Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:1–2)
In previous chapters of this epistle, St Paul corrects the three most unpleasant problems of the Corinthian church: first, factionalism within the Church; second, the man living in incest; and third, the greed which was causing members of the Church to sue each other in the public courts. Here, however, he speaks more gently. He gives his audience a rest from such vulgarities and inserts some advice and exhortation concerning marriage and virginity. Notice that in 2 Corinthians he does the opposite: he begins with lighter issues, and ends with more serious ones. But in this epistle, after he finishes his discourse on virginity, he returns again to more alarming subjects. He does not follow an exact order, but varies his words, sometimes speaking sternly and sometimes gently, as the occasion requires.
He says, “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote.” They had written to ask if it was right for a man to abstain from relations with his wife. He answers their questions and establishes rules for married life, but places his reply within the context of virginity: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” It is as if he were saying, “If you are searching for the best and most lofty path, then do not take a woman at all. But if you want help and security in your weakness, look for a wife.” Within marriage, both then and now, one of two things is likely to happen: either the husband wants to have relations with his wife, but she does not, or vice versa. Notice that he speaks of both situations in the same way. Some have claimed, incidentally, that St Paul was asked this question in reference to the clergy. But I cannot agree with this, because his advice is not given to a particular group of people, but to everyone in general. If he were writing only for priests, he would have said, “It is well for a teacher not to touch a woman.” But he speaks generally: “It is well for a man …,” he says, not only for a priest. Later on he says, “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.” He does not mention priests or teachers, but speaks indefinitely, and continues in this tone for the rest of the passage. By saying, “But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife,” he uses this solution to temptation to guide men to the practice of self control.
“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, (1) and likewise the wife to her husband” (v. 3). And what are conjugal rights? First, it means that the wife has no power over her own body, but she is her husband’s slave—and also his ruler. If you refuse to serve your husband properly, you offend God. So, wife, if you want to abstain, even for a little while, get your husband’s permission first. That is why St Paul speaks of conjugal rights as a debt; to show that neither husband nor wife is his or her own master, but rather are each other’s servants. As for you, husband, if a prostitute tries to seduce you, tell her, “My body is not my own, but my wife’s.” And let the wife say the same to any man attempting to undermine her fidelity: “My body is not my own, but my husband’s.” So if neither husband nor wife has power over their own bodies, they have even less control over money. Listen carefully, all married men and women: if you cannot call your body your own, then you certainly cannot call your money your own. Now I admit that elsewhere in Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments, men are given far greater authority: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you,” (2) or, “Husbands, love your wives … and let the wife see that she respects her husband;” (3) notice Paul’s choice of words. In this passage, however, there is no mention of greater or lesser authority. Why does he speak here in terms of equality? Because his subject is conjugal fidelity. He intends for the husband to have the greater responsibility in nearly every concern, but fidelity is an exception: “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.” Husband and wife are equally responsible for the honor of their marriage bed.
“Do not refuse (4) one another except by agreement” (v. 5). What does this really mean? Paul is saying that the wife should not abstain without the husband’s consent, and vice versa. Why? Because great evils—adulteries, fornications and broken homes among them—have often resulted from this kind of abstinence. If men fornicate even when they have the consolation of their wives, what do you expect will happen if they are deprived of this? No wonder Paul calls such a refusal an act of fraud, just as he has spoken of conjugal rights as a debt to be paid, in order to show the importance of mutual authority within marriage. If one abstains without the other’s consent, it is an act of fraud; but if consent is given, it is not, just as if you took something of mine that I had already given you, I could not call it theft. Theft occurs only if you take something by force, without my consent. This is what many wives do when they refuse their husbands. They commit a sin which outweighs the righteousness of their abstinence. They are responsible for their husband’s licentiousness and the broken homes that result. Instead of behaving this way, they should value harmony above everything; nothing is more important. Let us examine these things more closely: imagine a household in which the wife abstains from marital relations without her husband’s consent. Suppose he commits fornication, or on the other hand remains continent but frets and complains, loses his temper, and constantly fights with his wife. Either way, what good is all the fasting and continence? No good at all; it has broken love to pieces. How much abuse, trouble, and fighting has resulted from this!
