1 Corinthians 7 Explained | Marriage, Divorce & Singleness | J. Dan Gill & Anthony Buzzard

21st Century Reformation: Anthony this is wonderful stuff. I I'm I'm amazed over and over again at Paul the wisdom of Paul, the the really the wisdom of God, the mind of Christ, which is in Paul and extended to us. Aren't we fortunate to to see those but it's it's lovely. You just see the beauty of these things over and over again. I think people today are not excited about the Bible many times because they don't understand. That's exactly right. When you don't understand something, it's hard to be excited about it. They don't know the story. Yeah, there you go, that's right. Bits and pieces of the story. But they don't know the narrative. Exactly. And when you try to make Jesus into something other than the true human only begotten son of God. You're missing the storyline, you're you're going in a different direction. That's right. and and missing the point because i it is Romans five is that beautiful passage that helps us to realize it was a man that messed all this up. Yes. And it took a man to set it right. Not a god man, not an angel, but But a man. not just any man, but the man who is truly God's human son. It's a fact that as this one commentator I quote in the in the introduction to the translation, when the the Greek and Roman mind came to dominate the church, there occurred a disaster in doctrine and practice from which we have never recovered. Wow, yes. That was canon Anglican canon Gooch. Yes, yes. That's powerful. Tremendous. Griserbach, in its encounter with Greek philosophy, Christianity became theology in the worst sense. That was the fall of Christianity. The Genesis thing repeated itself. Wow. Chapter seven Verse One. Now concerning the matters about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. So Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer, but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Verse six. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this: I wish that all were as myself, but not. Each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. So, I think he's he's launching out it's it's really good not to marry, it's good to not to conduct a a rel think about the complications when one married one then you're looking at the the issues of children and family and all of those things that kinda would make the life of a Paul much more complicated and not work so well for him in terms of his freedom to move and and preach the gospel and go forward. And so Paul chose not to marry and was successful in in that, and so some others with him. But Paul recognizes that not everyone can do that and that's not everyone's ability or gift to to do that. So the question's probably theirs about what you wrote and now let's get to your question. Yes, yes. You said, not Paul. And he balances that. against against an over strict view, right? Exactly. So the idea of enforced celibacy for priests is quite quite false. Quite wrong. Yeah, absolutely. He's very careful to balance that. against an ascetic tendency, right? They're they're saying, well, marriage should be for nobody, right? No, that's quite wrong. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each should have his own wife. So Paul, as you say, is putting it back into He's very real, isn't he? Yeah. Some would say a bit crude, you know, that's a rather low view of marriage, but actually it's very realistic. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. So I love that. Yeah, I do too. And then I think it's very interesting then that he's not saying that Let every person just have his own consort, his own b individual or her own individual that she runs with, so to speak, in in in sexual character. But each person should have his own wife or each wife should woman should have her own husband. Not not a different So that this is appropriately in the side of the other. And this has generally been believed to be the right way, you know, in in our Western culture at least. Until fairly recent times, perhaps till the nineteen sixties. I mean all this was taken to be ideal. I don't think it was always carried out correctly, but the standard was there. Yes. It's in the marriage ceremony and so on. yeah. And again, these are things that deal with the human condition. And Paul is very familiar with the human condition in his day and his time, and yet he's writing very clearly that each each man should have his own wife, each woman should have her own husband. Yes. so that they're not tempted toward immorality and yes. I I put a commentary that I thought was was perhaps worth mentioning. He says I wish you were all like me etc. Well he obviously doesn't mean you should take that quite literally because he wants people to be married to be elders, for example. But if is he saying then I want you all to be bachelors, this would mean you could never be elders in the church. Obviously not. And I put this comment here. Paul is using hyperbole, some exaggeration. Exaggeration to make this point. Verse eight to the unmarried and the widows, I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Well. So he then says in verse ten, To the married I give this charge, not I, but the Lord. The wife should not separate from her husband. Verse eleven. But if she does, she should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband. And the husband should not divorce his wife. Most important. And again he's referencing back to the shows that Paul was very familiar with the words of the Lord and the things that that he had had