Faith without religion.
WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
So we left off discussing verse 31 which reads:
“ . . . for the fashion of this world passeth away.”
1st Corinthians 7.32-end
May 27th 2018
MILK
Paul continues, saying at verse 32 . . .
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
OKAY . . . Let’s get back to verse 32 and wrap this whole thing up – which I look forward to because we have so much good stuff headed our way in this chapter. And we begin with a clumsy phrase in the King James – verse 32
32 But I would have you without “carefulness.” (That word is unfortunate to us today and should be replaces with “anxiety” as that is a better Greek translation in my opinion). “But I would have you be without anxiety. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:”
My advice, even though I have said you are free to do as you wish, is that in these present circumstances, to pursue a course of life with as little anxiety as possible.
He adds his reason for saying this:
Because he that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:”
If you are not attached you have the liberty to devote your time to heavenly things of the Lord.
Paul’s own life at this point at least showed that this was the course which he preferred and in that day he showed also that in some instances it was lawful and proper for a man to remain unmarried, and to give himself entirely to the work of the Lord. He adds, (at verse 33)
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
Because God is clear about the preferable way to pass through mortality which is for man not to be alone (and he created Eve and then Moses said that in this model God commands that the Man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife) we know this advice is for that time period and NOT a general piece of advice for the body today.
Of course there are those who prefer to remain unmarried and they have that liberty especially in light of this advice here.
But of course the point is, “If you must marry, do it, for it is better to marry then to burn, but if you don’t have to, be free to serve Christ fully in this day and age, because with marriage comes the command to serve and/or please the wife.
Notice that Paul admits that this is the role of the husband – to please his wife.
The word for please is ARESKO and it means, “to be agreeable to.”
So we have a biblical tenet that within marriage that a man is to love and make things agreeable to His wife and a wife is to be a respectful help-meet to her husband.
A perfect template in my estimation of things.
But Paul plainly points out that within this state, especially in that age of trials and persecutions that
The affections may be taken off from the Lord, and bestowed upon the wife. She may become the object of in some cases even an improper attachment, and has been known to take the place of God in the life of some (and vice versa).
Its not often discussed but relations can become idolatrous where the marriage or even family can become an idol that is expected to be revered.
To me, this is a misappropriation of adoration and allegiance. When a husband loves and serves his wife because he has placed his worship and devotion to Jesus first there is an extremely healthy balance between first things (God) and next things (his other).
Same with the wife. At this point Paul says something relative to the married and unmarried woman (verse 34)
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin (again, which is best defined as a young unmarried maiden. He says . . .) “The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”
There is a difference a wife and an unmarried young woman.
The Greek word here (memeristai translated, difference) seems to mean that the way to divide up a wife and an unmarried woman would be in this manner:
“The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.”
And then he adds:
“but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.”
Essentially, there is no difference between the married man and the married woman in these descriptions and the unmarried males and females.
One difference Paul does make between the unmarried woman and the married is he says that the unmarried
“careth for the things of the Lord (instead of her husband, ready), that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.”
At face value this is an odd phrase and it makes it sound like a married woman is NOT as “holy in body and in spirit.”
It is believed that Paul is speaking directly to Christian wifes who are married to unbelieving husbands who might be into seeing them dress more worldly than a Christian husband might demand – and this is the basis for the term “body,” here.
I wholly reject the notion that a woman who is unmarried is more holy in body and or spirit than those believers who are married – if that is the case then God is a respector of person in the faith and age of Grace and we are all earning our righteousness through external appeals – which I of course reject.
So lines like this must be taken with a grain of reason and context of they can lead to all manner of conjecture.
The reason an unmarried man is not described in this way is because it would be unusual in that day for an unbelieving wife to encourager her believing husband to adorn himself with jewels and robes and even if she did, it would be even more unlikely that he would comply.
So that is the thinking behind that verse.
(Verse 35)
35 And this I speak for your own profit; (for your encouragement and support in life) not that I may cast a snare (a cord or a bond – brocon Greek) upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
Paul, like Jesus, was not there to make their lives binding and miserable, but was giving advice that while retraining in some ways would wind up being very liberating to them in the grand scheme of things.
I don’t want to bind you but make you more noble, proper, decorated is the Greek, translated as comely here in the King James.
The reason, so that in that age they might better and more freely engage in the duties God had for each of them and this would be because they had less distractions – which means without being drawn away or interrupted or anxious over other duties in your life.