When husband and wife are at odds with one another, their household is in no better shape than a storm-tossed ship in which the captain and the pilot disagree. That is why Paul says: “Do not refuse one another except by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” He is referring to unusually intense prayer. Otherwise, if he forbids those who have marital relations to pray, his words about ceaseless prayer would have no meaning. It is certainly possible to be married and to pray at the same time, but prayer can be intensified by abstinence. Notice that he does not merely say, “… that you may pray,” but, “… that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” He does not mean that sexual relations would make the prayer unclean. He simply means that they occupy one’s attention. “But then come together again, lest Satan tempt you.” In order that he may not seem to be legislating arbitrarily, he offers an explanation: “Lest Satan tempt you …” And to demonstrate that the devil is not solely responsible for temptations to adultery, he says, “Lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.” “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am” (in a state of continence). He often uses himself as an example when speaking of difficult matters: “Be imitators of me.” (5)
“But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (v. 7). He says this to encourage the Corinthians, since he has just sternly accused them of lacking self-control. “Each has his own special gift from God;” he doesn’t mean that we don’t have to strive zealously for self-control, but simply wants to comfort them, as I have just said. If self-control is a gift, and man can’t attain it by his efforts, how could he say, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry” (v. 8–9). You can see Paul’s common sense here. He says that continence is better, but does not force a person who cannot attain it, fearing that defeat may result. “For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (v. 9); here he shows how great a tyranny the passions exercise over us. What he means is something like this: if you suffer with violent, burning passion, then relieve your pain and sweat through marriage, before you utterly collapse.
“To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord …” (v. 10). He says “not I” here because he is about to quote a law which Christ Himself established, that a man cannot divorce his wife except for reasons of unchastity. Paul’s previous words, though not explicitly spoken by Christ, was nevertheless inspired by Him. There, however, Christ speaks specifically. That is the difference between “I” and “not I.” Never imagine Paul’s words to be merely human opinion, since he says, “I think that I have the Spirit of God” (v. 40). Now what exactly does the Lord command married couples? “The wife should not separate from her husband, but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (v. 10–11). Since we see that separations occur, whether caused by abstinence, pettiness, or other motives, he says that although it would be better for such things never to happen, when they do happen, the wife should still remain with her husband. Even if they don’t have sexual relations, at least she won’t take another man to be her husband.
“To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him” (v. 12–13). Earlier in this epistle, (6) when Paul warns us not to associate with immoral men, he corrects himself by restricting his prohibition to immoral men (7) among the brethren. He does this to make things easier; otherwise we would have to leave this world. So also here, he provides us with the easiest solution: “If a wife has an unbelieving husband, or vice versa, let not one leave the other.” What do you think of that? Does it surprise you that, although unbelief is worse than fornication, an unbeliever is to remain with his spouse, but fornication is grounds for separation? Fornication is indeed the lesser sin, but here God in His great mercy shows us that the lesser sins can prevent us from conquering the greater. For instance, Christ says in the Gospel: “Leave your gift here before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (8) Consider also the man who owed ten thousand talents. (9) God didn’t punish him because he couldn’t pay the money, but because he refused to forgive a fellow-servant who owed him a hundred denarii. (Likewise, fornication might be a lesser evil, but where it remains secure, unbelief will never be overthrown. St Paul also realized that a Christian wife might worry that intercourse with an unbelieving husband is an impure act. He dispels such fears by saying, “The unbelieving husband is sanctified (10) through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her husband” (v. 14). Yet earlier he said, “Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her?” (11) We might then conclude that a woman joined to an unbelieving idolater becomes one body with him. Is there a contradiction here? No, because although they become one body, the woman is not defiled, since the purity of her faith is stronger than the impurity of his unbelief. Likewise the purity of a believing husband is stronger than the impurity of an unbelieving wife.
