1 Corinthians 7
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to have contact with a woman,
2 but to avoid πορνείας let each have his own wife
3
4
5
6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.
7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each has his own proper gift of God; one in one way, another in another.
8 Now to the unmarried
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Brothers each, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a dissolution. Have you been divorced? Do not go looking for a wife.
28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. For, such shall have trouble in the flesh. But I spare you. For I would have you without anxiety, in order to decorum and assiduity for the Lord, without distraction
29 What I mean, brothers, For the time is short. It remains that they that have wives be as though they had none,
30
31 those who are concerned with pleasing the world, as if not engrossed in it (Strom 3.97.3). For this world in its present form is passing away.
32 I would like you to be free from concern. Yes, the man who is unmarried cares for the Lord’s business
33 the man who is married cares
34
35
36
37
38 So he that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not doeth better; as far as respects seemliness and undistracted attendance on the Lord
39 The wife is under the marriage bond as long as her husband is alive. If he dies she is free to marry, provided it is in the Lord.
40 But in my view her greatest blessing is to remain as she is —and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
A Brief Explanation of the Complexities of this Chapter
This is a very special section because it goes to the heart of the apparent differences between the Marcionites and the Orthodox. I have noticed that most of the references to this chapter in Clement's writings appear in the 'problematic' Book Three of the Stromata which was deliberately not translated into English in Philip Schaff's Ante-Nicene Fathers. The original material must not only have problematic for modern editors of the writings of the Church Fathers but in fact the ancient scribes who have preserved the Stromata down to the modern age. There is very compelling evidence in this chapter that a later editor 'corrected' not only Clement's original reference to the beginning of Chapter Seven of 1 Corinthians but in fact that the same process occurred in the writings of Methodius of Olympius. The reason for this revision of the original testimony is simple - the original text of 1 Corinthians known to both Clement and Methodius preserved the apostle as preserving a much stronger rejection of marriage, more in keeping with Marcionitism, the original Pauline tradition.
I cannot account for the reason why Clement and Methodius should share a common reading of the opening of Chapter Seven with Basilides. The only commonality I can find between the two men is a hostile or at least ambivalent attitude towards Origen. Origen's complete silence with respect to Clement being his teacher is perhaps one of the most puzzling things in all of Patristic literature. Nevertheless careful examination of Origen's writings actually reveals at least a couple hostile references to Clement's interpretation of the New Testament (which we will examine later).
For the moment it is enough to note that both Clement and Methodius's surviving manuscripts make witness to the opening line of 1 Clement 7 as:
It is good for a man not to have contact with a woman, but to avoid πορνείας let each have his own wife to prevent Satan from tempting you because of your lack of self-control. [1 Cor 7.1;5]
There can be absolutely no doubt that Clement knew this reading and that it is was the reading which appeared in the contemporary Alexandrian collection of the Pauline writings. For more than once Clement makes reference to it as we see for instance in Stromata 3.51.4 it plainly stated that:
Again he [i.e. the Apostle] says, "Every man should have his own wife to protect him from temptation by Satan."
Indeed a little later we hear again Clement make reference to:
when Paul says, "It is good for a man not to have contact with a woman, but to avoid immorality let each have his own wife," he offers a kind of exegesis by saying further, "to prevent Satan from tempting you." In the words "by using your lack of self-control" he is addressing not those who practice marriage through self-control solely for the production of children, but those with a passionate desire to go beyond the production of children. [Stromata 3.96.1]
In each case, Clement makes it plain by implication that he thought what is now 1 Cor 7.5 - i.e. 'to prevent Satan from tempting you' immediately followed what is now 1 Cor.7.1 i.e. 'every man should have his own wife.'
The very same construction appears quite interestingly in Chapter 11 Book Three of Methodius's Conuiuium:
For consider, O virgins, how he, desiring with all his might that believers in Christ should be chaste, endeavours by many arguments to show them the dignity of chastity, as when he says, Now, concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” thence showing already very clearly that it is good not to touch a woman, laying it down. and setting it forth unconditionally. But afterwards, being aware of the weakness of the less continent, and their passion for intercourse, he permitted those who are unable to govern the flesh to use their own wives, rather than, shamefully transgressing, to give themselves up to fornication. Then, after having given this permission, he immediately added these words, “that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency;” which means, “if you, such as you are, cannot, on account of the incontinence and softness of your bodies, be perfectly continent, I will rather permit you to have intercourse with your own wives, lest, professing perfect continence, ye be constantly tempted by the evil one, and be inflamed with lust after other men’s wives.”
Indeed what is most interesting about these references is that they are immediately followed by what appears to be an editors hand 'correcting' the apparent 'mistake' in overlooking 1 Cor 7.2 - 4.
In the very next chapter of Methodius's work we see the editor go out of his way to deny that he did not know or was ignoring 1 Cor 7.2 - 4 by having him announce:
Come, now, and let us examine more carefully the very words which are before us, and observe that the apostle did not grant these things unconditionally to all, but first laid down the reason on account of which he was led to this. For, having set forth that “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” he added immediately, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife” —that is, “on account of the fornication which would arise from your being unable to restrain your voluptuousness”—“and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” [1 Cor. 7. 2–6]. And this is very carefully considered. “By permission” he says, showing that he was giving counsel, “not of command;” for he receives command respecting chastity and the not touching of a woman, but permission respecting those who are unable, as I said, to chasten their appetites. These things, then, he lays down concerning men and women who are married to one spouse, or who shall hereafter be so; but we must now examine carefully the apostle’s language respecting men who have lost their wives, and women who have lost their husbands, and what he declares on this subject. [Methodius 3.12]
It is worth noting that the very same thing happens in Clement after the unmistakable omission of 1 Cor 7.2 - 4. The editor has Clement 'strengthen' his 'commitment to marriage' by making reference to material that was apparently unknown in Christian manuscript in late second century Alexandria. Indeed it is worth adding that Origen is the only ante-Nicene witness to 1 Cor 7.4.
Indeed if we discount this last section as a later addition to Methodius's original work, it is incredible to see how remarkably similar Clement and Methodius's citation of the rest of the chapter are. After both men 'skip over' to the material in 1 Cor 7 - 9 Methodius skips down to 1 Cor 7.25 - Clement pretty much does the same thing avoiding any reference whatsoever to 1 Cor 7.24 (aside from one other obvious addition we shall discuss later.