spoken. He's talking to the married Christians here. He Yes in a moment he gets to the question of a mixed marriage, which is a different instruction. A different story. If you're claiming to be believers, then you have no right to divorce. If heaven forbid you should separate, then do not get married to somebody else. my goodness, yes. That's right. Because now you're breaking the rules entirely. That's right. And this is very straightforward. Very straightforward. absolutely. Very straightforward. The commentators get this entirely right. Mm. Remain unmarried. That's to say, remain not married to somebody else. That's right. Don't go marry someone else. Reconciliation is the only legitimate path if you are both claiming to be believers. Exactly. And that and that's not hard. It's very straightforward. I say it's not hard. Sometimes people may deem that it's a difficult thing. Of course. But nevertheless, this is this is the teaching of of the Lord. This is Paul's direction. And he and he's actually qu citing Jesus on this. So that's excellent. He's speaking for Jesus. Verse twelve to the rest I say, I not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. Verse thirteen, if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, She should not divorce him. Verse 14, for the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. Verse 15. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases, the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. Okay, verse 16, for how do you know, wife, whether you will s save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? So I I think that is a clarification too of his earlier statements. The the unsaved husband is made holy by his interesting concept connection to the wife, but it's because you will Bring that person to Christ, to hope, to salvation. And likewise the unbelieving wife may be saved by the husband in the sense that Well you don't know that you're going to say. Yeah, that's right. But this is certainly possible. Your children though benefit from the holiness of one parent. Exactly. That's interesting, isn't it? Exactly. Very subtle. I'd love to ask Paul more about that, but that's what he says. Indeed. And I I do th take the view of most evangelicals would, that in the case of the unbeliever who leaves, then you the believer is not bound by the I think then that person is free to remarry myself. The natural way to to to read that would be that you're not bound to chase your unbelieving husband or wife around the Roman Empire to keep the marriage together. Exactly. And then I think you are divorced. Exactly. And we need to stress that. If you are divorced, you are not married. Then you're not married, yes. And Jesus allowed for divorce in the case of Pornia, which would be infidelity, unforgiven and repeated. Yes. Then you are not married. Exactly. Jesus was not asked about separation. Mm-hmm. Can a man be separated for any reason? That's not the question. Yes. The question is can a man be divorced? Which is a very different thing. Yes, absolutely. So some churches have gone too extreme, legalistic, they've gone more holy than Jesus and Paul. They've gone Jesus one one better than Jesus and Paul and cause a great deal of distress for those on whom they inflicted those super better than Jesus laws, right? Yes. Don't want to do that. Well spoken then, because Jesus did deal with this question of divorce among the brethren and sisters. Yes. But he doesn't really deal with the question of separation and he doesn't Jesus doesn't s speak directly to the question of What if you have an unbelieving husband or wife and they depart, they don't want to dwell with you? That's right. what do you do then? And Paul says, I'm speaking to those things. Exactly. Isn't that wonderful? That doesn't mean that's not the w not wisdom in the Word of God it is. That's right. but it's just that Jesus didn't speak to it directly in the not in the record that we have. Yes. But it's important to stress, I think, that in Matthew nineteen, quite clearly Jesus supersedes Moses. Yes. Absolutely. People cannot get hold of this, but he expressly says, For the hardness of your hearts, Moses allowed you to have divorces for certain not very clear reasons always. Doesn't matter. That's right. Because that's in the past. But I'm telling you, only for sexual infidelity, unforgiven, continued, unrepented only for that one reason. And then Paul adds or Jesus in Paul adds another reason here unbeliever who leaves a different circumstance. A different circumstance. Absolutely. This is most important because there's the utmost confusion out there on this subject. Absolutely. Can do. And I think it's to me marvelous that you pointed out too how that the word of Messiah supersedes yes the provisions of Moses. Isn't that what I mean? Yeah that's is that's that's tremendous so so the famous But I say to you statements about Jesus in in and then he goes back to Genesis, which is in a sense also Moses. You know, the law of Moses is brought in the first five books. However, you go to a higher standard in Genesis, it's very clear, but this is very much misunderstood. There are people out there who are saying, Well, we have just as much hard hearted har heartedness now as they did then. Therefore the Mosaic concession is still valid. That is not at all patently False. Absolutely wrong. Absolutely. Otherwise Christianity's done nobody any good. We haven't gained anything. I I'm glad we had a chance at least to comment on something. Yes, yeah, I think that's that's the other point is that if a person comes