How can it be that a husband would not be criticized for throwing a wife who had become a prostitute out of his house, but in the case of an unbelieving spouse, impurity is overcome and sexual relations are permitted? Because there is hope that the spouse who is perishing through his unbelief might be saved through marriage to a believer. In the former situation, however, the marriage has already been dissolved: both partners are tainted, while here only one is really to blame. This is what I mean: an unfaithful wife has defiled the sexual act itself. If her husband has intercourse with her, he becomes as impure as she is, since both of them become one body. Purity in such a situation is impossible for husband or wife, but here it is not the case. How is this possible? An unbelieving husband is impure because of his unbelief; but if his believing wife is not united to him in the act of unbelief, she remains pure. He remains impure as far as his unbelief is concerned; but since marriage means physical union, the sexual act through which he and his wife are joined is not affected by his unbelief. Also, there is hope that this man will be converted by his wife’s influence, but in the other situation it wouldn’t be very easy. Once an unfaithful wife has dishonored and wronged her husband by becoming another man’s, and ignoring the duties of marriage, how can she win him back, especially if they remain as strangers to each other? A husband is no longer a husband after such infidelity, but in the other case, even if a wife is not a believer, it does not destroy the husband’s marriage rights. Bear in mind, however, that he is not recommending indiscriminate marriages with unbelievers. That is why he says, “… and he (the unbelieving partner) consents to live with her (the believer).”
Tell me, then, what harm is there in such a marriage? The purity of the faith is upheld, and there is plenty of hope for the unbelieving partner. Such marriages should be left in peace. There is no reason to introduce unnecessary tension. But remember: the issue here does not concern those who are contemplating marriage, but only those who are already married. He did not say, “If any brother wants to marry an unbeliever,” but, “If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever.” This means that if anyone receives the Word of Truth after getting married, and the wife remains an unbeliever but wants the marriage to continue, then it should not be broken. “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife.” The purity of the believer is the stronger force. But how can an unbeliever be holy? It is impossible, but notice that Paul does not say that he is holy, but that he is sanctified through his wife. And this does not mean that his unbelief becomes holy, but that the strong word “holy” is intended to dispel his wife’s fear as completely as possible, and to lead him to desire the truth. Impurity does not originate in the union of their bodies, but in their thoughts and motives. Here is the proof: if one partner remains unclean when a child is begotten, then the child would have to be either unclean or only half clean, but Paul says the child is clean: “Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy” (v. 14). Again, he uses the explicit word “holy” instead of “not unclean” to cast out the fears that arise from suspicions of this kind.
“But if the unbelieving partner separates himself, let it be so” (v. 15). How does he “separate himself”? Here conjugal infidelity is not the question, but what if he tries to force you to sacrifice to idols, or to join with him in some immoral act, on the grounds of marriage, and when you refuse, he leaves you? Well, let him go; it is better to break up the marriage for righteousness’ sake. Paul elaborates: “In such a case the brother or sister is not bound.” If he beats you every day, constantly picking fights over this issue, it is better to separate. These are the conditions Paul visualizes when he says, “For God has called you to peace.” The unbelieving partner is as much to blame for such a separation as the partner guilty of infidelity.
“Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband?” (v. 16). He is elaborating here on his admonition that “she should not divorce him.” It is as if Paul were saying, “If your husband is not contentious, it could very well prove to be worthwhile if you stay with him. So stay, give him advice, persuade him of the truth.” No teacher is so effective as a persuasive wife. Notice, however, that St Paul doesn’t forcibly impose this idea, and demand that every spouse, no matter what the circumstances, attempt to persuade his partner in this way; such a demand would be too burdensome. On the other hand, he doesn’t recommend the whole situation to be dismissed as hopeless. He realizes that much is uncertain, so he leaves things in the air: “Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife? Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Never mind” (vs. 17–21). None of these things contributes anything to the faith, so don’t argue about them or be confused by them, since the faith has overthrown all these things. “Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called.” Was your wife an unbeliever when you were called? Stay together; don’t send her away because you think the faith demands it. Were you a slave when called? It doesn’t matter; continue on as a slave. Had you not been circumcised when you were called? Stay uncircumcised. Were you already circumcised, when you became a believer? Don’t try to remove the marks of your circumcision. That is what “let everyone lead the life which the Lord has assigned to Him” means. None of these circumstances hinder a godly life. Whether you are a slave, or have an unbelieving wife, or are marked with the sign of circumcision, you are called to faith, and that is what matters.
