Showing posts with label Mutual Submission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mutual Submission. Show all posts

Ephesians Chapter 5: Gender Roles Submission in Marriage Polygamy


 1: Be ye therefore imitators of God as beloved off-spring 2: And walk in love as Christ also has loved us and has given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor [1] 3: But porneia and all uncleanness or covetousness let it not be once named among you as becomes saints 4: Neither filthiness nor foolish talking nor jesting (malicious witticism) which are not fitting but rather giving of thanks 5: For this you know that no pornos nor unclean nor covetous who are idolaters have any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God 6: Let none deceive you with vain words for because of these things is visited the wrath of God upon the children of disbelief 7: Become not therefore assembled [and] joint-partakers with them 8: For you were once darkness but now are you light in the Lord walk as children of light 9: For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth [2] 10: Proving what is acceptable to the Lord 11: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove elegchō [expose/admonish] them[3] 12: For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret 13: But all things that are exposed are made visible by the light for whatever produces visibility is light 14: Wherefore he says Awake you that sleep (heed the drawing and conviction of the Lord) and arise from the dead (call on God to save you!) and Christ shall give you light (show you how to walk in his ways) Thy WORD is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path  15: See then that you walk thoughtfully (and prudently) not as fools but as wise 16: Redeeming the time because the days are evil 17: Wherefore be not unwise but understanding what the will of the Lord is 18: And be not drunk with wine wherein is excess but be filled with the Spirit 19: Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord [4] 20: Thanking always over all [in the] name of our Master Jesus Christ the God and Father Berry  [Isaiah 9:6] Scriveners TR 1894 21: Yielding to [being supportive of] one another in the fear of God 22: Wives yield to [be supportive of] your own husbands [5] as unto the Lord 23: For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the Church [6] and He [Christ] is the Savior of the Body [of Christ] 24: Therefore as the Church yields to Christ so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything 25: Husbands love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it 26: That He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word 27: That He might present it to Himself Godhead a glorious church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish [7]  28: So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies They who love their wives love themselves 29: For no one ever yet hated their own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it [their own flesh] just as also the Lord the church 30: For we are members of His body of His flesh and of His bones 31: For this cause shall a man leave father [and] mother and follow hard after [be joined like cement glue] to  [8] his woman and they two shall be one flesh[9] 32: This is a great mystery but I speak concerning Christ and the Church[10] 33: Nevertheless [even though you cannot fully comprehend this] so love everyone after the manner [of Christ and] particularly love your wives even as yourselves and wives to [11] fear phobetai [12] husbands


[1] (Ephesians 5:2) Jesus gave his life for a lost and unbelieving world. This was done out of love, because God is love. Jesus is the very substance and embodiment of love. Yet, a brief history of so-called “Christian” response to disagreement on doctrine and differences of opinion, is filled with horrific violence never advocated by Jesus.

Our Savior said our fruits would reveal who we are. Shameful accusations against historical “Christian” persecutors, are all too often true, rightfully producing animus in the hearts of those who confuse wicked religious bigots with true followers of Christ, who never advocated conversion by compulsion: e.g.,   http://www.heretication.info/_heretics.html This should be a matter of reflection and repentance for every believer who follows any person or doctrine that has a testimony of abusing the name of Christ by imprisoning, torturing, and killing those who disagree[d] with them. Jesus said, “By this all shall know you are my disciples that you have love one towards another John 13:35.”

[2] Jesus said, “You shall know them by their fruit.” This is the biblical standard by we judge all things. The Bible says do not condemn, but the Bible also says judge all things by the Word of God. Christians must be mature, and learn to discern between the biblical and the unbiblical. One of the tools for discernment, given by Christ himself, was fruit. The apostle reinforces that truth to the believers at Ephesus, in reminding them that the fruit of the Spirit causes no one to become callous or cruel, but more like Jesus himself, who embodies love and is the TRUTH. Jesus, is our example of truth, goodness, and righteousness. Our fruit should be like his. Only God can condemn, but, using the standard of His WORD, God’s people are commanded to judge.