Indeed it is not only Clement, Methodius, Basilides and likely Marcion who had this 1 Cor 7.1,5 reading as the opening words to chapter seven but also Tatian:
He (Tatian) agreed to their coming together again because of Satan and because of weakness of will, but he showed that anyone who is inclined to succumb is going to be serving two masters, God when there is agreement, and weakness of will, sexual immorality, and the devil when there is not." [Stromata 3.81.2]
Relevant Patristc References
1 cor 7.1-2,5 - Again, when Paul says, "It is good for a man not to have contact with a woman, but to avoid immorality let each have his own wife," he offers a kind of exegesis by saying further, "to prevent Satan from tempting you." (2) In the words "by using your lack of self-control" 389 he is addressing not those who practice marriage through self-control solely for the production of children, but those with a passionate desire to go beyond the production of children. He does not want the Adversary to create a hurricane 390 so that the waves drive their yearnings to alien pleasure. (3) It may be that 391 Satan is jealous of those whose lives are morally upright, opposes them, and wants to master them. That is why he wishes to subject them to his command and aims to provide a jumping-off point by making self-control laborious. [Clement Stromata 3 15 96 § 1 (p.240, l.12) BP1 ]
1 Cor 7.1 - For consider, O virgins, how he, Paul. desiring with all his might that believers in Christ should be chaste, endeavours by many arguments to show them the dignity of chastity, as when he says, [1 Cor. vii. 1] Now, concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” thence showing already very clearly that it is good not to touch.[In the original the two words are different. In the quotation from St. Paul it is ἅπτεσθαι; here it is προσψαύειν . Nothing could be gained by using two words in the translation.—Tr] a woman, laying it down. and setting it forth unconditionally. But afterwards, being aware of the weakness of the less continent, and their passion for intercourse, he permitted those who are unable to govern the flesh to use their own wives, rather than, shamefully transgressing, to give themselves up to fornication. Then, after having given this permission, he immediately added these words, [1 Cor vii. 5] “that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency;” which means, “if you, such as you are, cannot, on account of the incontinence and softness of your bodies, be perfectly continent, I will rather permit you to have intercourse with your own wives, lest, professing perfect continence, ye be constantly tempted by the evil one, and be inflamed with lust after other men’s wives.” [Methodius Conuiuium MUSURILLO H., DEBIDOUR V.-H., SC 95 (1963). 3 11 (p.114, l.4 - <) BP2 ]
1 Cor 7.1 - Anyway, he writes in his work On Training Following the Savior, 312 and I quote, "Agreementconduces to prayer. The common experience of corruption means an end to intercourse. At any rate, his acceptance of it is so grudging that he is really saying No to it altogether. (2) He agreed to their coming together again because of Satan and because of weakness of will, but he showed that anyone who is inclined to succumb is going to be serving two masters, 314 God when there is agreement, and weakness of will, sexual immorality, and the devil when there is not." (3) He says this in his exegesis of the Apostle. He is playing intellectual tricks with the truth in seeking to establish a false conclusion on the basis of truth. (4) We too agree that weakness of will and sexual immorality are passions inspired by the devil, but the harmony of responsible marriage occupies a middle position. When there is self-control it leads to prayer; when there is reverent bridal union, to childbearing. (5) At any rate, there is a proper time for the breeding of children, and Scripture calls it knowledge, 315 in the words, "Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore a son, and called him by the name of Seth, ‘for God has raised up for me another child in Abel’s place.’" 316 (6) You see who is the target of the slanders of those who show their disgust at responsible marriage and attribute the processes of birth to the devil? Scripture does not merely refer to "a god." By application of the definite article it indicates the almighty ruler of the universe. 82(1) The Apostle’s added reference to their "coming together again because of Satan" is designed to anticipate and cut at the roots of any possibility of turning aside to other love affairs. 317 The temporary agreement serves to negate natural desires but does not cut them out root and branch. These 318 are why he reintroduces the marriage bond, not for uncontrolled behavior or sexual immorality or the operations of the devil, but to prevent him from falling under their sway. (2) Tatian makes a distinction between the old humanity and the new, 319 but it is not ours. We agree with him in that we too say that the old humanity is the Law, the new is the gospel. But we do not agree with his desire to abolish the Law as being the work of a different god. (3) It is the same man, the same Lord who makes old things new. 320 He no longer approves of polygamy (at that time God 321 required it because of the need for increased numbers). He introduces monogamy for the production of children and the need to look after the home. Woman was offered as a "partner" in this. 322 (4) And if a man cannot control himself and is burning with passion so that the Apostle "out of sympathy" offers him a second marriage, 323 then 324 he is not committing sin according to the Covenant, since it is not forbidden by the Law, but neither is he fulfilling the highest pitch of the gospel ethic. (5) He is acquiring heavenly glory for himself, if he remains single and keeps immaculate the union which has been broken by death and cheerfully obeys what God has in store for him, becoming "undistracted" from the Lord’s service.[Clement of Alexandria Stromata 3]
1 Cor 7.1 - Tertullian Against Marcion 1 29 § 2 (p.473, l.28) BP1
1 cor 7.1 etc. - But (as for the question) whether monogamy be “burdensome,” let the still shameless “infirmity of the flesh” look to that: let us meantime come to an agreement as to whether it be “novel.” This (even) broader assertion we make: that even if the Paraclete had in this our day definitely prescribed a virginity or continence total and absolute, so as not to permit the heat of the flesh to foam itself down even in single marriage, even thus He would seem to be introducing nothing of “novelty;” seeing that the Lord Himself opens “the kingdoms of the heavens” to “eunuchs,”585 as being Himself, withal, a virgin; to whom looking, the apostle also—himself too for this reason abstinent—gives the preference to continence.586 (“Yes”), you say, “but saving the law of marriage.” Saving it, plainly, and we will see under what limitations; nevertheless already destroying it, in so far as he gives the preference to continence. “Good,” he says, “(it is) for a man not to have contact with a woman.” It follows that it is evil to have contact with her; for nothing is contrary to good except evil. And accordingly (he says), “It remains, that both they who have wives so be as if they have not,”587 that it may be the more binding on them who have not to abstain from having them. He renders reasons, likewise, for so advising: that the unmarried think about God, but the married about how, in (their) marriage, each may please his (partner).588 And I may contend, that what is permitted is not absolutely good.589 For what is absolutely good is not permitted, but needs no asking to make it lawful. Permission has its cause sometimes even in necessity. Finally, in this case, there is no volition on the part of him who permits marriage. For hisvolition points another way. “I will,” he says, “that you all so be as I too (am).”590 And when he shows that (so to abide) is “better,” what, pray, does he demonstrate himself to “will,” but what he has premised is “better?” And thus, if he permitssomething other than what he has “willed”—permitted not voluntarily, but of necessity—he shows that what he has unwillingly granted as an indulgence is not absolutely good. Finally, when he says, “Better it is to marry than to burn,” what sort of good must that be understood to be which is better than a penalty? which cannot seem “better” except when compared to a thing very bad? “Good” is that which keeps this name per se; without comparison—I say not with an evil, but even—with some other good: so that, even if it be compared to and overshadowed by another good, it nevertheless remains in (possession of) the name of good. If, on the other hand, comparison with evil is the mean which obliges it to be called good; it is not so much “good” as a species of inferior evil, which, when obscured by a higher evil, is driven to the name of good. Take away, in short, the condition, so as not to say, “Better it is to marry than to burn;” and I question whether you will have the hardihood to say, “Better (it is) to marry,” not adding than what it is better. This done, then, it becomes not “better;” and while not “better,” not “good” either, the condition being taken away which, while making it “better” than another thing, in that sense obliges it to be considered “good.” Better it is to lose one eye than two. If, however, you withdraw from the comparison of either evil, it will not be better to have one eye, because it is not even good. [Tertullian Monogamy 3]
1 cor 7.1 etc.