Amazing! Look what he says about slavery! Just as circumcision is no advantage towards salvation, and uncircumcision no hindrance, so also slavery or freedom do not matter either. In order to make this assertion perfectly clear, he says, “But if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition instead” (v. 21). (12) For what possible reason should a slave who could be set free choose to remain a slave? Paul is saying that slavery does no harm, but is actually an advantage! I am aware that some people interpret these words to mean, “But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.” This interpretation, however, does not coincide with Paul’s purpose. He is trying to comfort slaves, and to reassure them that their condition does not hinder their salvation. Why would he suddenly urge them to seek freedom? On the contrary, he realizes that someone would ask, “What can I possibly do? I cannot obtain freedom, but as a slave I am wronged and degraded continually.” So he certainly is not urging them to seek freedom, but intends to show that a slave gains nothing by being set free, saying, “Even if you have it in your power to be set free, remain a slave.” But he adds this explanation: “For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ” (v. 22). As far as Christ is concerned, both slave and master are equal. Are you the slave of Christ? So is your master! In what way is the slave a freedman? Because Christ has freed you not only from sin, but also from slavery to external evils. Even though you remain a slave, as far as earthly life is concerned, in Christ’s eyes you are not a slave. This is a great wonder; how can a slave be simultaneously enslaved and free? If he is freed from the passions, and from vices of the mind; if he disdains riches, and refrains from anger and all the other passions, then he is truly free.
“You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men” (v. 23). These words are addressed not only to slaves, but to free men as well. One can be a slave, yet be free, just as one can be free, but in fact a slave. Again, how can a slave be simultaneously enslaved and free? When he does everything for God’s sake, deceives no one, and doesn’t shirk the work assigned to him: that is how someone held in bondage to another can be free. And how can a free man become a slave? When he serves other men whose goals are evil, whether they are gluttony, or the lust for riches, or political power. Such a person, even though he is free, is more a slave than any man. Consider the examples of Joseph and his master’s wife: (13) Joseph was a slave, but not a slave to men, so that even in slavery he was more free than all free men. He didn’t yield to the woman; he wouldn’t submit to her wishes. On the other hand, she was free, but no woman ever acted more like a slave, begging and fawning over her own servant. But she didn’t succeed. Joseph was free, and he wouldn’t do what she wanted. This is not slavery, but freedom of the highest kind. Did Joseph’s condition of slavery prevent him from practicing virtue in any way? Pay attention to me, both free men and slaves: which of these two was really the slave? Joseph, who resisted temptation and ignored her advances, or his master’s wife, who tried to seduce him? God has set limits to the obedience a slave owes his master. He has commanded when one should obey and when one should not. When your master doesn’t order you to do something displeasing to God, it is right to obey him, but your obligation goes no further. That is how a slave is really free. But if you transgress God’s law, you become a slave even if you appear to be free. This is what Paul means when he says, “Do not become slaves of men.” What else could he mean? If he is urging slaves to abandon their masters and fight for freedom why does he say, “In whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God” (v. 24)? In another place he says, “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor … Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.” (14) In the epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians he commands the same. So it is obvious that Paul’s intention is not to abolish slavery as a social institution. Rather, he attacks slavery in its worst form, the slavery to evil, which pays no respect to any external freedom. Joseph’s brothers all had their freedom while he was a slave in Egypt, but what good did it do them? Were they not in greater bondage than any slave? They lied to their father. They sold their brother to the traders under false pretences. But Joseph was truly free everywhere and in every situation. Freedom is most radiant when it shines through bondage.
