1 Corinthians 7:12–24

We are here given to understand that neither spouse may divorce the other if both are believers.

The Lord also showed that certain precepts were enacted for them by Moses, on account of their hardness [of heart], and because of their unwillingness to be obedient, when, on their saying to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a writing of divorcement, and to send away a wife?" He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he permitted these things to you; but from the beginning it was not so;" thus exculpating Moses as a faithful servant, but acknowledging one God, who from the beginning made male and female, and reproving them as hard-hearted and disobedient. And therefore it was that they received from Moses this law of divorcement, adapted to their hard nature. 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." And again: "But this I speak by permission, not by commandment." 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." But further, in another place he says: "That Satan tempt you not for your incontinence." If, therefore, even in the New Testament, the apostles are found granting certain precepts in consideration of human infirmity, because of the incontinence of some, lest such persons, having grown obdurate, and despairing altogether of their salvation, should become apostates from God,-it ought not to be wondered at, if also in the Old Testament the same God permitted similar indulgences for the benefit of His people, drawing them on by means of the ordinances already mentioned, so that they might obtain the gift of salvation through them, while they obeyed the Decalogue, and being restrained by Him, should not revert to idolatry, nor apostatize from God, but learn to love Him with the whole heart.

For as when discoursing about separating from fornicators, he made the matter easy by the correction which he applied to his words, saying, "Howbeit, not altogether with the fornicators of this world;" so also in this case he provideth for the abundant easiness of the duty, saying, "If any wife have a husband, or husband a wife, that believeth not, let him not leave her." What sayest thou? "If he be an unbeliever, let him remain with the wife, but not if he be a fornicator? And yet fornication is a less sin than unbelief." I grant, fornication is a less sin: but God spares thine infirmities extremely. And this is What He doth about the sacrifice, saying, "Leave the sacrifice, and be reconciled to thy brother." This also in the case of the man who owed ten thousand talents. For him too He did not punish for owing him ten thousand talents, but for demanding back a hundred pence from his fellow-servant He took vengeance on him.

Therefore, when in these days a certain woman removed her marriage from the pale of the Church, and united herself to a Gentile, and when I remembered that this had in days gone by been done by others: wondering at either their own waywardness or else the double-dealing of their advisers, in that there is no scripture which holds forth a licence of this deed,-"I wonder," said I, "whether they flatter themselves on the ground of that passage of the first (Epistle) to the Corinthians, where it is written: If any of the brethren has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to the matrimony, let him not dismiss her; similarly, let not a believing woman, married to an unbeliever, if she finds her husband agreeable (to their continued union), dismiss him: for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband; else were your children unclean." It may be that, by understanding generally this monition regarding married believers, they think that licence is granted (thereby) to marry even unbelievers.

What are you saying? If the husband is an unbeliever, then let him remain with his wife; but if he is a fornicator, he should not remain with her? But unbelief is worse than fornication? Indeed it is worse; but God exacts punishment more for sins against one's neighbor than for sins against Himself. For it is said: "Leave your gift there before the altar and go first, be reconciled with your brother" (Matt. 5:24). And ten thousand talents owed to Him, He forgave; but for the one who owed a hundred denarii, He did not leave the offense unavenged (Matt. 18:34). So also in the present case: the sin of unbelief, which offends God Himself, He overlooks, but the sin of adultery He punishes as a sin against the wife. Some, however, explain it thus: a person, they say, remains in unbelief through ignorance, which may perhaps come to an end, as the apostle himself (1 Cor. 7:16) says: "For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband?" — whereas fornication is committed as a result of manifest depravity. Moreover, the fornicator has already separated himself beforehand, for having taken his members away from his wife, he made them members of a harlot; whereas the unbeliever has committed no sin against the bodily union, or rather, through this union he may perhaps be united also in faith. Not to mention that the order of life would also be overturned, and the Gospel would be subjected to reproach, if the believing spouse were to separate from the unbelieving one. Meanwhile, apply the apostle's commandment under consideration only to the case where husband and wife were joined in marriage when both were still in unbelief, but afterward one side or the other converted to the faith. For if previously only the husband was an unbeliever, or only the wife, then the believing spouse was not at all permitted to enter into marriage with the unbelieving one: this is clear from the apostle's words, for he did not say: if anyone wishes to take an unbelieving wife, but: "if any brother has." Again, he does not simply prescribe that the believing spouse live with the unbelieving one, but only in the case where the latter desires it; for this means: "consents," that is, if she desires it.

