WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
1st Corinthians 7.10–14
May 6th 2018
Milk
Alright, Paul has spoken of fornication. He has spoken of those who can refrain from it and those who can’t by advising them to marry, and now he speaks to those who find themselves in a marital relationship.
Before we move into our text for today, last week there was an option as to what Paul was speaking about in verse six when he wrote:
“But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.”
I asked whether Paul was speaking of the content in verses 1-5 or if he was speaking of verses 7 through 9.
We took a vote (where only three participated) but there was another option that others (namely Ray and Michell) mentioned to me after the meeting – that of Paul was speaking of both and in the midst of writing the content sort of inserted verse 6 to let the reader know that all of that he was saying was by permission (or liberty) and not by commandment of the Lord.
That is also entirely possible – so add that view to your mental que. This point is important because Paul is going to return to these qualifiers as we continue on – in fact in our next verse he says:
10 And unto 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.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth 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: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Okay, the rest of the chapter deals with marriage, how to behave in mixed marriages of believers and unbelievers, what to do when there are issues or problems and some rules about separation, and then Paul’s general advice to what he calls virgins or those who have never married.
To be frank the whole chapter is about all of these things and I reiterate a few foundational truths about this chapter that must be remembered by us in this day and age:
First, God has a view of marriage and sexual relations and no amount of our messing around with it will change it.
Does He have grace toward us in these areas? Of course. But Paul the Apostle is speaking to the bride of Christ, he is speaking to their holiness and to a best practices to be put into effect there in Corinth.
Secondly, it is all stated relative to the time and age and I want to prove that to you with Paul’s own words in this chapter.
He gives all sorts of insights (which we have covered for the past few weeks) but go with me to verse 26 where, amidst everything he says he adds this important line:
“I suppose therefore (the things that I have said) that they are “good for the present distress,” I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
This is context. The living apostle tells them that in the face of the present distress that they are in his advice is good.
Then jump down to verse 29 where he says:
“But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;”
We will soon see why he says this relative to his advice given but note that the time and present distress is greatly guiding the words he gives to them then.
Got that?
Then listen to what he adds, after giving all sorts of advice that we will study together here. He says:
1st Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
30 And they that 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, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.”
I want to point something out from that last line where Paul says, “FOR THE FASHION OF THIS WORLD PASSES AWAY.”
We are reading advice from Paul given to a people in a day where the fashion of that day – and therefore the advice – was going to pass away.
I say this NOT to besmirch everything that Paul says. But we live by the SPIRIT, and not the letter, and we are all His by that Spirit and are all responsible before Him through that spirit or not.
So, we are not reading these things to import unto ourselves new laws or to reiterate old ones.
We are readying and studying to learn and then by the Spirit to apply concepts.
If this message is lost here or on you, I have failed as a teacher. ANYONE can take these words and force them upon others as if they are the Law today. Churches do it all the time. But it would be improper.
However, we might ask, “why study what WAS if what was is over and done and we have entered into a new Kingdom and reign?”
“Why not just focus on the fact that Jesus saved us and we are all free to walk by the Spirit? Forget these old stories that obviously only applied directly to their day and age?”
The Word of God is living, sharper than any two edge sword, and it serves to renew our minds before God by and through the assimilation of the words into our lives.
We read and study to Know the mind and heart of God, and use that knowledge to govern our lives by the Spirit.
So where the apostolic guidelines may not necessarily apply directly to our lives they can lend to tremendous wisdom today.
It is upon this that I maintain that the
Spirit is primary and preferential,
the Written Word is Secondary and deferential,
Church history is tertiary and referential and
modern brick and mortar demands are unnecessary and inconsequential.
So, a woman in our day, who is a believer, has a husband who abusive to the children, or has physically abused her, or is just a real jerk, we would allow the Spirit to work in her life and support her in love and encouragement with how she decides she must respond INSTEAD OF opening up to 1st Corinthians 7 or to the words of Jesus and telling her that she has no right to leave him but for fornication – which is real easy to do when we use all scripture as if it was written to us now.
Got that?
Now, for the hard part – which helps prove all I am trying to point out here.
Under the Law, God allowed men to have bills of divorce due to the hardness of their hearts.