Such is the nature of Christianity: even in slavery it bestows freedom. If someone claimed to have an immortal body, he would have to prove his claim by being shot with an arrow and suffering no harm. Likewise, a man shows he is truly free when his spirit remains unfettered even though he is subject to masters. That is why St Paul advises such a person to remain a slave. And if it is impossible for a slave to be a good Christian, then the pagans will conclude that our religion is very weak; but if we can convince them that slavery is no impediment to holiness, they will be amazed at our doctrine. We are not harmed by chains, or flogging, or death itself; how then can slavery hurt us? The faithful have endured fire, sword, innumerable tortures, anguish, poverty, wild beasts, and countless sufferings even worse than these without injury—yes, they have even been strengthened by them. How can slavery hurt them? It is not slavery that injures us, beloved; the real slavery is slavery to sin. If you are not held in bondage to sin, rejoice and have no fear; no one can harm you, since you are made of such stuff that no one can enslave. But if you are a slave of sin, I tell you that even if you are free ten thousand times over, it is of no advantage to you. Can you tell me what advantage a man has who, although not in bondage to another man, is in constant subjection to his own passions? At least men are merciful from time to time, but the passions—they won’t be satisfied until they have destroyed you! Are you another man’s slave? Well, your master is also enslaved to you: he has to provide you with food, take care of your health, and provide you with clothing, shoes, and every other need. You have to take care not to offend your master, but his cares for your material welfare are greater. Does he recline at table, while you stand and serve him? So what! The reverse also is true. Often while you are lying in bed sleeping sweetly, your master is not only standing, but keeping a most unpleasant vigil in a marketplace full of strife.
Tell me, who suffered more? Joseph, or his master’s wife, enslaved to her evil desire? He wouldn’t do what she wanted, but she was very obedient to the licentious mistress within her, who would not let her alone until she had completely dishonored herself. What human master, what savage tyrant could make such a command? “Beg your slave,” it hissed, “flatter this captive bought with your own silver. Even if he spurns you, continue to pursue him. If you nag him and he still won’t consent, wait until he’s alone and try to force him. Act as ridiculously as possible.” How could anything be more dishonorable or shameful? “And if none of this works, accuse him falsely and deceive your husband.” Notice how shamefully servile these commands are, how cruel, harsh, and frenzied. What slave was ever governed by his master as that royal woman was ruled by her lust? She had even lost the ability to disobey. Joseph, on the other hand, was nothing like this. Everything he did brought him glory and honor.
I will tell you about another man enslaved to an even worse mistress, whose commands he dared not disobey. Consider Cain, and his ruler Lady Jealousy. She ordered him to murder his brother Abel, to lie to God, to grieve his father. He shamelessly did all these things, disobeying nothing. Don’t be amazed that Jealousy has such great power over one man; she has often destroyed entire nations! For example, the Midianite women used their beauty to deceitfully provoke the Jews to idolatry, (15) and because of this God commanded Israel to destroy their whole nation! This is the kind of slavery Paul is attacking when he says, “Do not become slaves of men.” He means, “Don’t listen to people who order you to do disgusting things, and don’t be enslaved to your own wild impulses.”
So, after he has raised their minds to higher things, he continues his message: “Now concerning the virgins (16) I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy” (v. 25). The next topic on his agenda is virginity. He has saved it with the hope that they have learned from his previous words to practice continence, and can now advance to greater things. “I have no command,” he says, but he knows virginity to be a good thing. Why? For the same reason continence is good: it is well for a person to remain as he is. “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you fre from a wife? Do not seek marriage” (v. 27). He is not contradicting what he said earlier about abstinence from sexual relations. His advice here is the same. “Do not refuse one another except by agreement … Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free.” There is no contradiction. Abstinence without mutual consent is forbidden, but if husband and wife agree to live together in continence, they are not seeking to break up their marriage and be free from each other.