Then when he says, To the rest I say, he treats of the inseparability of marriage between persons of disparate cult, when one is a believer. First, he says that the believer should not dismiss an unbelieving spouse, who is willing to continue living together without abusing the Creator. Secondly, that if the unbeliever does not wish to live together, the believer is not bound to follow, but can marry another (v. 15). Thirdly, that unless the unbeliever leaves first, the believer should patiently remain together (v. 16). In regard to the first, he gives an admonition; secondly, the reason for the admonition (v. 14). In regard to the first he speaks in general to men and women; secondly, in particular to the men (v. 12b); thirdly, in particular to the women (v. 13).

He says therefore, To the rest, i.e., where not both are believers, but one is a believer and the other an unbeliever, I say, by way of counsel and not of command, not the Lord. As if to say: I say this from the Lord, although he does not say it with his own lips. This is what I say: If any brother, a believer, is converted to the faith while married. For this is understood of those who married as unbelievers, not of those who are in disparity of cult; for then there was no marriage, and they would have to be separated as Ezra did in Ezra 9-10. If a brother, I say, has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him without insulting the Creator, he should not divorce her. It is a counsel not a precept, so that if one does the contrary, he is not a transgressor, according to a Gloss.

Paul says this in the case of two Gentiles, one of whom has become a believer. Normally, a pagan detests Christianity, and a Christian does not want to be contaminated by paganism, which is why Paul says that if they are happy to stay together, they should continue to do so.

Paul did not mean that a woman should marry an unbeliever, only that she should stay with him if she is already married.

Then when he says, If any woman, he speaks in particular to women, where he first of all supposes faith in someone; secondly, unbelief in this other when he says, has a husband who is an unbeliever; thirdly, the unbeliever is willing to live together, when he says, and he consents; fourthly, he advises the believer to remain with him when he says, to live with her, she should not divorce him. He says, therefore, and likewise, if a believing wife has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her without insulting the Creator; for if he were unwilling to live with her without insulting the name of Christ, the believer should divorce him, because 'insulting the Creator dissolves a marriage', as a Gloss says, and she may marry again. If, I say, that is the case, she should not divorce him. It is a counsel, not a precept; for it is lawful for the unbeliever to divorce the believer, but then it was not expedient.

These unbelievers have the benefit of good will, which protects them from detesting the name of Christ.

But if continency follows Christ, and virginity is destined for the kingdom of God, what have they to do with earthly dress, and with ornaments, wherewith while they are striving to please men they offend God? Not considering that it is declared, "They who please men are put to confusion, because God hath despised them; " and that Paul also has gloriously and sublimely uttered, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." But continence and modesty consist not alone in purity of the flesh, but also in seemliness, as well as in modesty of dress and adornment; so that, according to the apostle, she who is unmarried may be holy both in body and in spirit. Paul instructs and teaches us, saying, "He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please God: but he who has contracted marriage careth for the things which are of this world, how he may please his wife. So both the virgin and the unmarried woman consider those things which are the Lord's, that they may be holy both in body and spirit." A virgin ought not only to be so, but also to be perceived and believed to be so: no one on seeing a virgin should be in any doubt as to whether she is one. Perfectness should show itself equal in all things; nor should the dress of the body discredit the good of the mind. Why should she walk out adorned? Why with dressed hair, as if she either had or sought for a husband? Rather let her dread to please if she is a virgin; and let her not invite her own risk, if she is keeping herself for better and divine things. They who have not a husband whom they profess that they please, should persevere, sound and pure not only in body, but also in spirit. For it is not right that a virgin should have her hair braided for the appearance of her beauty, or boast of her flesh and of its beauty, when she has no struggle greater than that against her flesh, and no contest more obstinate than that of conquering and subduing the body.

It was not by means of visions alone which were seen, and words which were proclaimed, but also in actual works, that He was beheld by the prophets, in order that through them He might prefigure and show forth future events beforehand. For this reason did Hosea the prophet take "a wife of whoredoms," prophesying by means of the action, "that in committing fornication the earth should fornicate from the Lord," that is, the men who are upon the earth; and from men of this stamp it will be God's good pleasure to take out a Church which shall be sanctified by fellowship with His Son, just as that woman was sanctified by intercourse with the prophet. And for this reason, Paul declares that the "unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband." Then again, the prophet names his children, "Not having obtained mercy," and "Not a people," in order that, as says the apostle, "what was not a people may become a people; and she who did not obtain mercy may obtain mercy. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said, This is not a people, there shall they be called the children of the living God." That which had been done typically through his actions by the prophet, the apostle proves to have been done truly by Christ in the Church.

