1 Corinthians 7:39-40

Vers. 39, 40: widows.

It has been asked why Paul returns to widows, after having already given in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 the direction which concerns them. Reuss supposes that Paul forgot what he had said in these verses, or that he judged it suitable to inculcate it anew. But in the verses quoted, Paul had only spoken of widows jointly with celibates and widowers. Now their social position was so far different from that of the latter, that he might judge it necessary to add a special explanation regarding them. According to ancient ideas, there was no doubt as to the legitimacy of a second marriage for widowers; but it was otherwise with widows. It is known how much perseverance in widowhood was honoured among the Jews; comp. Luke 2:36-37; from this to the condemnation of a second marriage was not far. And we also know that among the heathen a sort of contempt was expressed for the mulier multarum nuptiarum, and that they went the length of inscribing this title of honour on the tombstone of a woman: univira. In the second century of the Church we hear even Athenagoras call a second marriage, whether of man or woman, a decent adultery. Probably, therefore, among the questions put to the apostle in regard to marriage, there was one which bore on this particular point. The general answer given (1 Corinthians 7:8-9) required, therefore, to be more specialized and confirmed; and this answer being only a particular application of all that he had just expounded in regard to virgins, could not be placed elsewhere than here. The only difference on this point between virgins and widows is, that in the case of widows everything is referred to their own wish, without any more question of the father's.

Vv. 39, 40. “A wife is bound as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, only in the Lord. 40. But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment. Now I think that I also have the Spirit of God.”

Γυνή, without article: a wife in opposition to a virgin,

Is bound: to her husband, as long as he liveth. The regimen νόμῳ, by the law, has no doubt been borrowed from Romans 7:2.

Paul limits the liberty which he concedes to the widow by the restriction, only in the Lord. In this context the meaning of the words can only be: on the basis of communion with Christ, consequently with a member of the Christian society. This is the meaning now generally held. The words would be superfluous, if we made them signify, with Chrysostom, Calvin, and others: honourably and piously. Reuss objects to the meaning, “with a Christian,” that the same reservation should have been made also in the case of virgins. But in regard to the latter Paul had not said: to whom she will. For in that case there was the paternal will which watched over their lot.

Vv. 40. By the word happier the apostle sums up the two reasons, the one general, the other particular, whereby from 1 Corinthians 7:25 he had justified his preference given to celibacy for the Christian virgin. There is therefore no question of a superior holiness in this world, or a more glorious position in the next, attributed to this state.

The apostle on this point does not arrogate more to himself than a view, an advice, the value of which every one can appraise at his pleasure. It is evident how far he was removed from that exaltation which makes fanatics take all their ideas for revelations. Nevertheless he certainly claims an inspiration, such as that which all Christians share, and consequently he traces to the direction of the Divine Spirit the advice which he has just expressed. But we must beware, as we have already said, 1 Corinthians 7:10, of concluding from this, with several (comp. in particular Reuss, p. 197), that he did not claim, besides this, revelations of a wholly special kind, going beyond what was granted to the Church in general. In other cases he is careful to affirm, in regard to directions which he gives, that they proceed from the Lord; comp. 1 Corinthians 14:37, and also the expression 1 Corinthians 7:17. If he thus expresses himself in connection with simple directions about public worship or Christian practice, how much more conscious was he of being the organ of a Divine revelation of a wholly personal kind when the matter in question was the very essence of his religious teaching, his gospel! We are led, therefore, to distinguish here three degrees of authority, 1. The direct commands of the Lord, which He gave during His sojourn on the earth, and which Paul merely quotes without discussing their grounds (1 Corinthians 7:10). 2. The apostolic commands of the apostle, which are imposed on Churches subject to his jurisdiction, and which he gives them as the organ of a higher illumination attached to his special mission. As to these he is careful to expound their reasons, being unwilling to ask his brethren to give a blind obedience (1 Corinthians 7:12-17); comp. 1 Corinthians 10:15; 1 Corinthians 10:3. The directions which he gives as a simple Christian, which he himself declares to be purely optional, and which he leaves to the judgment of every believer (1 Corinthians 7:25). Far from confounding these different degrees, and assimilating, for example, the second with the third, we should recognise and admire the precision with which the apostle distinguished them and could draw the practical consequences of the distinction.

