the restrictions on the authority of his claim this spurious freedom; or perhaps the utterances, such as we find in vers. 12, 29, 40, Christian women of Corinth had been more and in 2 Cor. viii. 10; xi. 17. impressed than their husbands by the Ver. 7.-For I wonld. The verb here Essene notions of purity. The exception of used is thelo (will). In 1 Tim. v. 14 be divorce being permissible in case of forni- says, "I prefer (bou7omai) that the younger cation is assumed (Matt. v. 32 ; xix. 9). women marry." Even as I myself; endowed, Ver. 11.-If she depart. The reference that is, with the gift of continence, which throughout the verse is to separation due to would (iu the expected nearness of Christ's incompatibility of temper, etc. ; not to legal coming) render marriage needless, and the divorce. condition of man like that of the angels in Vers. 12-16.-DirectiO'IIB about mixed heaven, who neither marry nor are given in marriages. marriage, llis proper gift. The ••gifts" Ver. 12.-To the rest. That is, to those alluded to are the" graces" (charismata) of who are married, but are heathen. They the Holy Spirit; and the grace of perfect were the remaining class about whose duties continence does not exist equally in all the Corinthians bad made inquiry. Not (Matt. xix. 11). One after this manner, the Lord. The Lord had made no express and another after that. The remark is reference to such cases, since it had been no general, but also has its special application part of his mission to lay down minute to continence and marriage (Matt. xix. details which would be duly settled from 12). age to age by the wisdom taught by the Ver. 8.-To the umnarried; including Holy Ghost. She be pleased to dwell with widowers. In my • Life of St. Paul,' i. 75 him. It is assumed that, if she clid not -82, I have given my reasons for believing please, the poor Christinn convert would that St. Paul was a widower. It is good for have no protection of his rights; pagan them. It is an expedient, honourable, and courts would re~ard conversion as a sufficient morally "beautiful thing," but, as he so reason for breBking off marriages. distinctly points out further on, there might Ver. 13.-Let her not leave him. The he a " better" even to the " good." Even as verb is the same as in the clnuso rendered I. In the unmarried state, whether as one "let him not p11t her away." who had never married, or, 11s I infer from Ver. 14.-Is sanoti11ed; literally, has been various circumstances, as a widower (so too sanctified, the status hBs been reudered (so Clemens of Alexandria, Grotius, Luther, to speak) theoretically clean. By the wife; Ewald, etc.); see my • Life of St. Paul,' i. literally, in the wife. The bond is still 169). Tertullian and J crorue (both of them holy; its holiness rests in the believing wife biassed witnesses, and with no certoin or husbnnd. 'The reasoning would remove support of tradition) say that St. Paul was any scruples which Jewish Christians might never ml\l'ried. derive from Deut. vii. 3, etc. By the Ver. 9.-lf they oo.nnot oontain; rather, husband; rather, in the brother. 'The liberty if they have not continency. Let them implied by these remarks, contrasting so marry. In 1 Tim. v. 14 he lays down and strongly with the rigid rules lnid down in justifies the so.me rule with reference to the days of Ezra (Ezra ix.; N eh. ix.) recall young widows. It is better to marry than the change of dispensation. Unclean; i.e. to bum, The original tenses give greater not placed in immediate covenant relntion force and beauty to this obvious rule of to God. But now are they holy. This does Christian common sense and morality. The not necessnrily imply that they wer" bnp- "mBrry" is in the Borist-•• to marry once tized as infonts, but only that they wero for BII," and live in holy mBrried union; hallowed as the fruit of a hallowed union. tho "burn" is in the present-" to be on fire See the remarknble words of l.lfal11chi (ii. rn). with concupiscence." l\Iarriage once for all "If the root be holy, so are the branches·• is better than continuous lust; the former is (Rom. xi. 16). permitted, the lBtter sinful. Ver. 15.-Iftheunbelievingdepart, The Ver. 10.-And; rBther, but. Unto the senso of the word rendered "dep11rt" is married j to Christiana who hBvo Cllready rather •• wishes to bo separated." Is not married. I oommand, This is an injunc- under bondage; literally, lta& not l,ee11 tion, not a mero permi,sion as in ver. 6. Not emlaoed. Our Lord assumes one cau~o I, CORIIS'THIA:-.S, I.I  226 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. [oH, vu. 1-10.