Then lest the woman might fear, as though she became unclean because of intercourse with her husband, he says, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband." And yet, if "he that is joined to an harlot is one body," it is quite clear that the woman also who is joined to an idolater is one body. Well: it is one body; nevertheless she becomes not unclean, but the cleanness of the wife overcomes the uncleanness of the husband; and again, the cleanness of the believing husband overcomes the uncleanness of the unbelieving wife.

How then in this case is the uncleanness overcome, and therefore the intercourse allowed; while in the woman who prostitutes herself, the husband is not condemned in casting her out? Because here there is hope that the lost member may be saved through the marriage; but in the other case the marriage has already been dissolved; and there again both are corrupted; but here the fault is in one only of the two. I mean something like this: she that has been guilty of fornication is utterly abominable: if then "he that is joined to an harlot is one body," he also becomes abominable by having connection with an harlot; wherefore all the purity flits away. But in the case before us it is not so. But how? The idolater is unclean but the woman is not unclean. For if indeed she were a partner with him in that wherein he is unclean, I mean his impiety, she herself would also become unclean. But now the idolater is unclean in one way, and the wife holds communion with him in another wherein he is not unclean. For marriage and mixture of bodies is that wherein the communion consists.

Again, there is a hope that this man may be reclaimed by his wife for she is made completely his own: but for the other it is not very easy. For how will she who dishonored him in former times and became another's and destroyed the rights of marriage, have power to reclaim him whom she had wronged; him, moreover, who still remains to her as an alien?

Again in that case, after the fornication the husband is not a husband: but here, although the wife be an idolatress, the husband's rights are not destroyed.

However, he doth not simply recommend cohabitation with the unbeliever, but with the qualification that he wills it. Wherefore he said, "And he himself be content to dwell with her." For, tell me, what harm is there when the duties of piety remain unimpaired and there are good hopes about the unbeliever, that those already joined should so abide and not bring in occasions of unnecessary warfare? For the question now is not about those who have never yet come together, but about those who are already joined. He did not say, If any one wish to take an unbelieving wife, but, "If any one hath an unbelieving wife." Which means, If any after marrying or being married have received the word of godliness, and then the other party which had continued in unbelief still yearn for them to dwell together, let not the marriage be broken off. "For," saith he, "the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife." So great is the superabundance of thy purity.

What then, is the Greek holy? Certainly not: for he said not, He is holy; but, "He is sanctified in his wife." And this he said, not to signify that he is holy, but to deliver the woman as completely as possible from her fear and lead the man to desire the truth. For the uncleanness is not in the bodies wherein there is communion, but in the mind and the thoughts. And here follows the proof; namely, that if thou continuing unclean have offspring, the child, not being of thee alone, is of course unclean or half clean. But now it is not unclean. To which effect he adds, "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy;" that is, not unclean. But the Apostle calls them, "holy," by the intensity of the expression again casting out the dread arising from that sort of suspicion.

Husband and wife are one in the same way that wine and water are one when they are mixed together. Just as the believing partner sanctifies the unbelieving one, so the unbelieving partner corrupts the believing one. This is why a man who is not yet married should consider very carefully and either not marry at all or marry only in the Lord.

When the children are clean and holy, uncorrupted by unbelief, the faith of the parent has won.

The children of believers were in some sense destined for holiness and salvation, and in the pledge of this hope Paul supported those marriages which he wished to continue.

It was from this circumstance that the apostle said, that when either of the parents was sanctified, the children were holy; and this as much by the prerogative of the (Christian) seed as by the discipline of the institution (by baptism, and Christian education). "Else," says he, "were the children unclean" by birth: as if he meant us to understand that the children of believers were designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation; in order that he might by the pledge of such a hope give his support to matrimony, which he had determined to maintain in its integrity.

Secondly, if, according to the Scripture, they who shall be "apprehended" by the faith in (the state of) Gentile marriage are not defiled (thereby) for this reason, that, together with themselves, others also are sanctified: without doubt, they who have been sanctified before marriage, if they commingle themselves with "strange flesh," cannot sanctify that (flesh) in (union with) which they were not "apprehended.