The very phases themselves of this (inexperience) are intelligible from (the apostle’s) rescripts, when he says:667667 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2. “But concerning these (things) which ye write; good it is for a man not to touch a woman; but, on account of fornications, let each one have his own wife.” He shows that there were who, having been “apprehended by the faith” in (the state of) marriage, were apprehensive that it might not be lawful for them thenceforward to enjoy their marriage, because they had believed on the holy flesh of Christ. And yet it is “by way of allowance” that he makes the concession, “not by way of command;” that is, indulging, not enjoining, the practice. On the other hand, he “willed rather” that all should be what he himself was. Similarly, too, in sending a rescript on (the subject of) divorce, he demonstrates that some had been thinking over that also, chiefly because withal they did not suppose that they were to persevere, after faith, in heathen marriages. They sought counsel, further, “concerning virgins”—for “precept of the Lord” there was none—(and were told) that “it is good for a man if he so remain permanently;” (“so”), of course, as he may have been found by the faith. “Thou hast been bound to a wife, seek not loosing; thou hast been loosed from a wife, seek not a wife.” “But if thou shalt have taken to (thyself) a wife, thou hast not sinned;” because to one who, before believing, had been “loosed from a wife,” she will not be counted a second wife who, subsequently to believing, is the first: for it is from (the time of our) believing that our life itself dates its origin. But here he says that he “is sparing them;” else “pressure of the flesh” would shortly follow, in consequence of the straits of the times, which shunned the encumbrances of marriage: yea, rather solicitude must be felt about earning the Lord’s favour than a husband’s. And thus he recalls his permission. So, then, in the very same passage in which he definitely rules that “each one ought permanently to remain in that calling in which he shall be called;” adding, “A woman is bound so long as her husband liveth; but if he shall have fallen asleep, she is free: whom she shall wish let her marry, only in the Lord,” he hence also demonstrates that such a woman is to be understood as has withal herself been “found” (by the faith) “loosed from a husband,” similarly as the husband “loosed from a wife”—the “loosing” having taken place through death, of course, not through divorce; inasmuch as to the divorced he would grant no permission to marry, in the teeth of the primary precept. And so “a woman, if she shall have married, will not sin;” because he will not be reckoned a second husband who is, subsequently to her believing, the first, any more (than a wife thus taken will be counted a second wife). And so truly is this the case, that he therefore adds, “only in the Lord;” because the question in agitation was about her who had had a heathen (husband), and had believed subsequently to losing him: for fear, to wit, that she might presume herself able to marry a heathen even after believing; albeit not even this is an object of care to the Psychics. Let us plainly know that, in the Greek original, it does not stand in the form which (through the either crafty or simple alteration of two syllables) has gone out into common use, “But if her husband shall have fallen asleep,” as if it were speaking of the future, and thereby seemed to pertain to her who has lost her husband when already in a believing state. If this indeed had been so, licence let loose without limit would have granted a (fresh) husband as often as one had been lost, without any such modesty in marrying as is congruous even to heathens. But even if it had been so, as if referring to future time, “If any (woman’s) husband shall have died, even the future would just as much pertain to her whose husband shall die before she believed. Take it which way you will, provided you do not overturn the rest. For since these (other passages) agree to the sense (given above): “Thou hast been called (as) a slave; care not:” “Thou hast been called in uncircumcision; be not circumcised:” “Thou hast been called in circumcision; become not uncircumcised:” with which concurs, “Thou hast been bound to a wife; seek not loosing: thou hast been loosed from a wife; seek not a wife,”—manifest enough it is that these passages pertain to such as, finding themselves in a new and recent “calling,” were consulting (the apostle) on the subject of those (circumstantial conditions) in which they had been “apprehended” by the faith. This will be the interpretation of that passage, to be examined as to whether it be congruous with the time and the occasion, and with the examples and arguments preceding as well as with the sentences and senses succeeding, and primarily with the individual advice and practice of the apostle himself: for nothing is so much to be guarded as (the care) that no one be found self-contradictory. [On Monogamy 11]
1 cor 7.1 etc. -
Necessary it is, therefore, that the (character of the) apostle should be continuously pointed out to them; whom I will maintain to be such in the second of Corinthians withal, as I know (him to be) in all his letters. (He it is) who even in the first (Epistle) was the first of all (the apostles) to dedicate the temple of God: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that in you the Lord dwells?”862—who likewise, for the consecrating and purifying (of) that temple, wrote the law pertaining to the temple-keepers: “If any shall have marred the temple of God, him shall God mar; for the temple of God is holy, which (temple) are ye.”863 Come, now; who in the world has (ever) redintegrated one who has been “marred” by God (that is, delivered to Satan with a view to destruction of the flesh), after subjoining for that reason, “Let none seduce himself;”864that is, let none presume that one “marred” by God can possibly be redintegrated anew? Just as, again, among all other crimes—nay, even before all others—when affirming that “adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God,” he premised, “Do not err”865—to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom “the kingdom” is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, “But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God;”866 in as far as he puts on the paid side of the account such sins beforebaptism, in so far after baptism he determines them irremissible, if it is true, (as it is), that they are not allowed to “receive