[3] Here, again, is the biblical concept of discernment (judging) and reproving. Christians are commanded to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. How can the unfruitful works of darkness be reproved, if they are not first judged to be so? And what form should reproofs take? On the subject of “reproving,” where, in the example of Christ, can the example of persecution be found? Jesus said some hard things in his rebukes to the religious leaders of his day, but when his disciples wanted to call fire down from heaven and destroy itinerant preachers of Messiah, Jesus said, No! Yet, for millennia, Christians have been persecuted by those calling themselves Christians. Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.”

[4] Ephesians 5:19 is used by some to ban musical instruments from church services. They claim it is because instruments are not mentioned in this verse. This is an unwarranted interpretation, an example of failing to rightly discern the Word of God. God’s people are commanded, in the psalms, to praise him using all manner of musical instruments. Satan hates this, because praise stops the enemy. Yet some assume God changed his mind on the matter of praise simply because instruments are not mentioned in Ephesians. This is an unwarranted assumption. The verse is instructing on what to do, not on what not to do.

[5] Dr. Sue Hyatt writes that the word “submit” should have been translated as “support,” “In the context of biblical relationships between men and women, the best meaning of hypotasso is “to identify with or support.”

This writer agrees. Within biblical Christianity no military hierarchies can be found. Secular, military-like, applications of the Greek word, hypotasso, have no place in the living dynamics of the love relationship between our Creator and his people nor should it between co-workers in Christ or between husbands and wives.

It is erroneous to assign a biblical definition of “compliance” to the word hypotasso in New Testament non-military relationships. All believers are commanded to hypotasso one another. We see this in Ephesians 5:21 and 1 Peter 5:5 (the latter is found in all Koine Greek texts, over 5000 of which still exist today). In biblical usage, the word hypotasso is not hierarchical. It has nothing to do with being subordinate to, secondary to, or subject to. It must be applied in the sense of preferring one another over ourselves.    

Translator supplements add to the impression that the word is hierarchical when it is not. In Ephesians chapter five, see verses :21-22, where the word, “yourselves” (as in submit yourselves) is an English translator supplement that casts a hierarchical shadow over the passage, when there is no underlying Greek to support it.

As previously stated translating hypotasso as the word “submit” or the phrase “be subject to” gives rise to gender-biased-English-translation-theology, bluntly put…false doctrine. The word “yourselves” is not found in verses :21-22. There is no corresponding Greek to support it.

Semantics matter. Language influences opinion. The translator supplements of “yourselves” [in verses :21-22] add a non-existent emphatic and hierarchical flavor to the passage. It is an incorrect translation. As there is no corresponding Greek to justify the translator supplements of the emphatic “yourselves” in either verse, the words should be eliminated.

“Yielding one to another (being supportive one of the other) in the fear of God” is sufficient for understanding. The word, hypotasso, means the same for both husbands and wives. Hypotasso is used in 1 Peter 5:5 (Koine Greek/Received Text), where all believers are commanded to yield to and be supportive of one another. Given that all believers are commanded to prefer others before themselves, the Greek word, hypotasso, when applied to non-military relationships (marriage is certainly a non-military relationship), should not be translated using hierarchical terms such as “submit” or “be subject to.”

[6] Verses 28-29 explain what Paul meant when he wrote this. 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 4:15-16 show that Christ “as head” loves and nourishes the Church, which is his Bride. Paul may even have been addressing the issue of domestic violence and abuse, which was prevalent among Jews and gentiles and certainly would have carried over into the early Church as well. The Headship of Christ as Chief Cornerstone (Head of the Corner) is a direct reference to his function as The Capstone of the Church. There is only one capstone in the only building that has one, so the husband is not referred to, here, as the chief cornerstone in a marriage.

Jesus’ function as the head is described in Ephesians 4:15-16, which describes a human body using a building metaphor. In this passage the head is portrayed as a capstone. Jesus, as the Chief Cornerstone is building, edifying, and unifying the body. There is no mention in this passage of ruling, but at any rate, husbands cannot do what Christ did and continues doing in the building of his Body:

“But speaking the truth in love may grow up into him in all things which is the head even Christ from whom the whole body fitly joined together (“Fitly joined together” is a building metaphor) and compacted by that which every joint supplies according to the effectual working in the measure of every part making increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

Among humans, only Jesus has headship. This passage bears witness to the fact that Christ’s headship has to do with the building, edifying, and unifying of the his out-called Body, which he called the “Out-Called.”

