What I am about to address was shared with me by a reader. A while ago, I wrote an article titled, Who or What Are "the Rest"? A reader reached out to me and shared some information that was gleaned from this article. Needless to say, I found it extremely interesting.
To date, I have not encountered this information in a commentary, nor have I ever heard a preacher speak about it. In fact, most commentaries I have looked at, if they even address it at all, try to say that "to the rest" means "to the rest of your letter to me" or "to the rest of the cases mentioned in your letter." I believe this is highly unlikely given the previous "to the married."
As many of you probably know, there is no Greek word for 'husband' or 'wife.' Depending on context (which translators can get wrong from time to time), the word aner, which means "man," can be translated as "husband," and the word gune, which means "woman," can be translated as "wife."
In 1 Corinthians 5:1, it says "that someone has his father's wife." This may be a poor translation. From this wording, we tend to understand that a man is having sex with either his own mother, or his step-mother. That would be adultery (moicheia). The word used here is actually porneia (fornication; illicit sexual behaviour committed by unmarried individuals). Translating the word as "woman," rather than "wife," would make more sense; the man is in a romantic relationship, or having sex, with his father's woman (girlfriend, would be today's best translation).
At the beginning of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (v.1). Imagine if this had said, "it is good for a husband not to touch his wife." (Actually, I encountered one such woman who had this erroneous belief. It extended to the absurd, claiming that sex, and the enjoyment thereof within the bonds of marriage, was from the evil one.)
According to the article shared by a reader, since the Corinthians were Greeks, it was apparently a Greek custom that a marriage was not finalized until the couple actually lived together. If this information is accurate, which would bring great clarity to the use of "to the rest" (seeing as how you are either married or you are not), then the use of "man" and "woman" would better suit the text.
If the information in this article is accurate, it would seem that Paul was saying that if a Corinthian convert who was engaged to an unbeliever does not quite know what to do, the best thing would be to form a marriage using no other custom or ceremony other than moving in together. But if the unbeliever prefers not to form a marriage in such a manner (either because he/she is offended not to fulfill Corinthian marriage customs, or because he/she does not want to marry a Christian), then Paul did not see their engagement as binding. Paul recommended that if the unbelieving Greek was willing to live together, then the couple should do so.
Paul did not require Christians to avoid marriage with unbelievers, but only that widows should re-marry within the community of faith. However, Paul's words elsewhere can be applied to marriage (though contextually they have nothing to do with marriage): "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever" (2 Cor. 6:14-15). What Paul said was said as advice only, and would never contradict the command of the Lord to "not divorce" your wife or husband (vv.10-11).
Verse 11 is absolutely clear: "if she does [divorce her husband], she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband." This applies to the man as well. These words are a direct command from the Lord Jesus. Romans 7:23 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 are likewise absolutely clear:
"For the married woman has been bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man."
"A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband has died, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."
If "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16) and "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21), then both Romans 7:2-3 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 were spoken directly by God Himself. If that is the case, does God say what He means and mean what He says? Or does He merely talk for the sake of talking? This is what professing Christians need to wrestle with and come to terms with.
If the information in the article shared by a reader is accurate, that completely and utterly obliterates the eisegetical insertion of a cause for divorce and re-marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 by many pastors, including John MacArthur, and aligns the passage (vv.12-16) more in tune with the correct understanding of the "exception clause" found in Matthew (which has to do with Jewish custom and their betrothal period). In either case, verses 12-16 do not provide an occasion for divorce and re-marriage.
What lends to my consideration of the information in this article as being accurate for interpreting verses 12 through 16 is Paul saying, "if any brother has a [woman] who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him" (v.12). If they are married, quite obviously they are living together. Sure, it is possible that "live with him" means "to remain with him," but let us take it in the literal sense with regard to the information in this article. It says nothing about being married (as the married element has been settled), but about "living" together. The entire passage makes more sense in light of the information in the article, rather than the typical interpretation applied, which seems to have several interpretational flaws. Given the state of Mary and Joseph, not being married yet considering divorce, why should we assume that this passage is not similar when it talks about divorce?
With the above in mind, we may consider that 1 Corinthians 7:27 may have been poorly translated as well, and should read instead, "Are you bound to a [woman]? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a [woman]? Do not seek a [woman]." Why? Because, first, Paul is talking to virgins (v.25) and, second, the next verse states, "But if you marry, you have not sinned." Consider this in the context of the article. I believe verse 29 should also read "women" instead of "wives," because it is absolutely nonsensical advice in the case of marriage (consider verses 32-34), but is perfectly acceptable given engagement customs.
Men need to curb their wicked hearts and stop forcing unbiblical interpretations derived from the desires of their flesh upon God's Holy Word. No passage in Scripture supports divorce and re-marriage, save by eisegesis. Re-marriage is only an option in the case where one's spouse has passed on. Biblical separation is an option in cases such as abuse (whether to the spouse or the children), but the end goal is always reconciliation. We need to learn to take marriage more serious, and teach others to do the same. "Marriage is to be held in honor among all" (Heb. 13:4). It is an extremely serious covenant being entered into. Not only is it a picture of Jesus and His Congregation, but it is also a picture of forgiveness and reconciliation, and a picture of the Gospel. Let's stop marring these pictures and giving the world something to mock.