to the faith, having been married several times, let's say, you have to go from where you are. I think so. You cannot start Tracing back the several marriages and saying, well, who is that person really married to? That's not going to work. I don't think so either. If we had to deal with that, we'd be in the law courts all the time. I think so too. Because the unbelieving person would be objecting to our saying, you know, you're not really married to this person. So you start where you are, same with circumcision. If you're circumcised, leave it alone. Don't get circumcised if you're not, and don't undo the circumcision if you are. He gets to that. Same with marriage. You start from there. And now the standard is clearly you have two believers, they have no right to To divorce. Yes, absolutely. That's and very straightforward, very clear. I like that, in that it's n we find no examples in Paul or in the New Testament where they were going back to people who'd become believers, going sending them back to previous spouses before they came but and and maybe going back and and breaking up earlier homes, f these families and so on that that have come to exist. They do take it from where they're at. I think we have to do that. Otherwise our whole business would be fighting in a courts over rightly offended parties, right? And say, You're you're telling my wife to leave me I don't think so. That's a hopeless. We don't have any examples of that in scripture where they did something like that. So that's so very strong. I think powerful reasons then the command of Jesus himself which supersedes Moses saying don't divorce on the other hand Paul adds to that in the name of Jesus, the words that he brings us. Yes. By the way, if you are married to someone who is is yeah is and with an unbeliever, then don't don't Don't divorce as long as that person will dwell with you. Right. but if they don't if they are not under bondage in such a case. But if the believer leaves, heaven forbid, then that's another do not marry somebody else. That's right. That's exactly right. All the commentators understand that. It's only in recent times that some people have begun to mis mess with this simple material. They they shouldn't say Yeah. Well, verse 17, only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Verse 18, was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. That's very clear, isn't it? Very straightforward. Yeah. I like that. To Jews and Gentiles alike, by the way. He's not saying now I'm strictly only talking to Gentiles here. One rule for everybody. Otherwise you divide the faith immediately. True. You don't want to do that. Yeah. So He goes on to say then in verse 19. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision. But keeping the commandments of God, that counts for something. I think he's saying circumcision, uncircumcision doesn't mean anything. But keep the commandments of God That's everything. Yeah, then that's that's that's really what counts. As given by the Torah Messiah, that is radical because Genesis 17 says that if you're a Jew or a Gentile, you must, must, must be physically circumstances. Circumstances or not be in the covenant. Exactly. Here he's saying none of that matters. Forget all that. That's right. On the other hand, he's not saying that you can just flout all the laws of God as a subtle. We do have this Torah of Messiah. We do have this the law of God in spirit. Absolutely. But not in the letter. Not in the version. 1 Corinthians 9 21 says, Paul says of himself, I'm not under the law of Moses. I'm not. Now I'll be under the law of Moses if it makes you happy, right? I'll keep the Sabbath with you. I'll even circumcise Timothy because of the Jews. Right. Only for that reason. I'll even go and shave my head if you want me to do that in the temple. Yes. However, that's a concession. That's a diplomatic concession. Otherwise, though, do not get circumcised. Don't get into this. That's amazing. We've again as we've referenced before Galatians five. don't get in engaged in, entangled in like that like yoga. That the law. Everybody who's circumcised, my goodness, you're gonna have to keep the whole law and for everything. It doesn't mean you can keep parts of the law if you're not circumcised. Not in that sense. You've got to either do it all or nothing. The law doesn't give you the option of picking and choosing. That doesn't mean you can murder and commit adultery. It is subtle. You can see there is scope for misunderstanding here. And we've cashed in on that big time. I I love the fact that in Romans fourteen, verse fourteen, he says, I'm convinced, and he's a Jew and a Christian. Yes. I Paul I'm a Jew, I'm a Christian. I'm convinced that nothing is unclean of itself. Unless you think it's unclean. He is not supporting the Leviticus food laws. Absolutely not. That is plain common sense. Yes indeed. Paul would be off his rocker, as we say in England, if he's saying nothing is unclean unless you think it is. And then in verse twenty of Romans fourteen, he says, All things are clean. I love that. And you're telling me he's supporting Leviticus food laws? Not at all. Evidently not. Not at all. Let's get real with it. So the keeping of the commandments of God or the commandments that are brought to us by this Messiah and taught to his people and directed. It's his commandments. Jesus says those commandments lead to Aeonian life to kingdom life. They lead to life age coming. But I can see the the scope for misunderstanding is borne out by what you see on the internet now, right? my