Ephesians 5:29 tells us that Christ’s Headship also includes the nourishment of the his Body, the Out-Called.

Christ as the kephale of the corner (the capstone) is the only connection between the rest of the building/Bride/Out-Called and the Godhead. And although there are many angles (corner stones) within the Body of Christ, there is only one Head of the Corner (capstone). Husband’s are not capstones. That is why Jesus said, “I am the [only] way the truth and the [only] life no one comes to the Father but by me.”

[7] This verse cannot be used as a basis for male headship trinity marriage teaching, or as a command for complementarian husbands and wives to engage in a cosmic role-play portraying god-husband and church-wife. The Out-Called is sanctified by Christ and His redeeming work on the cross, His death, His burial, and His resurrection, His triumph over death.

Wives cannot be made clean and set apart by husbands who cannot redeem. Husbands will not present their wives to God at the judgment. The “He” in verses 26 and 27 refers to Jesus and not to husbands. The “Himself” referenced in verse 26, is a reference to the eternal Godhead, because Jesus is God. Jesus is the God of the Burning Bush: Beloved Son Eternal Father.

1 Corinthians 7:4,14 refutes the redeemer husband fallacy by saying that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife else their children would be unclean. That verse remains a puzzle to some. It also says the wife has equal authority over the husband’s body. In Christ, according to Galatians 3:29, there is equality and autonomy between all races and both sexes.

[8] Ephesians 5:30 is a quote from Genesis 2:24 and is directed to men. Upon marriage, in ancient times, women left their parent’s homes and typically went to live in the homes of their husband’s parents. This left the bride vulnerable to abuse from possibly hostile inlaws and possible abusive husband, with no natural protectors in the form of father or brother[s]. This arrangement is the exact opposite of the command in Genesis for the man to leave his parents and be joined like cement glue to his wife. The old English word, “cleave,” and the modern English “cling” are not strong enough to convey the strength of the voluntary bond a man must have with his wife.

Besides equality with no hierarchical gender roles, the Hebrew and Greek words (Strong’s H1692 and G4347) translated as “cleave to” or “cling to” require a man to follow hard after and move in sync together with his wife. This does not line up with either traditional-role-religion or complementarian male-headship, which teaches that men must always lead and women always follow. Additionally, the Genesis command was clear that God’s way was monogamy, which was not obeyed up to New Testament times, when polygamous men were disqualified from Christian leadership.  

[9] In his foreknowledge and providence, our Creator commanded all new husbands to separate themselves from their nuclear families and follow hard after [attach themselves like cement glue] to their wives. If they chose to live in a parental home, after their marriage, it was not to be with the husband’s family. But history records that from the Fall onward, this command has been generally disregarded. The command for a man to leave his nuclear family and follow hard after his wife would have served as a natural safe-guard for women against marital abuse and violence, as her family would have served as natural protectors.

As a side note: Obedience to leaving the husband's parents and sticking like cement glue to the wife, would have also protected against the practice of polygamy, which is against God's command for one husband to have only one wife. Some have defended the practice of polygamy claiming it is a benefit to women and cite disparity in numbers of male to female populations. For the most part smaller male populations could be attributed to war and other testosterone driven violence and adventure. Much early violence had to do with the stealing of women from enemy tribes. If, in the beginning, humanity had not fallen [through sin], these things would not have served to reduce the male population. There would likely have been a much greater balance between female to male ratios.

[10] As the apostle stated, the relationship between Christ and His Church is a great mystery. It is something the finite mind cannot begin to fathom. Since all our righteousness [the very best we can do] is as menstruous rags to an infinitely Holy God, complementarian efforts at cosmic role play between god-husband and church-wife is a useless and misguided attempt to “flesh out” something humans are not capable understanding, much less of doing.