Jesus came along, and speaking to the COI in His day and in the context of His mission to the Lost sheep of the House of Israel said the following about divorce:
Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Is this true? Is it absolutely true. Jesus said it. Why is it true? Because God sees the sacred unity of the two becoming One (which again IS the biblical definition of marriage and not when some rituals are said or papers are filed but is when two become one) God takes this act VERY seriously.
And reading Jesus teaching on it helps us know the heart of God, and helps us know the views He has on sexual unity between two people – they are married, they are one, and we cannot simply put on side of the union aside without causing them to commit adultery if they remarry.
These are biblical facts given in that day and are true.
Then we come to Paul’s words about marriage. And he gives some advice (which we are reading and studying today knowing that it was written to them).
And he shares some added insights – some of his own opinion and some from the Lord to the believers of that day and age.
So here we are – in an a new age, and age of grace – and we are confronted with a situation in our own lives or the lives of a family member or brother of sister relative to marriage.
We know what scripture says and what God’s views are on the seriousness of two becoming one.
But we also know that we live in an age of Grace and an age where we do not please God by the Law but by love.
And the Spirit confirms to us that the most loving, graceful thing to do (or to advice other people to do is to either remain married at all costs OR perhaps it would be the loving thing to separate ways with a spouse, and save the children, or ourselves, or the spouse involved.
Armed with information from scripture we are aware of the seriousness of things, but we are more fully armed with the Spirit of Truth, which is the Spirit of love and liberty, and freed from the law, and equipped with a contextual understanding of the scripture, we are free to choose – and stand before God responsible for our choices.
He knows our hearts and ambitions and ways – and nobody has the right to criticize or condemn others using the written text as a justification.
So that took a minute but is really necessary when we get involved with some New Testament text that can easily become a new law by which we kill each other with.
So speaking of New Testament text, let’s get back to ours.
Paul has said to them at verse 10:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, ”Let not the wife depart from her husband:”
Here Paul enters into the next segment of inquiry – which includes:
Whether it was proper, in the existing state of things, for those who were married to continue this relation, or whether they ought to separate.
He covers this perhaps because there were pressing questions on the subject:
Like Danny pointed out last week maybe the Christians thought it would be good to depart from their non-believing spouses.
Perhaps their troubles and persecutions suggested that for Jesus sake families out to disband because keeping them together was overwhelming work amidst the trials of difficulty.
Most likely some people at least thought that is was unlawful for a Christian wife or husband to be connected at all with a heathen and idolater or even a Jew – and maybe they looked at Paul who could have been married and supposed that they ought to seek divorce.
Paul begins by writing that he commanded the advice but changes it and says, “yet not I, but the Lord.”
This was a direct injunction which could not be seen as mere advice but something which the Lord himself gave to Paul (to give to the People of Corinth) in that day and age.
Paul had no jurisdiction over the citizens of the World and so when he is speaking of “a wife” here we know that this was a wife who was a believer and a husband who was NOT.
To me it seems that Paul is saying, “and though she is a Christian, and he is not, yet let her not seek, on that account, to be separate from him.”
The law of Moses did not permit a wife to divorce herself from her husband, though it appears that by the time Jesus came to the world it was occurring because in Mark 10:12-13 Jesus says:
“Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
When Paul says, “let not the wife depart from her husband,” it appears that he is speaking of departing with the intention of divorcing him.
I say that because he then says,
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.
This is curious, isn’t it? “Don’t let the wife depart, saith the Lord . . . but if she departs let her remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband.”
I suggest that in verse ten Paul is saying, “don’t let the wife divorce or depart from the husband with the intension of divorcing him” but in verse 11 he is speaking of separation and says, “But if she departs (separates) let her remain unmarried or let her be reconciled to her husband.”
Remember, we are talking about a close community and Paul is trying to both keep the church bride together and to keep the church reputation together in very trying times.
If a Christian woman left her husband, and hooked up in marital life with another (like with a man who shared her faith) it would look very bad to the outside world – and this is a real temptation. So Paul (for the Lord) says:
Don’t do it.
Verse 11 ends with Paul keeping the playing field level and says:
“and let not the husband put away his wife,” which was the custom allowed in the Old Testament.