goodness. Horrible division, argumentation. And Paul is very radical. I see that. I sympathize with the Jew in a way, you know, trying to deal with this. What what do they do? But of course Paul has a winning a winning ploy, and that is that his master came back from death. Yes. the last time. That's a winning argument, right? That's right. Top that. Top that you can't. Very strong argument. Verse twenty, each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a slave? Well called. Yeah. Do not do not be concerned about it, don't worry about that. That's right. But if you can gain your freedom avail yourself of the opportunity. So that's very practical then go for them. That's right. Must call the word slave because you know, Americans particularly with the all of the slavery arguments, and and other countries too. Sure. In in the sense of a slavery in its worst connotations. Yes. But The system he doesn't try to change. Now if you can get your freedom, go for it. On the other hand, you slave masters, you better do it do it decently. That's right. And you slaves have better do it decently. So Paul is very very pragmatic about the whole matter, very very practical. He's dealing with the way things are. and Jesus did too. Absolutely. You know, Jesus and much of what he had to say about you know, go the extra mile, do these things, these are practical concessions that he's saying relate to the Romans, to those who were in governance. It's not the way you would want it, but that's the way it is for now, so we'll we'll we'll deal with those things. So you can have Christian slavery, although that word is is unf it isn't the right word. I don't know what word one does use. There is a proper submission of the employer employee to the employer. Sure. That's not right either. You know, it's hard to find the right vocabulary that gives the correct impression. But he's not trying to labor to to lobby, I should say, to lobby the government to abolish slavery. That was not his mission. His mission was to preach the coming kingdom of God of the gospel. I like that very much. You had this thing with Onesimus that we dealt with before and and Philemon. Yes. So that is an example then. And it gives brings to the the fore again some of Paul's thoughts about this question of of slavery. Again, very reasonable actually. Yeah, I think so too. It was William Wilberforce who abolished slavery and it always reminds me of the fact that Jesus abolished death. You know, we think that's rather wonderful when we learn our history in school that William Wilberforce was able to abolish slavery, but then I remind people that Jesus abolished death. Yes, yeah, I like that. That's quite clever, isn't it? To abolish death. Very good. That's very good. That sounds interesting to me. That's right. So he goes on to say in verse 22, for he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise, he who was free when he was called is a slave of Christ. verse twenty-three, you were bought with a price. Do not become slaves of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, let him remain with God. though if you could improve your condition and you were called as a slave, then be made free. By all means go for it. That's well well said. Go for it. So So Paul's talking about very practical issues of our human life and our the human condition. Absolutely. And this is the wisdom, not of men, but the wisdom of God. Right like that. And The Lord does not count human slavery. He doesn't look upon his people who though may sometimes be in the condition of human slavery. He doesn't look they're the th the the Lord's freedmen. He has purchased us with a price. He's he's he's bought us. I like that. And we're friends of Jesus and friends of God, not servants of sex. Abraham was the friend of God. I like that I like that too, yeah. It's a closer relationship than Yeah. Jesus says, you know, the the slaves they don't know what their master's doing, but the the friends they sit around the table, so to speak, and they talk about the master's plans. So so no matter what our station in life in Christ we are brothers, we're friends, friends of God, friends of Christ. In on the secrets of what God is doing. That's a considerable privilege, you might say. I like that. Verse twenty five Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress, it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. Well verse twenty-eight, but if you do marry, you have not sinned. And if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. Well verse 29, this is what I mean, brothers. The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none. Verse thirty and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods. Verse thirty one, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. Yes. Well certain expected the second coming in less than two thousand years. I don't doubt that. They didn't do. But they thought that things were going to wind up, the kingdom of God would come very shortly. And it didn't. And we can deal with that. and he's speaking about a present trouble. I don't know what maybe exactly he had in mind, but they were pressed as Christians perhaps, they were enduring some difficult times. I don't know. Maybe you have a a better stuff. Obviously marriage involves complexity. sure. You could argue that the bachelor doesn't have to s go through. So but he's he's very balanced, he's very careful not to condemn the various choices that are open to us, right? Absolutely. And so you've not sinned if you if you if you do choose to marry. And I think that so these are all