[11] In Ephesians 5:33, Gender-biased-translator-supplements add an emphatic flavor to translations that favor male-headship but is not present in the texts. The text simply reads “…and wives to fear husbands.” Here are examples of misleading English-translation-theology that add a non-existent emphatic flavor to the the verse: …the wife see that she…KJV; …the wife must… NIV; …the wife must see to it that…NASB. None of these phrases exist in the Greek texts. The apostle was not commanding wives to be reverent to husbands. He was telling them to have a healthy fear of them.   

[12] In Ephesians 5:33, the Greek word translated as reverence or respect is phobeō or phobetai depending on the text. Sixty-two times the word is translated as fear. Twenty-Three times it is translated as “be afraid.” Another five times it is translated as “be afraid of.” Only once is it translated as reverence, and that with respect to women.

Phobeō is the root of the English word, phobia and never has a connotation of reverence. The most literal meaning of the word is fear or be afraid of. In the first century, there was no legal recourse for women against domestic violence. There was nothing but moral constraint to prevent husbands from beating wives. Sadly, history has shown that moral constraints without legal clout prove inadequate in protecting women from wife beaters.

Out of 90 occurrences [of the word phobeō in the Greek text] with only one translated as reverence, one can only shake their head in wonder at the effort expended to justify the mistranslation.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7: Divorce Marriage Celibacy Equality



   1: Now concerning the things you wrote to me about[1] It is good for a man not to  touch[2] a woman  [remain celibate] 2: But because of porneia let each have his wife[3] and let each have her husband[4] 3: Let husbands yield as indebted [to] wives good will [5] and likewise also wives to husbands 4: Wives have not exousiazo idios soma [authority over her own body] indeed the husband and likewise also the husband has not exousiazo idios soma [6] [authority over his own body] indeed the wife[7] 5: Withdraw ye not one from the other except [perhaps] it be with consent for a time so that scholazo  [you can resort to][8] fasting and prayer and [then] come together again[9] that Satan tempt you not for your lack of self-control 6: But I speak this by permission and not of commandment[10] 7: For I would that all people were even as I myself But everyone has their own gift from God[11] one indeed after this manner and another after that 8: I say therefore to the unmarried and widows It is good for them if they abide even as I[12] 9: But if they will not contain [themselves][13] let them marry for it is better to marry than to burn [with unbridled passions][14] 10: And to the married I command yet not I but the Lord Let not the wife depart from her husband 11: But and if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband and let not the husband put away his wife [15]12: And to the rest speak I not the Lord If any brother has a wife that believes not and she be pleased to dwell with him let him not put her away 13: And the woman who has a husband that believes not and if he be pleased to dwell with her let her not leave him 14: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband[16] else were your children unclean but now are they holy 15: But if the unbelieving depart let them depart A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases but God has called us to peace[17] 16: For how do you know O wife whether you shall save your husband or how do you know O husband whether you shall save your wife[18] 17: But as God has distributed to every one as the Lord has called every one so let them walk And so ordain I in all churches 18: Is any one called being circumcised let them not become uncircumcised [19] Is any called in uncircumcision let them not be circumcised[20] 19: Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God [is what counts] 20: Let everyone abide in the same calling wherein they were called 21: Are you called being a slave Care not for it but if you may be made free use it rather 22: For they who are called in the Lord being slaves are the Lord’s freedmen Likewise also they who are called being free are Christ’s [slaves] 23: You are bought with a price be not ye the slaves of men 24: Brethren let everyone wherein they are called therein abide with God[21] 25: Now concerning virgins I have no commandment from the Lord[22] yet I give my judgment as one who has obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful 26: I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress[23] I say that it is good for one so to be 27: Are you bound to a wife seek not to be loosed Are you loosed from a wife seek not a wife 28: But and if you marry you have not sinned and if a virgin marry she has not sinned Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh but I spare you[24] 29: But this I say brethren[25] the time is short It remains that both they who have wives be as though they had none[26] 30: And they who weep as though they wept not and they that rejoice as though they rejoiced not and they that buy as though they possessed not 31: And they that use this world but not abusing it for the fashion of this world passes away[27] 32: But I wish you to be without worry He who is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord how he may please the Lord 33: But he who is married cares for the things that are of the world striving to please his wife 34: There is difference also between a wife and a virgin The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit but she who is married cares for the things of the world how she may please her husband[28] 35: And this I speak for your own profit not that I may cast a noose upon you but for that which is seemly and that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction 36: But if any be accustomed to acting unseemly toward their virginity if they be over-ripe and so it ought to be [then] do what they desire They sin not let them marry 37: Nevertheless whoever stands steadfast in their hearts having no necessity but having control over their own desires and have so decreed in their hearts that they will guard their virginity do well 38: So then they that give [themselves] in marriage do well but they that give [themselves] not in marriage do better 39: A wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives 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 so abide after my judgment if she remains unmarried  and I think also that I have the Spirit of God