ablution” anew. Recognise, too, in what follows, Paul (in the character of) an immoveable column of discipline and its rules: “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: God maketh a full end both of the one and of the others; but the body (is) not for fornication, but for God:”867 for “Let Us make man,” said God, “(conformable) to Our image and likeness.” “And God made man; (conformable) to the image and likeness of God made He him.”868 “The Lord for the body:” yes; for “the Word was made flesh.”869 “Moreover, God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us through His own power;”870 on account, to wit, of the union of our body with Him. And accordingly, “Know ye not your bodies (to be) members of Christ?” because Christ, too, is God’s temple. “Overturn this temple, and I will in three days’ space resuscitate it.”871 “Taking away the members of Christ, shall I make (them) members of an harlot? Know ye not, that whoever is agglutinated to an harlot is made one body? (for the two shall be (made) into one flesh): but whoever is agglutinated to the Lord is one spirit? Flee fornication.”872 If revocable by pardon, in what sense am I to flee it, to turn adulterer anew? I shall gain nothing if I do flee it: I shall be “one body,” to which by communion I shall be agglutinated. “Every sin which a human being may have committed is extraneous to the body; but whoever fornicateth, sinneth against his own body.”873873 1 Cor. vi. 18. And, for fear you should fly to that statement for a licence to fornication, on the ground that you will be sinning against a thing which is yours, not the Lord’s, he takes you away from yourself, and awards you, according to his previous disposition, to Christ: “And ye are not your own;” immediately opposing (thereto), “for bought ye are with a price”—the blood, to wit, of the Lord:874874 Comp. 1 Pet. i. 19; and c. vi. above,ad fin. “glorify and extol the Lord in your body.”875 See whether he who gives this injunction be likely to have pardoned one who has disgraced the Lord, and who has cast Him down from (the empire of) his body, and this indeed through incest. If you wish to imbibe to the utmost all knowledge of the apostle, in order to understand with what an axe of censorship he lops, and eradicates, and extirpates, every forest of lusts, for fear of permitting aught to regain strength and sprout again; behold him desiring souls to keep a fast from the legitimate fruit of nature—the apple, I mean, of marriage: “But with regard to what ye wrote, good it is for a man to have no contact with a woman; but, on account of fornication, let each one have his own wife: let husband to wife, and wife to husband, render what is due.”876 Who but must know that it was against his will that he relaxed the bond of this “good,” in order to prevent fornication? But if he either has granted, or does grant, indulgence to fornication, of course he has frustrated the design of his own remedy. and will be bound forthwith to put the curb upon the nuptials of continence, if the fornication for the sake of which those nuptials are permitted shall cease to be feared. For (a fornication) which has indulgence granted it will not be feared. And yet he professes that he has granted the use of marriage “by way of indulgence, not of command.”877 For he “wills” all to be on a level with himself. But when things lawful are (only) granted by way of indulgence, who hope for things unlawful? “To the unmarried” also, “and widows,” he says, “It is good, by his example, to persevere” (in their present state); “but if they were too weak, to marry; because it is preferable to marry than to bum.”878 With what fires, I pray you, is it preferable to “burn”—(the fires) of concupiscence, or (the fires) of penalty? Nay, but if fornication is pardonable, it will not be an object of concupiscence. But it is more (the manner) of an apostle to take forethought for the fires of penalty. Wherefore, if it is penalty which “burns,” it follows that fornication, which penalty awaits, is not pardonable. Meantime withal, while prohibiting divorce, he uses the Lord’s precept against adultery as an instrument for providing, in place of divorce, either perseverance in widowhood, or else a reconciliation of peace: inasmuch as “whoever shall have dismissed a wife (for any cause) except the cause of adultery, maketh her commit adultery; and he who marrieth one dismissed by a husband committeth adultery.”879 What powerful remedies does the Holy Spirit furnish, to prevent, to wit, the commission anew of that which He wills not should anew be pardoned!
Now, if in all cases he says it is best for a man thus to be; “Thou art joined to a wife, seek not loosing” (that you may give no occasion to adultery); “thou art loosed from a wife, seek not a wife,” that you may reserve an opportunity for yourself: “but withal, if thou shalt have married a wife, and if a virgin shall have married, she sinneth not; pressure, however, of the flesh such shall have,”—even here he is granting a permission by way of “sparing them.”880 On the other hand, he lays it down that “the time is wound up,” in order that even “they who have wives may be as if they had them not.” “For the fashion of this world is passing away,”—(this world) no longer, to wit, requiring (the command), “Grow and multiply.” Thus he wills us to pass our life “without anxiety,” because “the unmarried care about the Lord, how they may please God; the married, however, muse about the world,881 how they may please their spouse.”882 Thus he pronounces that the “preserver of a virgin” doeth “better” than her “giver in marriage.”883 Thus, too, he discriminatingly judges her to be more blessed, who, after losing her husband subsequently to her entrance into the faith, lovingly embraces the opportunity of widowhood.884 Thus he commends as Divine all these counsels of continence: “I think,”885 he says, “I too have the Spirit of God.”886
Who is this your most audacious asserter of all immodesty, plainly a “most faithful” advocate of the adulterous, and fornicators, and incestuous, in whose honour he has undertaken this cause against the Holy Spirit, so that he recites a false testimony from (the writings of) His apostle? No such indulgence granted Paul, who endeavours to obliterate “necessity of the flesh” wholly from (the list of) even honourable pretexts (for marriage unions). He does grant “indulgence,” I allow;—not to adulteries, but to nuptials. He does “spare,” I allow;—marriages, not harlotries. He tries to avoid giving pardon even to nature, for fear he may flatter guilt. He is studious to put restraints upon the union which is heir to blessing, for fear that which is heir to curse be excused. This (one possibility) was left him—to purge the flesh from (natural) dregs, for (cleanse it) from (foul) stains he cannot. But this is the usual way with perverse and ignorant heretics; yes, and by this time even with Psychics universally: to arm themselves with the opportune support of some one ambiguous passage, in opposition to the disciplined host of sentences of the entire document. [On Modesty 16]