good and important words of wisdom that he's bringing to the people. But an enforced celibacy in the priesthood though is obviously before the limits of the Absolutely. Absolutely. one can claim as a Roman Catholic that the church has a right to that, but you certainly cannot claim Paul. No, absolutely not. as a sponsor of in cel celibate priesthood. That just has not at all. And and likewise we recognize as Paul refers to Peter who who had a wife took their wives with them in fact he's gonna touch on that in our very in the the writing we're reading kind of things a little later on. Verse thirty two, I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife. 34, and his interest are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. Verse thirty nine, I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. Very practical. Very yeah. he recognizes that There are advantages to not being married, right, not having the all of the issues that go along with that, and he he might have said it but could have said it, but that includes children and families and and extended issues that have to be dealt with in that environment. So Paul sees advantages to moving on without that. Absolutely. There's there's room for everybody here, isn't it? Sure. Yeah, there is. That's one of the I like the fact that his mind is very much black and white he says, you the person has all sorts of concerns and the unmarried person doesn't. He doesn't mean that in an absolute sense. Right. But that tendency could be true in some cases. But Paul is very much it's this and not that. Right. Black and white. And I like that approach, but you have to allow for some exaggeration in some of the statements. Yeah, absolutely. That's fine. It's just a way of thinking. It's a way of expressing the point. Yeah. But I think the overall sense of that is quite unarguable. Yes. Nothing to fuss about. Verse thirty-six, if anyone 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 not a sin to marry in that case. It would be a sin to choose to go on and live together as though you were married when you're not. And there's been some discussions whether he's talking about fathers giving their daughters away or it doesn't matter, both principles. The point still stands either way. That's right, agree. Yeah, yeah. Possibilities. verse thirty-eight then deals with that point, doesn't it? Yeah, I think it will. Thirty seven, but whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity, but having his desire under control and is determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. That's right. Verse thirty eight, so then he who marries his betrothed does well. And he who refrains from marriage will do even better. In Paul's judgment. And it doesn't occur in all cases. It's for some folks, they're not gonna do well unmarried at all. And I think Paul recognizes that. You're even in your service to God, if you're going to be under temptation and that's gonna be a problem, you're much better off to be married and each according to his own gift. Sure. That's right. No, there's there's space for everybody to feel comfortable, I think, within all of these instructions. Yes, absolutely. Verse thirty nine, a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Verse forty, yet in my judgment she is happier, she remains as she is. Yes. And I think that I too have the spirit of God. And that's the broad principle. That's not though to destroy the early argument that there is a room s for divorce in some cases where you have a mixed marriage or in Jesus where you have the unrepented fornication which is not just pre marital sex by the way. It's a general term for illicit sex. Even within the many any inappropriate section. This is the broad principle. However the works all of this works together. All of this is the wisdom of God, I think. That's right. But So Paul does say, I think that I have the wisdom of God. That's kind of a nice understatement, but but I think he's he's saying the things that I'm saying here are not just me rattling off some things that I think and feel or what these things I think do flow with the wisdom of God. By the way I you know, with all my experience and being an apostle, that's right. I do have something intelligent to to add to the conversation. Exactly. I I like that a lot. We can do a a whole study on this marriage and divorce thing and go into a lot of that, but I think I think probably we've said what needs to be said, I think we've said perhaps enough controversial and provocative things to make people think. Mostly what we've said here would be fairly standard in much evangelical and other commentary. Nothing too radical. Yeah. I think a mistake is made when even among evangelicals who are supposedly conservative, yeah they began to accept sexual immorality in the church. That's a different thing. You can't come out of it with that kind of thing. Absolutely can't. Or or just that divorce for any reason is okay. I mean if you value the words of Jesus at all, you can't say that. But unfortunately people have. Yeah. Yeah. That's regrettable the state of confusion is huge. So we're reinventing Christianity at that point. And it's n and what What we're inventing is not a very good version of the original. It doesn't work very well. No, if one's going to be solar scriptura, then one must be honest enough to stick with again F. F. Bruce's wise words. He said many evangelicals who claim Solar Scriptura in fact are claiming an evangelical traditional explanation of solar scriptura. That's right, yeah. Very honest man, F. F. Bruce.