That is, by the abundance of purity of the believing spouse, the impurity of the unbelieving one is overcome. This is what the apostle's words mean, and not that the pagan becomes holy. For the apostle did not say "is holy," but "is sanctified," that is, is overcome by the holiness of the believing spouse. And he says this so that the believing wife would not fear becoming impure if she has marital relations with such a husband. But the question arises: he who joins himself to a harlot, becoming one body with her, becomes impure (cf. 1 Cor. 6:16); obviously, he who joins himself to a pagan woman also becomes one body with her. If the first is impure, then how does the latter not become impure? As far as fornication is concerned, it is indeed so. When fornicators have relations with one another, their union contains impurity, and therefore they are both impure. But the matter is different in the case of the marital union of a believing spouse with an unbelieving one. The unbelieving husband is impure on account of his unbelief. But the wife has communion with him not in unbelief, but in the marriage bed. In this communion no impurity is found. For it is a lawful marriage. Therefore the believing spouse does not become impure.

If the unbelieving half were not overcome by the purity of the believing half, then their children would be unclean, or only half clean.

That is, they are not unclean. By the superfluous expression "holy," the apostle dispels the fear of such a suspicion.

Then when he says, For the unbelieving husband, he gives the reason for the admonition just given. First, he proposes an example; secondly, the danger (v. 14b); thirdly, the fruit (v. 14c).

In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the example of an unbelieving husband; secondly, of an unbelieving wife (v. 14). He says, therefore, he is consecrated through his wife; as if to say: the wife who believes should not divorce the unbelieving spouse willing to live with her, because he is sanctified through the wife. This is read in two ways. In the first way thus: the husband who is not a believer is sometimes sanctified by a wife who believes, i.e., it sometimes happens that one is converted to the faith by the other. And this has probably happened already, as Sisinnius was converted to the faith in Rome by Theodora during the reign of Clement. Likewise, the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband, namely, by his admonition and doctrine. In another way it can be read thus: so the believer should not divorce the unbeliever, for the husband is sanctified by the wife, i.e., the believer does not contract uncleanness by cohabiting with or uniting with the unbelieving spouse, but preserves true modesty, according to Augustine.

Then when he says, otherwise your children, this is read in two ways: first, of children to be born; secondly, of children already born. In the first way it is read thus: otherwise, if you depart and you both have relations with others, your children, who would be born of this union, would be unclean, i.e., spurious, because not born of a lawful union. In the second way it is read thus: otherwise, namely, if you separate, your children already born would be unclean, i.e., would remain in unbelief, following the majority, which would be unbelievers; but now, if you remain together, they are holy, i.e., become Christians.

A marriage contracted without devotion to God is not binding, and for that reason it is not a sin if it is abandoned because of God. But the unbelieving partner sins both against God and against the marriage, because he or she is unwilling to live in a marriage relationship dedicated to God. It is not right to go to court over this because the one who leaves the marriage is doing so out of hatred for God, and for this reason he or she is not to be considered worthy of such attention.

A Christian husband may leave his wife without any blame, even if they are lawfully married, if she refuses to live with him because he is a Christian.

"Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart," for in this case the matter is no longer fornication. But what is the meaning of, "if the unbelieving departeth?" For instance, if he bid thee sacrifice and take part in his ungodliness on account of thy marriage, or else part company; it were better the marriage were annulled, and no breach made in godliness. Wherefore he adds, "A brother is not under bondage, nor yet a sister, in such cases." If day by day he buffet thee and keep up combats on this account, it is better to separate. For this is what he glances at, saying, "But God hath called us in peace." For it is the other party who furnished the ground of separation, even as he did who committed uncleanness.

The Lord must come before a husband or a wife.

Accordingly he subjoins withal a reason, that "we are called in peace unto the Lord God; "and that "the unbeliever may, through the use of matrimony, be gained by the believer." The very closing sentence of the period confirms (the supposition) that this is thus to be understood.

The believing partner is not to be the cause of the divorce. But if the unbelieving partner wants to separate, the believing partner is innocent and free from any accusation.

For example, if he commands you either to participate in his unbelief, or to renounce the rights of marriage, then divorce. For it is better to dissolve the bonds of marriage than to violate piety.

If your husband quarrels with you because you do not take part in his unbelief, then divorce him. For you are not enslaved to him in such a case, that is, you are not compelled to follow him in such matters as well. It is better to separate from him than to quarrel; because God does not want this either: "the Lord has called us to peace." So, if your husband quarrels with you, then by this he himself has given cause for divorce.

