WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
1st Corinthians 7.16-end
May 20th 2018
Milk
Okay we took a detour last week when we came to the line that says at verse 15
“God has called us to peace.”
Which was a statement Paul made relative to a believer whose unbelieving spouse chooses to leave the marriage.
Getting back to the line of thought Paul was on, he adds something as if an afterthought in 16, saying:
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?
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
18 Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
Okay, let’s drop back to verse 16 where Paul says:
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?
It seems that here, though he has addressed the leaving of an unbelieving spouse that he now suggests that this is not the preferable action, saying
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?
A passage that seems to be saying:
That no one could know if the unbelieving party might be converted by the example and faith of the other – so don’t rush to separation.
This passage is what causes many to suggest that when Paul earlier says that the believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving husband and children it does not mean he or she “saves them” but instead sanctifies them in this life and making it so believers in the body would receive the unbelieving family members as their own.
The influence of the believing spouse over the non-believing husband, is mentioned by Peter too in
1st Peter 3:1-2 where he says
“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.”
This was the thinking of that age – let it sink in to how the Spirit leads in your life.
Nevertheless, many a spouse have been the means of a converting spouse. But it seems to me that the relationship has to be solid on other factors for such influence to be effectively be exerted.
I cannot tell you how many times we have had people contact the ministry where one spouse has come to know truth while the other remains in another faith (especially Mormonism in our case) or remains an unbeliever.
Our advice is ALWAYS the same to every believing Spouse – LOVE your spouse more – be Jesus to your spouse. This is not a race. There is no competition. There is nothing for you to do to win or convince them with. Just serve him or her and let them see for themselves the changes in your life.
Almost without fail, if the marriage was rocky before deconversion the marriage will end up in divorce and generally speaking, if there is love and respect in the marriage before the influence of the spouse will have an influence on the other.
Almost without fail.
But what is really unfortunate is when the enlightened believer chooses to use their new found information on their spouse as a club.
So unfortunate, because then the Good News is seen as bad news in the eyes of the unbelieving spouse, and the potentiality for conversion is greatly diminished.
Paul adds (at verse 17)
17 But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
To me this is a very liberating statement. The word for distributed here is “emerisen” and it means, “as God has imparted to every person so let Him walk.”
In other words, if a person has become a Christian while married to a unbeliever, walk in that. Don’t go rearranging the life you have been given because of the blessing of the Gospel – you never know how God will use you in that situation.
Thus far Paul has discussed the question whether a husband and wife ought to be separated on account of a difference in religion.
And now he says that the general principle here ought to rule everywhere or in all churches, meaning, that men who become Christians ought not to seek to change their condition or calling in life, but to remain in that situation in which they were when they became Christians, and show the excellence of their religion in that particular state.
The object of Paul’s advice is obviously to preserve order and keep faithfulness alive in all the areas of life and to also show that Christianity is not aimed at hurting the social fabric of family and community but to enhance it.
Where it reads, “And so ordain I,” that is fanciful language because the term ordain in the Greek, dee-a-tasso, does not mean any sort of priestly ordination but it simply means to establish the practice in the other churches.
Now, at this point Paul has launched us into a new direction with what he says at verse 17 about “however God has distributed to a person let him or her walk.” In the immediately preceding case he was speaking of a believer being married to an unbeliever – remain in that if possible was his advice. Now he continues with this thought at verse 18 and says:
18 Is any man called (meaning by God) being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
Now the second phrase makes sense – If God calls you to the faith and you are uncircumcised, don’t worry about it, right? Of course and as with nearly everything in the Bible there are exceptions to this like when Paul took Timothy took him and circumcised him so that there would not be a problem in his engagements with the Jews – but whatever. However, the first line is really interesting as Paul says)
Is any man called (meaning by God) being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.
What? Was this possible? At least the attempt back in the day? It was!
The better Greek might be:
“Was any one called (as) a circumcised man? let him not have the mark effaced”.— the word alludes to a surgical operation by which some renegade Jews effaced the Covenant sign.