1 cor 7.2 - 5 Again he says, "Every man should have his own wife to protect him from temptation by Satan." [Clement Stromata 3.6] 3 51 § 3 (p.220, l.1) BP1
1 Cor 7.2 Clement Stromata 3 96 § 1 (p.240, l.12) BP1
1 Cor 7.3 - Clement Stromata 3 3 97 § 1 (p.240, l.22) BP1 3 107 § 5 (p.246, l.8) BP1 -
1 cor 7.3,5 - To make sure that he is not identifying marriage with fornication he adds, "Or do you not realize that anyone who attaches himself to a prostitute becomes physically one with her?" 450 Will anyone call a virgin before marriage a prostitute? (5) "Do not deprive one another," he says, "except temporarily by mutual agreement." 451 By using the word "deprive" he is showing the due obligation of marrying, the production of children. He made a point of this earlier in the words, "The husband must give the wife what is her due, and vice versa." [Clement Stromata 3.18]
1 cor 7.4 - Only Origen
1 Cor 7.5 Clement Stromata 3 79 § 1 (p.231, l.16) BP1 3 81 § 1 (p.232, l.24 - *) BP1 3 81 § 4 (p.233, l.3) BP1 3 82 § 1 (p.233, l.12) BP1 3 96 § 2 (p.240, l.14) BP1 3 107 § 5 (p.246, l.5) BP1 1 cor 7.5 - It is a lesson in self-discipline if physical union "is given a rest by agreement to allow time for prayer." 300 He appends the words "by agreement" to prevent a dissolution of the marriage and "time for" to prevent the husband who is forced to practice celibacy from slipping into sin, falling in love elsewhere while refraining from his own wife. [Clement Stromata 3.12]
1 Cor. 7:5 - NIV, NAB - in Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book III
Admodum certe circumspecte arcet per concessionem. Nam cum rursus permisit"simul convernire propter Satanam et intemperantiam,"[139]
1 Cor. 7:5 - NIV, NAB - in Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book III
id veluti exponens, rursus dicit: "Ne vos tentet Satanas."[177]
1 Cor. 7:5 - NIV, NAB - in Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book III
An meretricem quis dicet virginem, priusquam nubat? "Et ne fraudetis," inquit, "vos invicem, nisi ex consensu ad tempus: "[225]
1 cor 7.5 - For that it is proper to abstain from each other by consent, in order that they may be free for a season to give themselves to prayer, and then come together again, they have heard from Paul in his epistle. [Dionysius fragments]
1 cor 7.6 - And again: "But this I speak by permission, not by commandment." [Irenaeus]
1 cor 7.7 - annon virum et mulierem et filium tres dicit, quoniam mulier cum viro per Deum conjungitur? Quod si accinctus quis esse velit et expeditus, non volens procreate liberos, propter eam, quae est in procreandis liberis, molestiam et occupationem, "maneat," inquit Apostolus, absque uxore "ut ego." [Clement STromata 3 101 § 3 (p.242, l.31) BP1]
1 cor 7.7 - "But each has his own proper gift of God "(202) -one in one way, another in another. But the apostles were perfected in all. You will find, then, if you choose, in their acts and writings, knowledge, life, preaching, righteousness, purity, prophecy. We must know, then, that if Paul is' young in respect to time(203) -having flourished immediately after the Lord's ascension-yet his writings depend on the Old Testament, breathing and speaking of them. [Clement Stromata 4.21]
4 133 § 3 (p.307, l.26) BP1
1 cor 7.7 - We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more continent than the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle, although preferring the grace of continence, yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it, and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution thoreof. Christ plainly forbids divorce, Moses unquestionably permits it. [Tertullian Against MARcion 7.7]
Origen, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius of Cæsareia, Didymus, and Apollinaris, have interpreted this epistle most copiously; [1271] of whom Pierius, when he was expounding and unfolding the meaning of the apostle, and purposed to explain the words, For I would that all men were even as I myself, [1272] added this remark: In saying this, Paul, without disguise, preaches celibacy. [Fragment of a work of Pierus of Alexandria on the 1 Corinthians]
1 cor 7.8 - Who are the two or three who gather in the name of Christ with the Lord in their midst? 256 By three does he not mean husband, wife, and child? 257A wife is united with her husband by God. 258 (2) But if a man wishes to be unencumbered, and prefers to avoid producing children because of the time it takes up, then, says the Apostle, "he had better stay unmarried like me." 259 (3) Their interpretation of the Lord’s meaning is this. In relation to the plurality, he is speaking of the creator, who is responsible for all coming into being; 260 in relation to the one, he is speaking of the savior of the elect, naturally the son of a different god, of course, the good god. (4) This is wrong. God through his Son is with those who responsibly marry and produce children, and it is the same God who in the same way is with the man who shows self-control in the light of the Logos. 261 (5) Another interpretation would make the three temper, desire, and reason; 262 yet another flesh, soul, and spirit. [Clement Stromata 3.10] 3 68 § 2 (p.227, l.1) BP1
1 cor 7.8 - It follows of necessity that there is no ban on marriage, or eating meat, or drinking wine, for it is written, "It is good to refrain from eating meat and drinking wine," if a person might give offense by eating, and, "It is good to stay as I am." 341 But both the person who takes his food gratefully, and the one who equally gratefully abstains with an enjoyment marked by self-discipline must follow the Logos 342 in their lives. [Clement Stromata 3.12] 3 85 § 2 (p.235, l.18) BP1
1 cor 7, 8 - 39 We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more continentthan the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle, although preferring the grace of continence,1 Corinthians 7:7-8 yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it, and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution thereof. 1 Corinthians 7:27 Christ plainly forbids divorce,Moses unquestionably permits it.