[1] This is a reference to a letter or letters written to Paul, from the Christians in Corinth. We have no way of knowing the exact contents of the letter(s), but from Paul’s answer, we can infer that the question[s] had to do with several issues. One was whether it was better for Christians to marry or to remain unmarried. And Paul begins his response with that concern. Even though the context of Paul’s answer seems to address sexual relations within marriage, it is doubtful a letter focusing solely on intimate relations between spouses would have been dispatched to the apostle, but rather questions concerning the advisability of marriage itself. It makes much more sense to interpret Paul’s answer in light of relationships and co-habitation between spouses, i.e., marriage itself, rather than focusing solely on the conjugal aspects of marriage, which translators have consistently chosen to do with this passage. Other issues addressed in this chapter are divorce, Judaism, and slavery.

[2] It is certain that celibacy in general is not being promoted by the apostle (the entire passage deals with the special circumstance of the “present distress”—the terrible persecution Christians were experiencing at the time), the fact that Paul advises believers to remain unhampered by marriage during this time is significant. The word “touch” in this verse could also be translated “cling or adhere to.” Although men are told that finding a [godly] wife is a good thing, scripture holds no such advice for women concerning husbands. Without dispute, for both women and men, a happy marriage is a blessing from God. But nowhere in scripture, are believers commanded to seek out a spouse. The traditional-role-religionist and complementarian focus on getting married is at odds with scripture on this subject. Complementarianism appears to have such an obsession with marriage, it could legitimately be called a marriage cult. Conversely, the Jews believed that if they reproduced themselves (had two children), they had been obedient to the command to “Be fruitful and multiply.” Although daughters tended to be married off at young ages, sons typically waited until they were older. We observe [that in the ancient culture] the pressure to marry was often limited to marrying off daughters, while men were simply advised that they did good if they chose to marry. The Old Testament example of Rachel and Leah illustrates the cultural pressure to find husbands for daughters. Rachel was beautiful and therefore highly marriageable (and she already had a suiter), while her sister Leah was not. Laban, desperate not to have an “old maid” on his hands pulled the wool over Jacob’s eyes and tricked him into marrying the older, not so beautiful, sister first.

[3] Strong’s reference G 1135, gune, refers to women whether married or unmarried. There is no evidence for commentator James Strong’s unfounded assertion that the word, gune, refers “specially” to wives. Context alone determines how gune should be translated. In the first two verses of 1 Corinthians 7, the word gune, is seen referring to both wives and then to women in general, whether married or unmarried.

[4] Polygamy was common among the Jews, and since the first Christians were Jews, polygamy was also common among early Christians. Verses one and two are a clear reference the number of wives a Christian husband should have. The husband should have his wife (singular), and the wife should have her husband (singular)—total equality of the sexes is seen in this passage as well—equality in both essence and function. These verses leave no room for interpretation and clearly refer to monogamy. It is the second such reference, in the New Testament, of husbands only having one wife. The first came from Jesus. Paul also wrote about it to Timotheos. A husband cannot cling to (adhere to) “a” wife while, at the same time, having multiple wives. Although it appears polygamy became the norm early on (including among God’s people), the first chapter of Genesis, the Mosaic Law, the words of Jesus, and Paul’s instruction to Timothy, all clearly reveal that God’s plan, from the beginning, was that marriage is for one man and one woman—only. One wife at a time is permitted. There can be no essential or functional differences, either implied or inferred, when we read the exact same command given to both women and men—they were each to have only one spouse.