Here’s the biggie – in the faith, what was once allowed in among the COI in the law – was now more restrictive.
No divorce. And no remarrying. And in time, no multiple wives. Christ is the second Adam and he restored all things back to the right way, the way things were originally intended to be, from the Garden before the fall.
So in the case of marriage, the arrival of Jesus tightened things up even more – something people today do not want to recognize or admit.
I have to teach the principles of the Bible – good, bad and ugly included. Bottom line (and in opposition to how most Christians see things today) at the Garden of Eden Eve came from Adam’s side – they were one flesh.
Nothing could separate them or change this fact. No divorce was possible – they were one from creation.
This is marriage – when two become one – in God’s eyes and as supported by all the Old Testament stories of men and women getting married.
Certainly there could be ceremonies and celebrations but marriage is when the two become one as ADAM AND EVE were one from creation.
Therefore, the divorce of the two was reprehensible to God but was allowed because of the hard-heartedness of Men.
When Jesus came and restored the Edenic state to earth spiritually, divorce became forbidden – except for the cause of adultery – where the unity of the two becoming one is bastardized and therefore no longer definitionally marriage from the Godly biblical sense.
What Jesus (and Paul) is saying to couples is that when you have a spouse as a Christian do not break that up – even if your spouse is a non-believer.
Live the rest of your days unmarried or reconcile with the one you were one with.
Now, this is tough medicine. And we have to remember context as we consider it. But I think it is also good to know God’s view of men and women uniting as one and his view of them disrupting that union.
I don’t think it is unfortunate that people take both marriage and divorce very very seriously. These teachings help to keep us cognizant of all these factors.
The reason, it seems, that Paul instructs the wives to not depart from their husbands but instructs the husbands not to “put away” his wife. It seems these are just word choices even though “put away” is the biblical language for divorce.
In other words, I suspect Paul is talking about divorce regarding both the wife and the husband.
At this point Paul reverts back to his own advice and says at verse 12:
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: (And he says) “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.”
So, having addressed a number of issues related to male/female relations – including marriage – Paul addresses married couples in mixed faith marriages.
Notice I said that Paul now addresses male/female mixed faith marriage.
What I mean to say is Paul does not even touch gay or lesbian marriages. How come? Certainly there had to be some homosexual couple who considered marriage between themselves before the 21st century?
Here the Bible helps us to steer clear of such issues. Let me quickly explain.
We get our ideas on marriage from Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. They were one flesh, and in the model of them Moses commands that others leave father and mother and cleave to their wives (be one with them) as Adam and Eve were one.
This is an impossibility among same gender couples (no matter how inventive they may try and get) because the purpose of becoming one is to multiply and replenish the earth – something homosexual couples cannot achieve through their attempts.
Since marriage is defined as the two becoming one in the similitude of Adam and Eve we know from the Biblical stance that marriage is an IMPOSSIBILITY with members of the same sex.
Can they have civil union ceremonies? Of course they can. But it is a biblical impossibility for same genders to be married.
Therefore, it is impossible for a church to perform a wedding service for such. This is the caveat for all Bible teaching churches.
It is not to discriminate or alienate or take rights from same sex couples. They can get their union certified by a justice of the peace.
But to suggest that same gender couples can be married is akin to saying that a male can carry and deliver an infant – its outside the very definition of gestation.
Okay – so Paul now speaks to couples who are married that are of mixed faith and do not want to divorce. To them Paul says:
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: (And he says) “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.”
Most obviously, Paul is speaking of mixed faith marriages where one is a Christian and the other is not – and he begins with a man who has an unbelieving wife and says:
If any brother has a wife that “believeth not.”
She does NOT believe that Jesus is Lord – this is pretty clear here in my estimation.
“And if she be pleased to (ostensibly) continue to dwell with him,” Paul says:
“Let him not put her away.”
Though she is a heathen, or a pagan, or an atheist, an idol worshipper, though she is opposed to his religion, the marriage vow is sacred and inviolable and if she is pleased living with a believer do not let the Christian man think he can put her away (using his faith as the reason).
So even when there is a difference of opinion on a subject as important as faith in Christ, Paul says that the tie of marriage is not dissolved.