Paul says this because it is always possible that the unbelieving partner will come to believe if he or she does not detest the name of Christ.

"For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thine husband?" This again refers to that expression, "let her not leave him." That is, "if he makes no disturbance, remain," saith he, "for there is even profit in this; remain and advise and give counsel and persuade." For no teacher will have such power to prevail as a wife. And neither, on one hand, doth he lay any necessity upon her and absolutely demand the point of her, that he may not again do what would be too painful; nor, on the other, doth he tell her to despair: but he leaves the matter in suspense through the uncertainty of the future, saying, "For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O husband whether thou shalt save thy wife?"

If these things may happen to those women also who, having attained the faith while in (the state of) Gentile matrimony, continue in that state, still they are excused, as having been "apprehended by God" in these very circumstances; and they are bidden to persevere in their married state, and are sanctified, and have hope of "making a gain" held out to them.

Returning again to that exhortation that a wife "must not leave" her husband, he presents the current question. For if, he says, he does not quarrel with you, then stay with him and exhort him: perhaps you will accomplish something. He presents the outcome as uncertain, on the one hand, so that they would not think he is imposing on the wife an absolute obligation to fully convince her husband, and on the other hand, so as to sustain in her the hope of her husband's conversion and to prevent despair.

Some read it this way: "or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife or not" (ē m)? Then they began a new sentence thus: "let each one act as God has appointed for him," that is, how can you know whether you will save her or not? This is completely unknown. But if it is unknown, then one must not dissolve the marriage, because if you do not save her, you will not harm yourself, and if you do save her, you will bring benefit both to yourself and to others. But the holy John did not read it this way, but rather: "let each one act as God has appointed for him, and each one as the Lord has called." And this reading is incomparably better. The Apostle said, as it were: there should be no divorce under the pretext of unbelief, but let each one act as God has willed concerning him. You were called having a wife from among the unbelievers. Keep her with you, and do not cast her out for her unbelief.

God has assigned to each person the time of his salvation, that is, the time when he might believe, and he will keep that person until then. Paul tells the Corinthians that this is his general rule, so that when they hear that others are expected to follow it, they will be more willing to do so themselves. It is always easier to do something when you see others doing the same.

"Only as God hath distributed to each man, as the Lord hath called each, so let him walk. Was any one called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Was any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Wast thou called, being a slave? Care not for it." These things contribute nothing unto faith, saith he. Be not then contentious neither be troubled; for the faith hath cast out all these things.

"Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called. Hast thou been called, having an unbelieving wife? Continue to have her. Cast not out thy wife for the faith's sake. Hast thou been called, being a slave? Care not for it. Continue to be a slave. Hast thou been called, being in uncircumcision? Remain uncircumcised. Being circumcised, didst thou become a believer? Continue circumcised. For this is the meaning of, "As God hath distributed unto each man." For these are no hindrances to piety. Thou art called, being a slave; another, with an unbelieving wife; another, being circumcised.

The very closing sentence of the period confirms (the supposition) that this is thus to be understood. "As each," it says, "is called by the Lord, so let him persevere." But it is Gentiles who "are called," I take it, not believers.

It is wrong to suppose that the circumstances which prevailed when a person was converted stand in the way of his becoming holy.

He said this so that the Corinthians would more readily obey him, since he commands the same thing to others together with them as well.

Someone who has been circumcised should not think that this is going too far, or regret it, because in its own day it was necessary. But neither should he seek to convert the uncircumcised to that practice.

It is not possible to replace flesh which has been cut off in this way, although the blessed Epiphanius of Cyprus says that it is. Those who want to know more about the subject can consult what he has to say about it.

Probably, many, being ashamed of circumcision, by some medicine restored the circumcised member to its original appearance, growing back the foreskin on it.

On the other hand, some, finding something important in circumcision, were circumcised after their conversion to the faith. Therefore he says that this contributes nothing to the faith.

Circumcision means nothing by itself, but it was a command of God. On the other hand, uncircumcised is the way God made us, so there is no reward for that either.

Everywhere, he says, together with faith the practice of virtue is required, while everything else is either of little or no importance at all.

Somebody asked Antony, 'What shall I do in order to please God?' He replied, 'Do what I tell you, which is this: wherever you go, keep God in mind; whatever you do, follow the example of holy Scripture; wherever you are, stay there and do not move away in a hurry. If you keep to these guide-lines, you will be saved.'