You can read all about it in 1 Macabees 1:11 ff.,
Joseph., Ant., xii., 5, 1;
Celsus, vii., 25. 5; also
Schürer, Hist. of Jewish People, I., i., p. 203, and
Wetstein ad loc[1078]
These apostates were called m’shûkím, recutiti (Buxtorf’s Lexic., p. 1274)
Long story short, relax in how you came to Christ – don’t go trying to reverse things. There is no need. And the Jewish rites are not binding anymore so let it go – that’s the point and being so he says:
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
God no longer requires circumcision. External rituals are done. In the dispensation of Grace the heart is the key player.
When Paul writes:
“But the keeping of the commandments of God,” what does he mean? I mean it seems that some people would believe that to be circumcised is part of keeping the commandments of God.
Others say tithes. And others water baptism. Aren’t those all external actions – they are, therefore we are not talking about such things and if someone tries to say otherwise don’t listen.
Remember, the heart if the central player in the things in the age of grace. Christ has paid for all sin – past and present – so the questions are:
What is my heart toward God? Toward the flesh and its activities? Toward the things of the Spirit and what God calls me to be and think? How do I treat my fellow man? Why do I do what I do? What motivates me?
In the end the call, the motivators in the lives of the Christian are faith in God and His promises and love – first for Him and then for others. All the rest of it is really unimportant and uncessary. Which is why Paul says in verse 20:
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
Meaning in the same occupation, profession, rank of life, status – our designation.
Remember the situation – the end of that age. Paul was seeking to have peace reign. Not upheaval which would tear the church apart at the seams.
Today, I am not so such there is as much of an emphasis to be placed on this advice. There are more important points to emphasize in the scripture in my estimation regarding people and their freedoms in the faith.
But getting back to THAT day and age Paul continues and makes his point again, saying:
21 Art thou called being a servant (better translated as slave)? care not for it (don’t worry about it or try to change it) : but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
Slaves abounded in Greece as did most of the heathen world. For instance in its best years Athens had twenty thousand freemen and four hundred thousand slaves.
This was a huge subject then for Paul. How to address the fact that certainly there would be slaves who converted to the faith.
I mean, Jesus came to set ALL captives free and there is perhaps few circumstances more reprehensible to the mind of God and the Spirit of Christ (which is synonymous with liberty) than slavery.
So we would think that the advice from Paul should have been something like:
“If you are a slave, rebel against your masters and be free.”
This is the way and thinking of Man.
God was working through that age in a much better way – and He continues to do so today.
It’s funny, but our views and solutions (the human views and solutions) tend toward the immediate and apparent – WE want scripture to say:
And if you’re a Christian change immediately ANYTHING that is not in harmony with the introduction of Christianity in your life.
We do that today with each other. We see and hear it all the time. “If you’re a converted Christian get out of that Mormon/ Catholic church. If you’re a Christian you gotta quit your job in the casino, or the bar, or whatever outwardly does not – appear to conform to the tenets of the faith – even with regard to marriages, or live-in relationships with others – homosexuality, even drug addiction – “get out now! You are a Christian.”
But all of that is religious thinking. God will use us where we are and that is the principle. Let your slavery be used to bring glory (or others) to Christ! Is what he seems to be saying in the line:
20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
The abiding principle is Christians have been forgiven by their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior – a very internal experience.
The external is nothing to God – especially in the early years of relationship with him – and maybe beyond. He has taken care of the external and starts all reforms from within the individual.
How could he ever reach other slaves if there were no Christian slaves in their midst?
How could he bring light into the hearts of the prison if there were no Christian prisoners?
And on and on and on.
Religious people have a hard time with this and think the external must immediately and obviously conform to what is certainly internal.
I suggest – from passages like what we are reading here by Paul – that this is not the case – it’s not pressing – and it is not to be managed by the flesh but by the spirit in the life of the individual.
Relax in Him and allow Him to bring you to the place by His power and His spirit that He wants you to be.
He will accomplish his will in you – trust in this – and learn to allow Him to work.
And at this point Paul introduces us to one of the many paradoxes in scripture – a paradox which ultimately leads to our seeing that wherever we are or however we stand in the Lord, He is working – and our ambition is to let Him.
For this reason, Paul says:
22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a slave, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s slave.