Now, when Marcion wholly prohibits all carnal intercourse to the faithful (for we will say nothing about his catechumens), and when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements before marriage, whose teaching does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ? Even Christ, however, when He here commandsthe wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 both permitted divorce, which indeed He never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation. But whatreasons does (the apostle) allege for continence? Because the time is short. 1 Corinthians 7:29 I had almost thought it was because in Christ there was another god! And yet He from whom emanates this shortness of the time, will also send what suits the said brevity. No one makes provision for the timewhich is another's. You degrade your god, O Marcion, when you make him circumscribed at all by theCreator's time. Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that marriage should be only in the Lord,1 Corinthians 7:39 that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen, he maintains a law of the Creator, who everywhere prohibits marriage with strangers. [Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.7]
1 cor 7.9 - Their view is that the Apostle’s words "It is better to marry than to burn" 3 mean "Do not hurl your soul into the fire, clinging on night and day in fear of falling away from abstinence. A soul directed towards clinging on is being cut off from hope." (2) "So, if you have a quarrelsome wife" (I am quoting Isidore’s Ethics), "be patient with her, to avoid being wrenched violently out of God’s grace; get rid of the fire with your semen; then go to prayer with a good conscience."[Clement Stromata 3.1]
1 cor 7.9 - It is about second marriages that the Apostle says, "If you are on fire, get married." [Clement Stromata 3.1]
1 cor 7.9, 36 He no longer approves of polygamy (at that time God 321 required it because of the need for increased numbers). He introduces monogamy for the production of children and the need to look after the home. Woman was offered as a "partner" in this.322 (4) And if a man cannot control himself and is burning with passion so that the Apostle "out of sympathy" offers him a second marriage, 323 then 324 he is not committing sin according to the Covenant, since it is not forbidden by the Law, but neither is he fulfilling the highest pitch of the gospel ethic. [Clement Stromata 3.12]
1 cor 7.9 -
It may be that 391 Satan is jealous of those whose lives are morally upright, opposes them, and wants to master them. That is why he wishes to subject them to his command and aims to provide a jumping-off point by making self-control laborious. (1) So it is reasonable of Paul to say, "It is better to marry than to burn with passion." 392 He wants the husband to pay due attention to his wife and vice versa. He does not want them to deprive one another of the help offered towards childbirth through divine dispensation. [Clement Stromata 3.15]
1 cor 7:10 - 14 After making this contribution, she is a helpmate domestically and in the Christian faith. He goes on to speak more clearly: "I have an order for the married. It is not from me but from the Lord. A wife is not to seek separation from her husband. If she does, she is to remain unmarried or come to reconciliation with her husband. The husband is not to divorce his wife. To the rest I speak in my own person not as representing the Lord. [From the Scripture text] ‘If any Christian male’ down to ‘but now they are dedicated to God.’ 454 (2) These people who run down the Law and marriage as if it were constituted merely by the Law and alien to the New Covenant – what do they say in face of this? Those who have such a loathing for sex and childbirth – what have they to say in answer to this legislation? For Paul also lays down that leadership in the Church should rest with "a bishop who presides successfully over his household" and that "marriage to one wife" constitutes a household with the Lord’s blessing. [Clement Stromata 3.18] 3 108 § 1 (p.246, l.10) BP1
1 Cor 7.11
1 cor 7:12 - But why say I these things concerning the Old Testament? For in the New also are the apostles found doing this very thing, on the ground which has been mentioned, Paul plainly declaring, But these things I say, not the Lord." [Irenaeus AH 4] Only Origen
1 Cor 7.13 No Ante-Nicene witnesses
1 Cor 7. 14 - Clement Stromata 3 84 § 3 (p.235, l.1) BP1 3 108 § 1 (p.246, l.10) BP1
1 cor 7.14 - So it is not just our spirit which ought to be consecrated. It is our character, our life, our body. What is the sense of the Apostle Paul’s words that the wife is consecrated by her husband, and the husband by his wife? 170 (2) What was it that the Lord said to those who questioned him about divorce, asking whether it was permissible to get rid of one’s wife on the authority of Moses? He said, "Moses wrote this with an eye to your hardheartedness. But have you not read what God said to the first-formed male: ‘You two shall come into one single flesh’? So, anyone who disposes of his wife except by reason of sexual immorality is making an adulteress of her." 171 (3) But "after the resurrection," he says, "they do not marry and are not given in marriage." 172 Yes, and this is what is said about the stomach and food: "Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will put an end to both." 173 He is rebuking those who think to live like boars or goats, to stop them eating and copulating without any sense of respect. [Clement Stromata 3.6] 3 47 § 1 (p.217, l.27) BP1
1 cor 7.14 - But if legally constituted marriage is sin, I do not know how anyone can claim to know God while saying that God’s commandment is sin. If the Law is holy, marriage is holy. Accordingly, the Apostle points this mystery in the direction of Christ and the Church. 335 (3) just as "that which is born of the flesh is flesh, so that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit" 336 not just in the process of birth but in its education. So "the children are holy (καθάπερ τὸ γεννώμενον)," 337 objects of delight, when the Lord’s words have brought the soul to God as a bride. [Clement Stromata 3.12]
1 cor 7.14 - And for this reason, Paul declares that the "unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband." [Irenaeus AH 4]
1 cor 7.18, 19 - Moreover Paul, the chief of the apostles, after all these sayings, gives us yet clearer instruction on the subject, when he says, “Or seek ye a proof of that Christ who speaketh in me?”19381938 2 Cor. xiii. 3. What have I then to do with circumcision, seeing that I may be justified in uncircumcision? For it is written: “Is any man circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Or is any in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. For neither of these is anything, but only the keeping of the commandments of God." [Acts of Archelaus 42]
1 cor 7.22 - 24 - The Apostle says bishops should be appointed from those who have learned by practice in their own home the charge of the whole Church. 303 (7) So each person should fulfill his service by the work in which he was called, so that he may be free in Christ and receive the appropriate reward for that service. [1 cor 3.12] ἐκκλησίας ἁπάσης προΐστασθαι μελετήσαντας. ἕκαστος οὖν ἐν ᾧ ἐκλήθη ἔργῳ τὴν διακονίαν ἐκτελείτω, ἵνα ἐλεύθερος ἐν Χριστῷ
1 cor 7.25 - And again: "Now, as concerning virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful." [Irenaeus AH 4]
1 cor 7.26 - Now, if in all cases he says it is best for a man thus to be; "Thou art joined to a wife seek not loosing" (that you may give no occasion to adultery); "thou art loosed from a wife, seek not a wife," that you may reserve an opportunity for yourself: "but withal, if thou shalt have married a wife, and if a virgin shall have married, she sinneth not; pressure, however, of the flesh such shall have,"-even here he is granting a permission by way of "sparing them."[Tertullian Modesty]
1 cor 7.27 - The same author writes these words: "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a dissolution. Have you been divorced? Do not go looking for a wife." [Clement Stromata 3.6]
1 cor 7.27 - Again the Lord says, "Anyone married should not seek divorce; anyone unmarried should not seek marriage" 398 – in other words, if a man has taken a public commitment to celibacy he should remain unmarried. [Clement Stromata 3.15] Not in our Bible (see Resch, Agrapha 429) perhaps from the Gospel according to the Egyptians (see nt. 163, reflected in 1 Cor 7.27).