[5] What is due benevolence (opheilema eunoia)? The word, opheilema means to be under obligation to or indebted to. And eunoia, which is only used twice in the New Testament and is translated as “benevolence” in 1 Corinthians 7:3 and as “good will” in Ephesians 6:7. There is no biblical ground for assigning a sexual/conjugal connotation to the word eunoia. Thayer defines the word as simply kindness and good will. Benevolence has never been a euphemism for what James Strong referred to as “conjugal duty.” Just because the apostle goes on to advise marriage for those who are excessively tempted by porneia, does not mean he further emphasizes “conjugal duty” to married couples. The marriage bed is not only holy, it is also personal and private. There is no biblical ground for supposing Paul thought it his business to meddle in the very personal issue of how often a married couple should or should not engage in intimate relations with one another (indeed it is not even physically possible, due to health reasons for some married couples to do so). “Due benevolence,” must therefore refer to the special kindness, consideration, loyalty, and faithfulness that should exist in every marriage. Beyond that, there does not exist one set of rules for married Christians and a different set of rules for unmarried Christians. Spouses are bound, even indebted to one another (along with all Christians), to exercise kindness and good will one towards the other. That, and only that, can be interpreted to be what the apostle meant by the words “due benevolence.”?

[6] The context of verse four, seems to speak [at least in part] to the giving or withholding of sexual relations, but that does not shore up theology which teaches that the term “due benevolence” should be interpreted as “conjugal duty.”

[7] How does this clear statement of functional equality (mutual submission) between husbands and wives reconcile with Bruce Ware’s doctrine of trinity marriage (where marriage allegedly mirrors the alleged eternal, pre-incarnate, authority structure within the Godhead as a pattern for human hierarchy in marriage?) and the complementarian doctrine of the husband “playing the role” of Jesus and the wife “playing the role” of the church? Where are scriptural examples of how the church has power over Christ? How does this compare with traditional-role-religion interpretations of Ephesians Chapter five? 

[8] Paul gives his approval for husbands and wives to absent themselves from one another, at their mutually consented leisure, for the purposes of fasting and prayer, but not for living apart in general. The Greek word translated “give yourselves to” is, scholazō, which is only used twice in the New Testament. In Matthew 12:44, the word is translated “empty.” Other, extra-biblical, usages indicate the word denotes “absence and/or leisure.” 

[9] Male commentators have consistently assigned a meaning of “conjugal co-habitation” to the Greek word, sunerchomai, which is translated in this verse as “come” (as in come together/gather together). But there is no definitive biblical evidence that the coming together Paul refers to, in verse five, is conjugal—for married people it could certainly include it. The word is used in such a context in only two places in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 7:5 and in Matthew 1:18 where we read that Mary is found with child of the Holy Ghost before she and Joseph “came together” (i.e., before they began living together as husband and wife; there is no definitive hermeneutical proof that sunerchomai is referring to Mary and Joseph’s future conjugal relationship (Roman Catholics certainly deny that is the case). In all other places, sunerchomai, refers to non-conjugal groups of people coming (or gathering) together.

[10] In other words, Paul felt liberty from God to share his opinion on the subject. So virtually everything written in 1 Corinthians chapter seven [aside from verses 10-11 which he clarified in verses 12-16] Paul states is his opinion, and not to be taken as “Thus saith the Lord.”

[11] Paul is not referring to a supernatural gift of self-control, as all Christians are commanded to exercise self-control. The fact that it is a command, means that, with the help of God, all are capable of it. Therefore, the ability for a single person to abstain from porneia is not a gift. It is simply the exercise of self-control which we are all commanded to do. The gift Paul writes of, is the ability to be content without being married.  

[12] The apostle is issuing a general advisory for Christians not to marry during the “present distress.” This is not a slur against the marriage relationship or a defense for celibacy. It was simply common sense considering the horrific persecution taking place at the time.

[13] Will not contain is more accurate according to context and comparison with other passages. . .There are no Christians who cannot restrain themselves from sinning. If that were the case then lack of self-control would not be sin. But that is not the case, self-control is something Christians are commanded to add to their faith, and is also a fruit of the Holy Spirit (fruit results from growth and maturity). Using the words “cannot” instead of “will not”, as many versions do, soft-soaps the issue of self-control or the lack thereof.

