1 Corinthians 7:17

“Save this, that as the Lord hath distributed to every man, as God hath called every one, so let him walk; and so ordain I in all the Churches.”

The particle εἰ μή, unless, or, if it is not so, has been explained in a multitude of ways. Some have connected it with the preceding verse, in this sense: “What knowest thou whether thou shalt save thy wife, or not? ” But there would have been needed at least ἢ εἰ μή, or better, ἢ μή; and it is certainly from this that there has arisen the reading ἢ μή, or not, which is followed by Chrysostom and others, but which has no authorities in its favour. Besides, why not add this or not also to the first question? (de Wette). This addition, finally, would be most superfluous. Rückert would be disposed to make εἰ μή (supplying σώσεις, thou shalt save) a new proposition: “But if thou knowest not whether thou shalt save thy wife, here in any case is the rule to be followed.” This meaning would be admissible, but an adversative particle would have been indispensable. Beza takes εἰ μή in the sense of ἀλλά, but, which cannot be supported grammatically.

Already by the words ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις, in such things, the apostle had betrayed his intention of extending the treatment of the question proposed to other analogous subjects. This transition is indicated by the particle εἰ μή, unless that, which marks his return to the general rule from which he had been forced to deviate in the exceptional case treated, 1 Corinthians 7:15-16. The principle, on which rested the two directions given to spouses, 1 Corinthians 7:10-14, was to remain as Christians in the situation where marriage had previously placed them. After the exception to this rule which he authorized, 1 Corinthians 7:15-16, the apostle returns, by the particle, unless that, or, saving the case that, to the line of conduct indicated in the outset, and which he now states in a perfectly general way in 1 Corinthians 7:17: every believer ought to remain in the earthly situation in which the call to salvation found him. This is the meaning held by most modern interpreters (de Wette, Osiander, Meyer, Hofmann, etc.).

The authority of the Mjj. hardly allows us to admit the received reading, according to which the subject of the first clause is ὁ θεός, God, and that of the second, ὁ κύριος, the Lord, evidently Jesus Christ; comp. 1 Corinthians 8:6. This reading is, however, the most natural, for in the first proposition the subject in question is external circumstances over which God presides, and in the second the calling to salvation which is undoubtedly often ascribed to God, but which may also be attributed to Christ. Hofmann, too, prefers this reading to that of the majority of the Mjj., which reverses the order of the two subjects. With this last reading it must be held that Christ is regarded here as directing from the midst of His glory the course of things on the earth. For it does not seem to me possible to apply, as Reiche and Heinrici do, the verb ἐμέρισεν, has distributed (μεμέρικεν, of א B, is probably a correction after κέκληκεν), to the share of spiritual graces bestowed on each believer. The assigned portion in which each should continue can only be, according to the context, the circumstances, analogous to the state of Christian or mixed marriage, in which the believer was providentially placed at the time of his conversion: “The position in which thou didst hear and receive the Divine call is also that in which thou shouldest continue to live” (περιπατεῖν, to walk). A situation which could not prevent salvation from being realized in us, will not be incompatible with life in salvation.

The two everys are, by a strong inversion, placed before the conjunction which begins the proposition to which they belong. Thereby the apostle would emphasize the idea that there are as many particular positions as individuals called, and that each of them is their Divinely distributed lot which they ought not to change at will.

But Paul would not have it thought at Corinth that the principle here laid down is invented by him with a view to some present and special application which he contemplates within that Church. As to the rule, he lays it down in all the Churches founded by him, whose conduct amid such delicate questions he is called to direct. The word διατάσσομαι, I ordain, contains two ideas: that of a summary decision (διά), and that of apostolical competency (the middle, τάσσομαι, I regulate in my sphere). The word all must of course be limited to the Churches dependent on his apostleship; comp. 1 Corinthians 14:37. The rule laid down in this verse is therefore this: the calling to the gospel ought not to be a reason with the believer for changing his outward situation. This principle well shows with what a conviction of its victorious power the gospel made its entrance into the world. It did not fear to confront any earthly position, lawful in itself; but it faced them all with the certainty of being able to penetrate and sanctify them by its spirit. As Edwards says: “The gospel introduces the principle of order as limiting that of liberty in the present life. It does not make slaves of us, but it does not plunge us into anarchy. It is not despotic; but neither is it revolutionary.”

The apostle cites and deals with two examples: the state of circumcision or uncircumcision, and that of slavery or freedom.