This particular advice does not have the force of law. That is why he says, “But if you marry, you do not sin” (v. 28). He then speaks of contemporary conditions: the “present distress,” how “the appointed time has grown very short,” and how those who marry will have “affliction.” Marriage entails many things, and he has summarized them both here, by saying “You are bound,” and in his advice about continence, when he says, “The wife does not rule over her own body.” “But if you marry, you do not sin.” He does not mean someone who has vowed to remain a virgin. She would be sinning if she married, because if widows incur condemnation for violating their pledge and seeking second marriage, (17) the judgment for virgins would be even greater.
“Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles.” Ah, but they will also have pleasure, you say. “But not for long,” Paul replies, for “the time has grown very short” (v. 29). It is as if he were saying, “We are directed to leave earthly cares behind us, but you are more deeply sinking into them.” Even if marriage had no troubles, it would still be better for us to press forward toward the things yet to come. But since marriage does have its troubles, why be further burdened by it? Why struggle under such a weight? Even after you take it you have to use it as if it didn’t exist, since he says, “Let those who have wives live as though they had none.”
So after inserting these words about future things, he returns to the present. Notice that some of his advice concerns the spiritual life (the married woman is anxious about how to please her husband, while the unmarried woman or virgin is anxious about the Lord’s affairs), while at other times he argues on the grounds of this present life (I want you to be free from anxieties), but he leaves the choice to them. If he tried to force them to follow the way he has proven to be best, it would look as if he didn’t trust his own argument. Instead he tries to hold them in check with gentle persuasion: “I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord” (v. 35).
Now, the virgins should listen to what follows: virginity does not simply mean sexual abstinence. She who is anxious about worldly affairs is not really a virgin. In fact, he says that this is the chief difference between a wife and a virgin. He doesn’t mention marriage or abstinence, but attachment as opposed to detachment from worldly cares. Sex is not evil, but it is a hindrance to someone who desires to devote all her strength to a life of prayer. “If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his virgin …” (v. 36–40). These words refer to a man and a woman living in sexual continence as brother and sister; He approves of this but also says it is no sin if they marry. He concludes the passage by speaking of second marriage after the death of one’s spouse. He even allows this, but says that it must be “in the Lord.” “In the Lord” means with prudence and decency. We must always pursue these virtues, for without them we will never see God.
No one should accuse me of negligently hurrying through Paul’s words about virginity. I have written a whole book about this subject in which I tried to examine accurately every aspect of virginity. It would be a waste of words to bring this topic up again. I refer you to this book if you want a more detailed discussion, and will close with one final statement. We must strive for self-control … St Paul tells us to seek peace and the sanctification without which it is impossible to see the Lord. So whether we presently live in virginity, in our first marriage, or in our second, let us pursue holiness, that we may be counted worthy to see Him and to attain the Kingdom of Heaven, through the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory, dominion, and honor, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.
1 So the RSV. St John Chrysostom’s Greek text of the Scriptures used τὴν ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν which literally means, “Let the husband pay his debt of honor to his wife.”
2 Gen 3:16.
3 Eph 5:25, 33.
4 “Refuse” is a very weak translation of ἀποστερεῖτε. Older translations (Vulgate, KJV) use “defraud” which is certainly the way Chrysostom interprets the phrase.
5 1 Cor 4:16.
6 Cf 1 Cor 5:9–11.
7 Literally, fornicators.
8 Mt 5:24.
9 Cf Mt 18:23ff.
10 RSV consecrated.
11 1 Cor 6:16.
12 The meaning of μᾶλλον χρῆσαι is impossible to determine from the Scriptural text itself. The KJV and Douay-Rheims translate this phrase literally, and therefore do not answer the question. Among modern translations, the RSV conjectures that such a slave should avail himself of the opportunity for freedom, while providing in a footnote the alternative translation, that he should remain a slave making use of his present condition (Chrysostom’s exegesis). The NEB and Today’s English Version do the same.
13 Cf Gen 39:6 ff.
14 1 Tim 6:1–2.
15 Cf Num 25.
16 τῶν παρθένων: RSV translates this as “the unmarried”—certainly quite an assumption!
17 Cf 1 Tim 5:11–12.
John Chrysostom. (1839). The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. John Henry Parker; J. G. F. and J. Rivington. (Public Domain)
Comentarios