The word δοκῶ, I think, is not in the least, as Chrysostom and others have thought, a modest way of affirming his inspiration. It is evidently, especially if account be taken of the κἀγώ, I also, an ironical expression: “Now I hope, however, even if my apostolical authority is disputed among you, that you will not deny to me the possession of the Divine Spirit, such as you recognise in all Christians, and specially in the numerous spiritual guides to whom you give your confidence” (1 Corinthians 4:15).

There are few Chapter s of the apostle which have drawn down on him such severe judgments.

In connection with the passage 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, it has been asserted that his morality itself was “the plaything of a shortsighted Christology.” What we have found in the passage are practical directions in which St. Paul takes account of the relation between the world and the Church on to the Parousia, a relation which may in the course of time be more or less strained, but which in any case renders it always difficult for Christian spouses to educate and guide a family. What pious parents have not had painful experience of the fact? In truth, the apostle did not foresee the armistice which would be established for a time between the two hostile societies; but the conflict between the opposing principles which animate them has never ceased, and, in proportion as the last times approach, it will again become more and more what it was in apostolic times. Paul's ethics do not therefore depend on a chronological error; they rest on the just appreciation of the Church's position in the world down to the coming of the Lord.

It is objected to this same passage that every believer is placed in it face to face with the Parousia, as if this event were to terminate his own life. But, in speaking thus, Paul only does what the Lord Himself did. Jesus very expressly set aside the idea of the nearness of His return (Matthew 25:5; Mark 13:35; Luke 12:45; Luke 13:18-21; Luke 21:24; Matthew 24:14; comp. Mark 13:32); and yet this is how He speaks to His disciples (Luke 12:36): “Be ye like men looking for their lord, when he shall return from the wedding, that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open to him immediately.” This is because, in fact, death is to every believer a personal and anticipated Parousia. The saying of Jesus is therefore for all on to the last day a moral truth, but this truth is only relative, till the promise be accomplished in its strict sense to the last generation. So it is with the sayings of Paul.

Again, it has been alleged that Paul here taught the religious and moral superiority of celibacy, and while some have praised him for so doing, others have sharply reprimanded him. His accusers charge him with nothing less than putting himself in manifest contradiction to the saying of Jesus, which he quotes himself, and to God; and what is more astonishing is, that they claim to be thereby doing no violence to his apostolic infallibility. Indeed, does not Paul himself declare that he is here speaking as a simple Christian, not as an organ of Divine revelation?

But is it credible that Paul, an intelligent man, should not have noticed the contradictions between his advice and the declarations of God and of Jesus Christ, while the author of the writing quoted discerned them so easily? Or that Paul, having seen these contradictions, should have audaciously faced them, and that without even attempting to say a word to resolve them? The fact is, that all that the author writes on this subject proceeds on the erroneous opinion, that Paul ascribes a superiority in holiness to celibacy. This is what he does not do for an instant, as we have seen, not even in the passage 1 Corinthians 7:32-34.

Sabatier, in l'Apôtre Paul, p. 142, has reproduced, as Reuss and Scherer had done, the judgment of Baur, according to which Paul had formed at this period a gross idea of the conjugal bond. “In the Epistles of the captivity,” says he, “we shall see St. Paul reaching a broader appreciation of marriage and of domestic life.” We shall set over against this judgment the views of a very independent-minded German critic, Heinrici, who thus expresses himself (p. 136): “We have here (1 Corinthians 7:14) the proof that the apostle recognises the moral character of marriage and of its relation to the kingdom of God.” If with this verse we join 1 Corinthians 7:16 and 1 Corinthians 11:3, it will be seen which of the two judgments is based on the facts. To save, to sanctify, such is certainly the higher end of the marriage union from the Christian point of view, according to the author of the Epistles to the Corinthians.