1 cor 7.27 - and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution there of [Tertullian Against Marcion 5.7]
1 cor 7.28 -
The same holds good also in the case of poverty. For it compels the soul to desist from necessary things, I mean contemplation and from pure sinlessness, forcing him, who has not wholly dedicated himself to God in love, to occupy himself about provisions; as, again, health and abundance of necessaries keep the soul free and unimpeded, and capable of making a good use of what is at hand. “For,” says the apostle, “such shall have trouble in the flesh. But I spare you. For I would have you without anxiety, in order to decorum and assiduity for the Lord, without distraction.” 2701
These things, then, are to be abstained from, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of the body; and care for the body is exercised for the sake of the soul, to which it has reference. For on this account it is necessary for the man who lives as a gnostic to know what is suitable. Since the fact that pleasure is not a good thing is admitted from the fact that certain pleasures are evil, by this reason good appears evil, and evil good. And then, if we choose some pleasures and shun others, it is not every pleasure that is a good thing. [Clement Stromata 4.5]
1 cor 7.29 -
“For the time is short,” as says the apostle. This then remains that we do not make a ridiculous figure, as some are seen in the public spectacles outwardly anointed strikingly for imposing effect, but wretched within. Explaining this more clearly, he adds, “It remains that they that have wives be as though they had none, and they that buy as though they possessed not.”1392 And if he speaks thus of marriage, in reference to which God says, “Multiply,” how do you not think that senseless display is by the Lord’s authority to be banished? Wherefore also the Lord says, “Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor; and come, follow me.”1393
Follow God, stripped of arrogance, stripped of fading display, possessed of that which is thine, which is good, what alone cannot be taken away—faith towards God, confession towards Him who suffered, beneficence towards men, which is the most precious of possessions.[Clement instructor 2.3]
1 cor 7.29 -
They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.[1]
Thus also the apostle says, "that he who marries should be as though he married not,"[2] and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.
Was not then faith in the hope after death conspicuous in the case of those who gave thanks to God even in the very extremities of their punishments? For firm, in my opinion, was the faith they possessed, which was followed by works of faith. [Clement Stromata 7.11]
1 cor 7.29 - Now, if any limitation is set to marrying—such as the spiritual rule, 2683 which prescribes but one marriage under the Christian obedience, 2684 maintained by the authority of the Paraclete, 2685 —it will be His prerogative to fix the limit Who had once been diffuse in His permission; His to gather, Who once scattered; His to cut down the tree, Who planted it; His to reap the harvest, Who sowed the seed; His to declare, “It remaineth that they who have wives be as though they had none,” [Tertullian Against Marcion 1.29]
1 cor 7.29 - both permitted divorce, which indeed He never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation. But what reasons does (the apostle) allege for continence? Because "the time is short." [Tertullian Against Marcion 5.7]
1 cor 7.29 - Since, then, the Creator promised the gift of His Spirit in the latter days; and since Christ has in these last days appeared as the dispenser of spiritual gifts (as the apostle says, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son;" and again, "This I say, brethren, that the time is short"), it evidently follows in connection with this prediction of the last days, that this gift of the Spirit belongs to Him who is the Christ of the predicters. [Tertullian Against Marcion 5.8]
1 cor 7.29 - He saith, that brother seeing sister may have no thought concerning her as female, and that she may have no thought concerning him as male. "If ye do these things, saith He, "the kingdom of my Father shall come." [2 Clement 12]
1 cor 7.31 - Again, as to their malignantly asserting that if heaven is indeed the throne of God, and earth His footstool, and if it is declared that the heaven and earth shall pass away, then when these pass away the God who sitteth above must also pass away, and therefore He cannot be the God who is over all; in the first place, they are ignorant what the expression means, that heaven is [His] throne and earth [His] footstool. For they do not know what God is, but they imagine that He sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds, but does not contain. And they are also unacquainted with [the meaning of] the passing away of the heaven and earth; but Paul was not ignorant of it when he declared, “For the figure of this world passeth away.” 3830 In the next place, David explains their question, for he says that when the fashion of this world passes away, not only shall God remain, but His servants also, expressing himself thus in the 101st Psalm: “In the beginning, Thou, O Lord, hast founded the earth, and the heavens are the works of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure, and all shall wax old as a garment; and as a vesture Thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail. The children of Thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established for ever;” 3831 pointing out plainly what things they are that pass away, and who it is that doth endure for ever—God, together with His servants. And in like manner Esaias says: “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath; for the heaven has been set together as smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they who dwell therein shall die in like manner. But my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not pass away.” 3832 [Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.3.1]
1 cor 7.29 - Isaiah also declares the very same: “For there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and there shall be no remembrance of the former, neither shall the heart think about them, but they shall find in it joy and exultation.” 4779 Now this is what has been said by the apostle: “For the fashion of this world passeth away.” 4780 To the same purpose did the Lord also declare, “Heaven and earth shall pass away.” 4781 When these things, therefore, pass away above the earth, John, the Lord’s disciple, says that the new Jerusalem above shall [then] descend, as a bride adorned for her husband; and that this is the tabernacle of God, in which God will dwell with men. Of this Jerusalem the former one is an image—that Jerusalem of the former earth in which the righteous are disciplined beforehand for incorruption and prepared for salvation. [Irenaeus aH 5.35.2]
1 cor 7.31 - For since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment (plantationem), that they vanish not away among non-existent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence. For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated (for faithful and true is He who has established it), but “the fashion of the world passeth away;” 4784 that is, those things among which transgression has occurred, since man has grown old in them. And therefore this [present] fashion has been formed temporary, God foreknowing all things; as I have pointed out in the preceding book, 4785 and have also shown, as far as was possible, the cause of the creation of this world of temporal things. But when this [present] fashion [of things] passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, [then] there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain [continually], p. 567 always holding fresh converse with God. And since (or, that) these things shall ever continue without end, Isaiah declares, “For as the new heavens and the new earth which I do make, continue in my sight, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.” 4786 And as the presbyters say, Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour 4787 shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy. [Irenaeus AH 5.36.1]