Now, there are religious orders that have taken this advice and commended it to their priestly leadership – with disastrous results. So I reiterate that this was for that time as a prescription for believers.
Now, verse 36 is interesting because it shows a marked difference between what we call the authorized text (which are King James translations of the Bible and those that come from those manuscripts) and the revised texts (and those translations that come from them).
Let me just take a minute to refresh your memories of which is which and what this means to us right now in our study.
The availability of the Bible began with two things – one a need and one an invention.
First, it was seen that people should be able to read the Bible in their own languages as the gospel went out into new lands.
This became more evident as general familiarity with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek declined and Latin began to wane.
It was not until the fourteenth century that the Bible was translated into English.
Prior to this Latin was dominant in the western church and the principal Bible used in the church was Jerome’s Vulgate (which was completed all the way back in 405).
Sporadic attempts to translate parts of the Bible into Old English (before 1100) gave limited access to the Bible for those who did not know Latin well.
The Venerable Bede, a historian and scholar of the Early Middle Ages, had a great concern that the less-educated clergy be equipped for service through translation of parts of the Bible so he worked on a translation of the Gospel of John, but died in 735 AD and no copies survived.
There are some what are called “glossed” (written between the lines of Latin) manuscripts from the ninth and tenth centuries.
The most famous is the Lindisfarne Gospels that are in the British Museum. It is not a complete translation, however.
In what is called the Middle English Period (ca. 1100-1550), John Wycliffe, John Purvey, and Nicholas of Hereford collaborated to produce the first complete Bible in English.
There were two editions of the Wycliffe Bible. They were both translations of the Latin text provided by Jerome back in 405 AD.
The first edition was a literal translation from Latin into English. There was a second edition completed in 1396. It circulated more widely and the focus was on the meaning of sentences, not mere words.
As a result of this work, Wycliffe and his followers, called “the Lollards,” suffered persecution as “heretics” under Roman Catholicism and were forced to recant their work.
Twelve years later, in 1408, the Constitutions of Oxford included a prohibition against Bible translation without approval of “church authorities.”
By the sixteenth century, a number of events profoundly affected later Bible translation. The Renaissance created a desire to rediscover of classical learning and Greek scholars moved westward as Constantinople fell to the Turks (in 1453).
Then there was the invention of the printing press around 1450 which had a profound influence on Bible translation – in fact, the Bible was one of the first finished products off the press.
Well, in comes Erasmus, a faithful Catholic scholar of languages who decided to retranslate the Latin Vulgate into the Greek.
And William Tyndale, who was a Greek scholar educated at Oxford, had a desire to provide a readable Bible to the average person.
He based his English New Testament on a Greek text established by Erasmus in 1516 and had it in Europe in 1526 and revised it in 1534.
Myles Coverdale produced the first complete English Bible of the sixteenth century in 1535 then subsequently, (in 1611) King James gave his blessing to a new translation, which we call the Authorized Version or King James Bible was produced from what we call the “Received Text.”
That is what I read from here.
Later on (1800’s) some discoveries of what we call the Codex Sinaiticus, which is an early Greek papyri of New Testament documents, along with the Dead Sea scrolls, aided new translations of the Bible that are in use today (like the New English Bible, New International Version, and the Jerusalem Bible).
So, what is the result? We have differences – some of which are fairly big. And here we have one – which doesn’t mean that much to us today but nevertheless is significant.
How? Re-read verse 36 with me – first from the Authorized, or Received text, which gives us our King James:
“But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.”
Now from the Revised Text:
36 (RSV) If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry–it is no sin.
The interpretation of these two passages is significant because in the King James, the Man referred to is a father of a daughter, in the Revised, the anyone is a man engaged to a woman!
In the King James Paul’s advice is this:
But if any man (Father) think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his unmarried daughter (virgin) and if she pass the flower of her age (she is getting older and is an embarrassment to the family), and need so require (and if there is a reason to permit a marriage – like a binding engagement or some other factor) let him (the father) do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
It is well known that in the east it was regarded as dishonorable for a woman to remain unmarried; and Paul seems to be speaking of this reputation to a father, and so he is telling him that it would be okay to have her marry.
If it will alleviate her shame, and bring her happiness, and meet commitments, let her do it because in the east the authority rested with him – the father of the virgin.
But this is not what the translations say that come from the Revised versions.
They say that Paul is speaking to the Man who is engaged to a Virgin, and says:
36 (RSV) “If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry–it is no sin.”