In other words, those who are Christian slaves are FREE in Christ, and those who are FREE in are slaves to Christ – a statement that seems to take Christ and use Him as the Great Equalizer of all things in the body of believers.
In this we see the radical and mysterious ways of God at work. So whatever your lot in this life, see yourself and the life you have in accordance to Christ, orbiting and revolving around Him and not separate from Him.
Using this thinking we might say that the materially wealthy might see themselves as poor in Christ and the materially devasted as rich in Christ, he healthy as diseased before Christ and the diseased as whole, and on and on and on.
This is what He brings into the human experience – the genuine and eternal perspective – if we allow it.
Paul is telling people who were slaves to allow it. And he was telling freemen to allow it, so that in and through Him the playing field revolves around Christ.
I love this equalizing effect that Jesus has in the world of believers. Then returning to the topic of slavery Paul does make one radical point to those thousands who did find themselves in slavery, saying:
23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.
In other words, while you may be existing in the earthly role of a slave, You, as a Christian, have been bought with a price.
What was the price paid? It was paid with the shed blood and life of Christ Jesus.
The soul redeemed – by Him and his priceless blood – therefore their redemption is priceless and beyond the meager prices exchanged for slave flesh.
Their worth was incomprehensible in the sight of God and therefore they should SEE themselves as His not the slave of a human master.
With this being the case he now adds:
“Be not ye the servants of men.”
This does NOT mean rebel and walk from our lot or refuse to serve those who are appointed masters over us. It speaks to perception, attitude and world view.
As Christians we all serve God – no other. In this capacity we will work in all manner of fields and situations under the directions of our taskmasters, but all that we do is in the service of our God and not man.
Why? Because in this there is total liberty.
Someone unfairly commands we move that pile of bricks to another location while others eat lunch, we are not complying because we serve that boss, we move the bricks because we serve Christ.
Now, let the Spirit guide in this and remember the context that Paul said this – it was a time that the body had to stay united and protected. So compliance to taskmasters was vital so the faith was not seen as some collection of upastarts.
Paul talks about this principle in other places and instructs employees to serve Christ in their jobs but he also instructs Christian employers to serve Christ in theirs – “do all things as unto Christ and you will possess the attitude God wants in his Children.”
But along the way, he reminds them, “do not regard yourself as a slave of Man.” See yourself engaged in the work of Christ.
And then at verse 24 a reiteration:
24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
At verse 25 he continues, at least temporarily, or returns as it were, to another related topic, saying
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
Now concerning virgins.
Let me sort of straighten something out here for us. When we say he or she is a virgin we mean that they have not had sexual intercourse.
The word virgin in the Bible does not mean this directly – but it does mean it through an implication relative to that age.
The Greek word translated virgin is “PARTH-EN-OS” and it best means an young unmarried woman or girl.
First of all, Parthenos does not relate to a male. Only female. And does it mean a female who has not had sexual intercourse. Not directly. It just means “Young Unmarried Female.”
The relation to it meaning a female who has not had sexual intercourse is that the word means an UNMARRIED female.
So the idea is she is young and unmarried therefore the assumption is that she has not had sexual intercourse – and in that day and age this was more likely the case then not as morays and standards were very different for young females then today.
Got that?
So here Paul enters a third subject that he seems to have been led or asked to discuss – whether it was proper that those who had unmarried daughters should give them in marriage.
The reason why this question was proposed may have been that many in the church at Corinth were the advocates of celibacy, or that the times suggested holding off – sort of like people who think the end of the world is coming not seeing any reason to marry today, or perhaps due to the arduous task of being a Christian then. So Paul says:
“Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
“Jesus hasn’t said anything to me about this but here is what I think as someone who has been pardoned in life, therefore regenerated, therefore hopefully full of the Spirit of God and this has allowed me to be faithful.”
Or to give advice that is selfish or out of character with what is best. So he says at verse 26
26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
I think that based on “the present distress” in the Greek the present calamity and/or persecution which implies that the trials they were subject to trials were so severe it justified what he was about to say, that
it is best for a man to conduct [himself] in the following manner (or to be so): And it seems to me that here is the general rule from Paul concerning all marital relationships. (verse 27)
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
Boom! There it is. Its from an apostle, its in the Bible, and we have to ask can we take this advice today as it is presented (in this single verse) and apply it?