In itself, the state in which we are called is a matter of indifference. An unmarried man, for example, can live a life of purity, but he may also be deeply involved in sin. The same is true for a married man as well. If it were only Christians who practiced celibacy, then it would be possible to say that it was a pure and divine state. But the Marcionites also practice it, though not in the same way as Christians. Christians do it in order to please God, but the Marcionites do it in order not to succumb to the Creator. Celibacy is honorable only when it is clothed with the life and behavior of the church, with pure knowledge and truth.

God does not care about our social status but about our will and mind.

Paul says this because it makes no difference to God either way.

To begin with, that speech, wont to be cast in our teeth, "I have nothing else whereby to live," may be more severely retorted, "You have, then, whereby to live? If by your own laws, what have you to do with God? " Then, as to the argument they have the hardihood to bring even from the Scriptures, "that the apostle has said, `As each has been found, so let him persevere.'" We may all, therefore, persevere in sins, as the result of that interpretation! for there is not any one of us who has not been found asa sinner, since no other cause was the source of Christ's descent than that of setting sinners free.

"In the calling in which he was called," that is, in whatever manner of life, and in whatever rank and condition you believed, in that remain; for by calling he means the bringing to faith. Were you a slave when you accepted the faith? Do not worry or be troubled; for slavery does not harm you at all, so that even if you could become free, "make better use of it," sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others.

Paul encourages slaves to serve their earthy masters well, so that they may appear to them to deserve their freedom. A slave who did not do his work properly would blaspheme the name of Christ and do nothing to further God's cause.

Astonishing! where has he put slavery? As circumcision profits not: and uncircumcision does no harm; so neither doth slavery, nor yet liberty. And that he might point out this with surpassing clearness, he says, "But even if thou canst become free, use it rather:" that is, rather continue a slave. Now upon what possible ground does he tell the person who might be set free to remain a slave? He means to point out that slavery is no harm but rather an advantage.

Now we are not ignorant that some say, the words, "use it rather," are spoken with regard to liberty: interpreting it, "if thou canst become free, become free." But the expression would be very contrary to Paul's manner if he intended this. For he would not, when consoling the slave and signifying that he was in no respect injured, have told him to get free. Since perhaps some one might say, "What then, if I am not able? I am an injured and degraded person." This then is not what he says: but as I said, meaning to point out that a man gets nothing by being made free, he says, "Though thou hast it in thy power to be made free, remain rather in slavery."

I am a slave of that affair and care to which I am bound. For I know that it is written that whatever one is conquered by, to that he is delivered as a slave.… Who will free me from this most unseemly slavery except him who said, "If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed".?

The virgins of men go about, in opposition to the virgins of God, with front quite bare, excited to a rash audacity; and the semblance of virgins is exhibited by women who have the power of asking somewhat from husbands, not to say such a request as that (forsooth) their rivals-all the more "free" in that they are the "hand-maids" of Christ alone -may be surrendered to them.

Paul is saying that no slave should run away, using religion as his excuse.

Whoever has been delivered from sin is truly free. The ancients used to say that anyone who acts unwisely is a slave. They called all wise men free, and all the unwise were slaves as far as they were concerned. In any case, even a free believer is a slave of Christ, for to be free from God is the greatest sin of all.

Next he adds also the cause; "For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's free man: likewise he that was called, being free, is Christ's bondservant." "For," saith he, "in the things that relate to Christ, both are equal: and like as thou art the slave of Christ, so also is thy master. How then is the slave a free man? Because He has freed thee not only from sin, but also from outward slavery while continuing a slave. For he suffers not the slave to be a slave, not even though he be a man abiding in slavery: and this is the great wonder.

But how is the slave a free man while continuing a slave? When he is freed from passions and the diseases of the mind: when he looks down upon riches and wrath and all other the like passions.

Paul wants to show that slave and master are equal. We are all freedmen of Christ because he has set us free from the tyranny of Satan, and we are voluntary slaves of Christ because, having set us free, he led us into his own kingdom.

A freedman is one who has been liberated from slavery. So he says: you who believed while in a state of slavery are a freedman of the Lord, for Christ has freed you both from sin and from that outward slavery, even though you are a slave. He who does not submit to passions, having a noble soul, is not a slave, even though he appears to be one. On the other hand, another was called to the faith as a free man; such a one is a slave of Christ. Therefore, if the name of slavery disturbs the slave, let him understand that he has become free in Christ, and this freedom is far more important than human freedom. Again, if the name of freedom puffs up the free man, let such a one understand that he is a slave of Christ and be humbled, considering that he is subject to such a Master and must please Him. Do you see the wisdom with which the apostle gives instruction to slaves and free men?