Here the implication is, If a man is engaged (betrothed) and he discovers that he is not behaving properly toward her (perhaps, he is making advances that that not chaste toward her – and we say this because the translation says, “If his PASSIONS are strong” and it has to be so – let him do as he wishes and marry – its not a sin.
Now, the advice is fine either way – that is not the point. The point is these two translations give us two completely different meanings.
And this is only ONE example. The KING JAMES ONLIEST folk – who ardently suggest that the Revised readers are mislead and even beguiled by Satan, point our dozens and dozens of differences between the two sources – meaning the Receive verses the Revised.
In the face of this we have a decision to make and to me our choices on how to see these differences boil down to these:
We agree with the KJames onliests and stand with that.
We disagree to the point that we will only read the Revised versions (there are those out there who do this too – BTW, to add some complexity, the Revised Translations differ one with another as well!)
We read and consult both and allow the Spirit to lead us to how we will understand the text,
We realize that for some reason or another God Himself has allowed for this situation to exist in the world, that perhaps biblical literalism is not what God is wanting, and we choose to relax, study to the best of our ability, allow the Spirit to lead and reign (along with ITS fruit) and not allow these dogmas to obscure the command to walk in faith and love.
I would suggest the latter – no matter how stridently others will resist this. TO me there is no other way. As to this particular verse and how I see the better interpretation, I choose the King James because of what we read next at verse 37, all the while admitting that this verse can support the Revised version was well. Here Paul says:
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
In other words, if we choose to read this from the Authorized stance, the virgin here means young unmarried daughter of a father and if we chose to accept the Revised then Virgin means, fiancée.
Depending, Paul says, “Nevertheless,”
If a Father or a man engaged to a woman,
“standeth steadfast in his heart,” and
“has no necessity,” (no contracts pending of betrothal) and
“has power over his own will” (to either not behave unkindly or unseemly to his virgin)
“and has decreed in his heart” . . . to keep his virgin (daughter or bride) Paul says
“he does it he will not sin.”
He, “doeth well.” But it is THIS next verse that makes me lean to the King James version over the Revised ,
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
That is self-explanatory, I think.
Verse 39 introduces us to a little caveat on the marital union according to Paul’s advise. It is a new little quip and worth pointing out.
What he says about being free from the marital vows we have discussed. But let’s read the little quip.
39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
And here we have another passage to go with 2nd Corinthians 6:14 which says:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Here, Paul says that if a person (specifically he speaks of women) whose husbands DIE that they are free to marry but adds:
“Only in the Lord.”
Meaning, only to one who is a Christian.
His thought was that it was improper for a Christian widow or widower to unite with an unbeliever in the event that they are freed by the death of their spouse.
The reasons at that time are really obvious – Christians were being martyred – a non-believing spouse would not agree with this in all probability.
It was important to keep believers focused on the faith and an unbelieving spouse has the capacity to divert these devotions.
A believing spouse would help in the faith where a non-believer would probably not.
But Paul ends with an important insight, saying
40 But she is happier if she so abide, (as a widow waiting for an anticipated end of that age) after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
And then he adds, “And I think also that I have the Spirit of God.”
Many scholars think that this is Paul’s way of saying that he definitely was inspired by God to write this.
The term translated, “I think” is used in
Several other places in the New Testament and it typically does not mean CERTAINTY but implies doubt present even though there is conviction.
It can be taken either way, to be honest.
But the question remains – is this advice demanded of believers today. And my response is the advice is good for some who are lead of the Spirit in this way and the advice does not apply for those who are not so lead.
I mean, we can step back from the faith and the Bible all together and make an argument that in some cases where opposites attract, when it comes to something like faith most people are better off in marriage with a like-minded believer – simple as that.
So in terms of pragmatics I would say that typically speaking what Paul says it good.
But today – in the age where the church is NOT under the same scrutiny and we fully abide in an age where God has had the victory over all things, I think using the passages we’ve just covered to brow beat people who marry non-Christians is really an abuse of scripture as the Spirit leads.
Now I was raised in a home where my Mom was more faithful that my dad. And I know couples where the unbelieving spouse can makes raising children difficult.
But I have also observed the reverse in some couples who love each other – so again, let the Spirit guide and abide.
And that wraps up 1st Corinthians chapter 7.
So let’s enter into chapter 8 and just sample the waters for a minute.
1st Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 ¶ Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
I think we will stop here for now and get into this fantastic content . . . next week.
Comments/Questions
Prayer