I would say that since God established a better system and said that it was not good for a man to be alone that we can see clearly here that Paul’s advice was to them in that day and in that age and was specific to their situation – proving (once again) that the Bible must be understood on this basis and not directly applicable to us and our age.
Then Paul adds
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Its really quite amazing to me that Paul would even phrase this response this way – that if you DO marry you have not sinned.
This shows how much of a different AGE they were in during the apostolic church. Fascinating. But what Paul really seems to be saying is, “God has not forbidden it in any way.”
Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
Perhaps never was a more truthful statement uttered relative to marriage. “Nevertheless, you shall have trouble in the flesh.”
Why?
Because the individual flesh is choosing to become one with a separate, autonomous, living breathing, burping, talking, imperfect other – pretty much simple as that.
When were single and living alone there is never anyone in the bathroom, never anyone to hog the covers, never anyone who spends too much money, or gets the flu.
Add in surrounding troubles for them in that day being believers and Paul is speaking straight up – anxiety, cares, and trials are on the way when you double your footprint on this earth.
Then he says, “but I spare you,” which in the Greek can also mean, “I will be lenient toward you,” and/or “I will abstain, meaning, “But I will abstain from elaborating more on this point.”
At verse 29-31 Paul speaks to the points I am constantly reminding people of because references to it are all over the New Testament. In reference to his advice and then saying he won’t continue to elaborate on the point of suffering in marriage, Paul adds:
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.
That word for “short,” as in the time is short is soostello and it is only used one other place in scripture – when Ananias and Saphira lied to the Apostles and were struck dead and their bodies were “soos tello’d” – wrapped up.
That is what the meaning is here as Paul is saying that the time is “wrapping up
for all things of that age.
He, John, Peter and James all speak of that day and time wrapping up, coming to an end, and it happening soon, shortly, even quickly and then even upon them.
Jesus Himself said that it would all wrap up within a generation (which was a forty year period of time).
This, of course is important to the subject matter, isn’t it? Because if the time for everything to be wrapped up was coming, then perhaps getting married would not be the best thing to do – all things considered.
What would the wrapping up of the time look like? Paul gives us some indication here, saying:
The time is short . . .
“it remaineth (or therefore), that
both they that have wives be as though they had none;
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;
And they that use this world, as not abusing it . . .
“for the fashion of this world passeth away.”
Now we are presented with some really interesting factors here by which we will be forced to make some decisions – if we care to make them.
Paul clearly has said, as an apostle, that the time was wrapping up and he says TO THEM that
they that have wives would be as though they had none;
Now, he said this TO them -did it happen? Did those who had wifes enter into a state where it was if they had none?
If they did not, Paul was wrong, and therefore we can discard his apostolic authority.
But if they DID enter into this phase, how did it occur? To me the state would only be possible if they were in heaven, where Jesus said we are not married nor given in marriage.
Same with . .
and they that weep, as though they wept not; (referring apparently to heaven)
and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; (referring to afterlife loss for those who were living it up)
and they that buy, as though they possessed not; (Meaning they would go to a place where material ownership was all together lost)
And they that use this world, as not abusing it . . .
Perhaps the best way to understand this phase is to rephrase it to say:
And those who are used to operating in the ways of this world no longer having an ability to continue on abusing it. (Again suggesting that whoever they were they would not have access to this material world.)
The time is coming when everything about this world will be wrapped up and Paul ends with:
for the fashion Notice, even though Paul uses the term KOSMOS which literally refers to the earth and actually the heavens about too, he does NOT say: “And the KOSMOS passeth away.” HE says the fashion of this kosmos passess away. The word for Passes away is parago and it means Depart. What was the fashion or schema of that world? Schema is translated as the external condition of this world is going to pass away so much so that those who were married would be as if they had no spouse, etc. And here we can see that Paul is telling them that in heaven the external fashion is NOTHING like the earth. In short order that world FOR THEM in Corinth was going to pass, and they would enter into the eternal kingdom. Let’s stop there. Questions/Comments
Prayer