We have been bought at so high a price that only Christ, who owns everything, is able to pay it. Therefore whoever is bought with a price ought to serve all the more, in an effort to pay back the buyer. Having been bought by God, we must not once again become slaves of men. Slaves of men are those who accept human superstitions.

The price of man is the blood of Christ. "You have been bought," it is said, "with a price; do not become the slaves of men." The powers of the evil one are trying to render this price useless to us. They try to lead us back into slavery even after we are free.

Let us not give our body to sin. "We have been bought at a great price. Do not become servants of men" nor of demons nor of sins. If I had redeemed some servant, I would not give him away for nothing.

But here, as I have said, comes in the quiet and crushing power of modern materialism. It prevents him rising in rebellion, as he would otherwise do. By perpetually talking about environment and visible things, by perpetually talking about economics and physical necessity, painting and keeping repainted a perpetual picture of iron machinery and merciless engines, of rails of steel, and of towers of stone, modern materialism at last produces this tremendous impression in which the truth is stated upside down. At last the result is achieved. The man does not say as he ought to have said, "Should married men endure being modern shop assistants?" The man says, "Should shop assistants marry?" Triumph has completed the immense illusion of materialism. The slave does not say, "Are these chains worthy of me?" The slave says scientifically and contentedly, "Am I even worthy of these chains?"

It would also be cheaper if a number of us slept at different times, so as to use the same pair of trousers. But the question is not how cheap are we buying a thing, but what are we buying? It is cheap to own a slave. And it is cheaper still to be a slave.

The object of the whole process was to isolate the individual poor man in his dealings with the individual rich man; and then offer to buy and sell with him, though it must necessarily be himself that was bought and sold. In the matter of labour, that is, though a man was supposed to be in the position of a seller, he was more and more really in the possession of a slave. Unless the tendency be reversed, he will probably become admittedly a slave. That is to say, the word slave will never be used; for it is always easy to find an inoffensive word; but he will be admittedly a man legally bound to certain social service, in return for economic security. In other words, the modern experiment of mere contract has broken down.

What greater price is there than that the Creator shed his blood for the creature?

"Ye were bought with a price: become not bondservants of men." This saying is addressed not to slaves only but also to free men. For it is possible for one who is a slave not to be a slave; and for one who is a freeman to be a slave. "And how can one be a slave and not a slave?" When he doeth all for God: when he feigns nothing, and doeth nothing out of eye-service towards men: that is how one that is a slave to men can be free. Or again, how doth one that is free become a slave? When he serves men in any evil service, either for gluttony or desire of wealth or for office' sake. For such an one, though he be free, is more of a slave than any man.

But if this be not the meaning, if he bade them forsake their masters and strive contentiously to become free, in what sense did he exhort them, saying, "Let each one remain in the calling in which he is called?" And in another place, "As many servants as are under the yoke, let them count their own masters worthy of all honor; and those that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren who partake of the benefit." And writing to the Ephesians also and to the Colossians, he ordains and exacts the same rules. Whence it is plain that it is not this slavery which he annuls, but that which caused as it is by vice befalls free men also: and this is the worst kind of slavery, though he be a free man who is in bondage to it.

Christ came and "bought us back" when we were serving that lord to whom we sold ourselves by sinning. So he appears to have recovered as his own those whom he created. He has redeemed a people who chose to belong to another, who sought another lord for themselves by sinning.

He says this not to slaves alone, but also to free people, exhorting all Christians to do nothing for the sake of pleasing men and not to obey them if their commands are unlawful. This is what it means: having been bought by God, to become slaves of men. He is not urging slaves to fall away from their masters—no; this is clear from his subsequent words: "in whatever calling one was called," and so on, that is, if someone was called even in a state of slavery, let him remain in it. He added "before God" so that through obedience to lawless masters one would not fall away from God. He is concerned about both things, that is, on the one hand, that slaves not fall away from their masters under the pretext of obedience to God, and on the other, that by rendering excessive obedience to their masters, they not fall away from God.

Paul repeats what he said above in order to underline its importance.

The apostle himself practiced very meticulously what he preached to others.