1 cor 7.31 - Now, whatever be the supreme God of each heretic, I should not unfairly derive the dignity of the flesh likewise from Him to whom was present the will for its production. For, of course, if He had not willed its production, He would have prohibited it, when He knew it was in progress. It follows, then, that even on their principle the flesh is equally the work of God. There is no work but belongs to Him who has permitted it to exist. It is indeed a happy circumstance, that most of their doctrines, including even the harshest, accord to our God the entire formation of man. How mighty He is, you know full well who believe that He is the only God. Let, then, the flesh begin to give you pleasure, since the Creator thereof is so great. But, you say, even the world is the work of God, and yet “the fashion of this world passeth away,”[1] as the apostle himself testifies; nor must it be predetermined that the world will be restored, simply because it is the work of God. And surely if the universe, after its ruin, is not to be formed again, why should a portion of it be? You are right, if a portion is on an equality with the whole. But we maintain that there is a difference. [Tertullian On the Resurrection of the Flesh 5]
1 cor 7.32 - 34 - In this way he wants us to turn back and become like children again, 353 children who have come to know their real Father, come to a new birth by means of water, a method of birth quite different from that 354 in the material creation. (2) "Yes," he says, "the man who is unmarried cares for the Lord’s business, the man who is married cares how to give his wife pleasure." 355 Well? Is it impossible to give pleasure to one’s wife in ways acceptable to God and at the same time to show gratitude to God? Is it impermissible for the married man to have a partnership with his wife 356 in looking after the Lord’s business? (3) But just as "the unmarried woman is looking after the Lord’s business in seeking to be holy in body and spirit, 357 so the married woman cares in the Lord for her husband’s business and the Lord’s business in seeking to be holy in body and spirit. Both are holy in the Lord, one as a wife, the other as a virgin. [Clement Stromata 3.12]
1 cor 7.33 - A family constitutes a household, and secular communities are made up of households. 396 Paul says of those who find marriage a full-time occupation that they are "concerned to satisfy the world." 397 (4) Again the Lord says, "Anyone married should not seek divorce; anyone unmarried should not seek marriage" 398 – in other words, if a man has taken a public commitment to celibacy he should remain unmarried. [Clement Stromata 3.15]
1 cor 7.34 - You desire, then, to be a virgin? Do you know what hardship and irksomeness there is in truevirginity— that which stands constantly at all seasons before God, and does not withdraw from Hisservice, and is anxious how it may please its Lord with a holy body, and with its spirit?1 Corinthians 7:34 Do you know what great glory pertains to virginity, and is it for this that you set yourself to practise it? Do you really know and understand what it is you are eager to do? Are you acquainted with the noble task of holy virginity? Do you know how, like a man, to enter lawfully uponthis contest and strive, 2 Timothy 2:5 that, in the might of the Holy Spirit, you choose this for yourself, that you may be crowned with a crown of light, and that they may lead you about intriumph through the Jerusalem above? [Clement First Epistle on Virginity 5]
1 Cor 7.34 - As therefore she who is unmarried devotes herself to God alone, and her care is not divided, but the chaste married woman divides her life between God and her husband, while she who is otherwise disposed is devoted entirely to marriage, that is, to passion: in the same way I think the chaste wife, when she devotes herself to her husband, sincerely serves God; but when she becomes fond of finery, she falls away from God and from chaste wedlock, exchanging her husband for the world, after the fashion of that Argive courtesan, I mean Eriphyle,- "Who received gold prized above her dear husband." [Clement 2.10]
1 cor 7.35 - He is acquiring heavenly glory for himself, if he remains single and keeps immaculate the union which has been broken by death and cheerfully obeys what God has in store for him, becoming "undistracted" from the Lord’s service. [Clement Stromata 3.12]
1 cor 7.35 - But you will have full knowledge of the whole subject when I am present with you, if indeed you still continue to care for your own salvation. For I do not cast a snare upon any one, 1 Corinthians 7:35 as is done by the less thoughtful among the mass of men. Think of what I say, most honourable son. [Act Archelaus 5]
1 cor 7.36 - By the same argument he said that the man who supposes that he is acting wrongly in bringing up his daughter as a virgin will properly give her away in marriage. 301 (3) One man may make himself celibate; another may join in marriage in order to have children. Both ought to have the end in view of remaining firmly opposed to any lower standard. [Clement Stromata 3.12]
1 cor 7.38 - Right mystically and sacredly the apostle, teaching us the choice which is truly gracious, not in the way of rejection of other things as bad, but so as to do things better than what is good, has spoken, saying, "So he that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not doeth better; as far as respects seemliness and undistracted attendance on the Lord."[Clement Stromata 4.23]
1 cor 7.39 - 40 Yet again in speaking about the Law he makes use of an analogy. "The married woman," he says, "is tied to her husband by law during his lifetime," and so on. 305 And again, "The wife is under the marriage bond as long as her husband is alive. If he dies she is free to marry, provided it is in the Lord. But in my view her greatest blessing is to remain as she is." 306 (2) Now, in the former passage he says, "You have died to the Law" – not to marriage! – "with a view to becoming another’s, one who belongs to him was raised from the dead," at once Bride and Church. The Bride and Church must be pure alike from inward thoughts contrary to truth and from outward tempters, that is, the adherents of heretical sects who try to persuade her to sexual unfaithfulness to her one and only husband almighty God. We must not be led, "as the snake seduced Eve," 307 whose name means "Life," 308 to transgress the commandments under the influence of the wicked lewdness of the factions. (3) The second passage established monogamy. We are not to suppose, in agreement with some people’s exegesis, 309 that the bond tying the wife to the husband means the involvement of the flesh with decay. He is assailing the view of those atheists who attribute the invention of marriage directly to the devil. This is a view 310 which comes dangerously near to a slander against the lawgiver. [Clement STromata 3.12]
1 cor 7.39 - You degrade your god, O Marcion, when you make him circumscribed at all by the Creator's time. Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that marriage should be "only in the Lord," [Tertullian Against Marcion 5.7]
Tertullian on monogamy
7.40 - "And I think also that I have the Spirit of God." [Pseudo-Gregory Thaumaturgus]