Then in fairness, he flips it over to the reverse situation and says:
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
We have another change of phrase here. Twice now Paul has charged men with not putting women away and twice Paul has charged women to “not leave.”
All I can say to this is it seems to reflect a cultural situation that is not entirely clear to me. We could hypothecate till Sunday but I am simply going to say that the end result from either party is separation over religious differences and Paul seems to be saying to the CHRISTIANS is – “Don’t YOU – YOU use your faith as the reason you part with your spouse.”
At verse 16 Paul seems to allude to the idea that there would be a chance that the believing spouse could really influence the mind and heart of the non-believer, and this would be a great reason to remain together.
But before even presenting us with this he says something far more radical here in verse 14:
Ready?
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
This is a doozie, friends, and debated and discussed like mad over the centuries because of its vast potential implications.
One of the natural ideas it seems that some converts to Christ had in the early church was to think that exposure to unbelieving spouses would taint them.
I suppose there are those who believe this remains true to this day. But Paul seems to say the opposite is true.
Instead of the pagan, unbeliever polluting the believing spouse the believing spouse is able to sanctify the unbeliever.
Wow. Wow. Wow.
The word translated sanctify here in the Greek is HAGEE AD ZO and it means to make holy.
The unbelieving husband is made holy by the believing wife.
This proves how seriously God sees a couple united as one – that even in the realm of sanctification, which only comes to a believer upon belief on Jesus, an unbelieving spouse is made holy by the faith of the believer.
Now, MANY MANY MANY people – astute teachers of the word – would reject this interpretation because they do not believe it possible and maintain that all people must come to God directly by and through their own faith, that God has no grandchildren and to say otherwise breaks other emphatic parts of the Word.
I disagree. I trust what Paul says here and believe God does everything to bring as many to him as possible. Yes it is a liberal view, but when God says the two shall be one, I take that seriously and believe one means one and sanctified means sanctified.
Now, there are a dozen interpretations as I said that differ with mine and some may have merit or even more merit that what I am teaching. So search it out. But I will share the main one that makes most sense which is:
To those Christians who think that they are being polluted by an unbelieving spouse the reverse is true – the unbelieving spouse is actual sanctified by the believing spouse WHILE THEY ARE MARRIED HERE ON EARTH.
In other words, the view is relative to true sanctification before God this is an individual standing, but . . . dear Christian, do not fear that your being defiled by an unbelievers, you are actually sanctifying them.
The same idea is found in Jesus calling his believers salt and light, two items that serve, while here on earth, to purify and sanctify and preserve the broken world around us.
Then Paul adds another unique line, and says
“Else were your children unclean, (impure) the opposite of what is meant by holy. They are made holy.”
Sacred, blameless, sanctified, holy.
Now, this line of this passage is another doozie – so much so that some believing parents suggest that their children warrant water baptism as infants because they are seen as God’s through the faith of one or both parents.
Many Orthodox Prebyterians practice what is called paedo baptisms based on this passage.
The idea is called, a federally holy family, for your information.
I would suggest that such terms (like Federally Holy) are man made and really have to be created OUT of supporting passages like this in order to make them stick.
See, there is not one word about baptism or water baptism here. The whole point here contextually was not whether children should be baptized but whether there should be a separation between man and wife where the one was a Christian and the other not.
Now others suggest that what Paul is saying here is, if a couple were to part then the children would be seen as unclean to the world. So stay together because at least in a marriage the children with just one parent as a Christian, the children would be considered holy (or in this case, more respectable then if they were the product of a broken union).
This is the main interpretation of folks today by the passage –
That within a marriage both the unbelieving spouse and the children of that union would be seen here on earth as sanctified.
But if there was to be a break up this state would be lost – so don’t break up!
I tend to take what Paul is saying here TO THEM (and in context of that day and age) a little more literally.
I take it that in that day and age, and all the difficulty that it presented folks, Paul was telling them – THEM, and not us – that an unbelieving spouse and their children would be seen as holy before God – especially when they strove to remain united.
To me this is the thrust of the point. And we see far less common things happening by the hands of God throughout the biblical narrative.
We’ll continue forward . . . next week.
Questions/Comments
PRAYER