[14] Rather than be consumed with burning, sinful lusts, get married (and remain faithful to your spouse!)

[15] This goes back to verse one, and one of the questions Paul obviously wrote this letter in response to:  It is good that a man not touch a woman? What a ridiculous rendering! Put the shoe on the other foot: It is good that a woman not touch a man! No, it is not “good” either way if it is unmarried men and women we are speaking of “touching” one another here; it is sin, pure and simple, if they do! Could Paul have been answering a question concerning bringing children into Nero’s Christian burning world? In that case it would be better that a husband not touch his wife (as that was the only form of birth control available at the time), but because of porneia, doing away with marriage or spouses altogether would not have been a good idea.  And Paul also made it clear that the tribulation they were suffering was not going to be a good excuse for divorce.

[16] Unqualified statement of absolute equality of the sexes

[17] Divorce is permitted in these cases. If a sister or a brother is not under bondage, then there is no hindrance to marrying again if they so choose.

[18] The Corinthian Church met in the local Synagogue, which was likely filled with believing Jews married to un-believing Jews. This was likely a widespread dilemma within the early church. 

[19] As it is impossible for a circumcised man to become uncircumcised, we know that Paul is speaking generically to both women and men. The reference, here, is to Judaism. He was telling Jews that they did not have to become Gentiles to be saved.

[20] Paul was telling Gentiles that they did not have to become Jews to be saved. In the Body of Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, hence, one is not superior/inferior to the other, hence, the apostle told the non-Jewish believers, “If you are not Jewish, do not attempt to become Jewish.” He repeated this a few verses down. 

[21] Paul has not changed the subject. He has only made a slight detour. He is still dealing with marriage and he gets back to it shortly. But he takes the opportunity to extrapolate the marriage question—which must have been one of changing marital status, due to the present distress attached to becoming a Christian in those perilous times—into other areas of life. Is Paul saying no changes can be made in a person’s life once they come to Christ? No, but he is warning against unnecessary, major life changes simply because one has become a Christian. He is not condoning slavery, as some accuse him of. The penalty could be death by crucifixion for runaway slaves—criminals of all sorts were crucified. Their masters could kill them, or they could face the coliseum to be torn apart by beasts. The Romans had a variety of cruel deaths to choose from. In light of the brutal consequences, it is unlikely that Paul would encourage born-again slaves to run away.
[22] Again, the apostle stresses that the following advice, is his opinion.

[23] The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians seven, must be interpreted within the context of the “present distress,” which was the driving force that brought questions about marriage, reproduction, and divorce to the forefront. 

[24] Paul advises against marriage only, at this particular time.

[25] Brethren is a gender-neutral word including both sisters and brothers in the Lord.

[26] Marital celibacy? Do not seek to bring children into the world, at this time?

[27] Here, Paul makes a clear statement about his belief in the imminent appearance of Christ, based on his revelation of the resurrection and catching up (commonly known as the rapture) 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 15: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep 16: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first 17: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord 18: Wherefore comfort one another with these words). His comments underscore his belief that not only was life not going on as usual, but that it never would again, so he advises Christians on attitudes and behavior appropriate for the last days. This is reminiscent of the Lord God’s word to Baruch Jeremiah 45: 2: Thus saith the LORD the God of Israel unto thee O Baruch 3: Thou didst say Woe is me now for the LORD hath added grief to my sorrow I fainted in my sighing and I find no rest 4: Thus shalt thou say unto him The LORD saith thus Behold that which I have built will I break down and that which I have planted I will pluck up even this whole land 5: And seekest thou great things for thyself seek them not for behold I will bring evil upon all flesh saith the LORD but thy life will I give unto thee for a prey in all places whither thou goest
 
[28] Verses :32-34 are a clear statement of equality of the sexes in both essence and function. If this was the only passage in scripture that underscores the essential and functional equality of the sexes, it would be enough, but it isn’t. There are many more. Yet, if it was, it would not change the fact that this one passage, alone, refutes the misogynistic, uniquely complementarian, claim that women and men are equal in essence only, but not in function.