11/7 - Staying Together for the Glory of God

1 Corinthians 7:10-16: https://www.bible.com/bible/59/1CO.7.10-16.ESV

Not everybody gives up on their marriage because things are not good.

When it comes to Marriage in Corinth, many were actually giving up. The Verb tenses used in the passage today tell us that the kinds of divorces that he is describing are actually happening. These are part of the report that he has received about division... When we think of the division in the church, we have to realize that often division in the church goes down to the core relationships. There is division among friends, there is division among families, and often there is division between husbands and wives. That is clearly the case here. The Division may be related to some of despicable sin in the church, leading some to ungodly looseness, and some to ungodly celibacy. it has caused the Gospel to drained of its potency, and the testimony of the church is being ruined before the watching world. Yes the Glory of Christ is at stake!

What if I told you that your marriage has the potential to reveal Christ, or to lead someone to Hell?

The book ends of this section is talking about glorifying God in your body...

1 Cor 6:19-20 “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”

1 Cor 7:23 “You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men.”

Whereas we were describing the unmarried and the widow getting together for the glory of God, now we are now talking about the married... staying together is for the Glory of God.

What circumstances will give you the opportunity to glorify God in your marriage? There are two in the text:

1. When you have seem to have irreconcilable differences... Stay together for the glory of God.

1 Cor 7:10-11"to the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

The specific people in question: In our passage, marriage is the generic word for “all kinds of marriage”, and it is related to a few kinds of divorce. Remember: The Corinthians have come from all kinds of backgrounds. Slaves and free, jews and gentiles, prostitutes etc… old verb, to marry, and still married as the tense shows.

John McArthur described some of the kinds of marriage in Corinth.

contubernium - A contubernium was an official relationship between a free citizen and a slave or between two slaves in ancient Rome. A slave involved in such relationship was called contubernalis.

usus - by usus (habitual cohabitation) A cum manu acquired by usus was simply the cohabitation of the husband and wife for the duration of a year, after which ownership of the wife was transferred to her partner and she was considered taken by the decree of yearly possession. This process required no ceremonial practices.

coemptio in manum - The matrimonial process of coemptio, in essence a notional sale of the woman to the husband, could be transacted at any point during the marriage. The transaction was conducted by a scales-holder in the presence of at least five witnesses, all of whom were adult male Roman citizens.

confarreatio, - In ancient Rome, confarreatio was a traditional form of marriage. The ceremony involved the bride and bridegroom sharing a cake of spelt, in Latin far or panis farreus,hence the rite's name. The Flamen Dialis and Pontifex Maximus presided over the wedding, and ten witnesses had to be present.The woman passed directly from the hand (manus) of her father or head of household (the paterfamilias) to that of her new husband.

Here the generic is applicable to two married people assumed to be believers. SInce it is contrasted with the next category.

The Specific Problem in question: “This charge” “instruction” is for two married believers. Note: the charge. this word is not used for the instruction of non-believers. This is not to the unmarried and widows that precede this and not for the one with an unbelieving spouse that followed. Te hcharge is: do not leave, and do not send away.

The context is not exhaustive, but is addressing the division in the marriages of the church where one spouse seems to play the role of super-spiritual, and is living in celibacy in spite of martial obligations…now they are wanting to escape… . This is the “she” in this case. Paul already corrected that to say that this is a phony spirituality.

Why the difference in “separate” and “divorce" are there different implications? A wife leaves… She goes back to her family. A man sends away. Women were property, issue of ownership etc…

Leave (to separate, to part) (5563) chorizo from choris = separately, apart from, from) in the active sense means to cause to separate or divide, to put apart putting a space between. The emphasis of chorizo (especially in its literal uses) is on distance. In the passive sense, chorizo means to separate oneself (put some space between), to be separated, Chorizo is used in 1Corinthians as the equivalent of divorce (see below).

Utley - “Women did not have the right of divorce in Judaism, but they did in Roman society. Just because a given culture allows or disallows something does not mean that believers should avail themselves of the right or turn it into a taboo!”“Not I but the Lord”: Mark 10:9 “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” You will wilfully violate the words of Christ.

Divorce (863)(aphiemi from apo = from, put distance between + hiemi = to send) means to dismiss or release someone or something (e.g., forgiveness is releasing someone from a "debt" so to speak) from a place or one’s presence, to let go, to send away and in the present context means to divorce. Divorce is total marital separation, complete abandonment of the relationship.

. Knofel Staton writes that "Divorce in the first century was even more common than today. One first-century historian writes that people got married for the purpose of getting a divorce, and got divorced for the purpose of getting married again, it was not uncommon for a person to have been divorced and remarried several different times (ED: SOME SOURCES SAY SOME MEN AND WOMEN GOT DIVORCED UP TO TWENTY TIMES!)”.

The Specific instruction:

“Not” separate, and “not” divorce.

Remain unmarried (as a consequence): Note these are not suggestions from Paul but commandments, must remain in the present imperative.

ii. or if they have already left...”Reconcile” - the exchange of hostility for a friendly relationship.Be Reconciled - and if already separated/divorced be reconciled in the aorist imperative, the former calling for continual (lifelong) commitment and the latter conveying a sense of urgency (where passive voice is probably best viewed as a so-called divine passive, for reconciliation would need to be a supernatural, miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. In other words reconciliation refers to the transformation of a situation of hostility to a situation of peace and trust, here applied to the reconstitution of a faltering marriage.

Note: Arnold - A Christian wife should not leave her husband for any other reason than adultery. Women in the church at Corinth may have been leaving their husbands under the guise of being super spiritual. However, God’s perfect will is not to dissolve a marriage but that a marriage should be permanent. It is commanded that a woman should not divorce her husband. Paul did not include the “exception” clause given by Christ. Why? That seems commonly understood since people were already so flippant about the reasons. He is dealing with a particular people with a particular problem. It is assumed that the “exception” clause was known and accepted by all in the Corinthian church, but it had no relevance to the problem of somthing something to do with their desire for abstinence in a relationship, or that there was no fulfillment for the spouse...

Scriptural Support:

God hates divorce…Mal 2:15-16 “Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the Lord, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the Lord of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”” D is only a gracious “concession” for innocent people, but never God’s best.

Divorce only enters in as a consequence of sin.. Matt 19:5-6 “and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.””

Application: If you are married, tough it out, and if you are not married… realize there is no easy escape… choose wisely...

2. When you seem to have incompatible foundations... stay together for the glory of God.

And a woman who (is herself a believer) has an unbelieving(apistos) husband, and he consents (suneudokeo) to (present tense - continually) live (oikeo) with her, she must not send her husband away (aphiemi) - As in the preceding passage Must not send...away is a command in the present imperative with a negative implying that such a practice was already going on among the saints at Corinth. Paul commands it to stop. You are to stay together for the Glory of God!

The specific people in question: “The rest”are those who are contemplating divorce because their spouse is an unbeliever. that if any brother has a wife/husband who is an unbeliever,

Unbeliever (571) apistos from a = without + pistos = believing, (faithful) means lacking in faith, without faith, disbelieving, unbelieving - in this context apistos is one who does not believe the Good News about Jesus Christ (1Ti 5:8, Titus 1:15, Rev 21:8). Paul repeatedly used apistos in his letters to the church at Corinth because of their great need to understand how to interact with unbelievers (1Co 6:6; 7:12,13,14; 10:27; 14:22, 2324; 2Co 6:14 15). Apistos is used most often in the Corinthian letters - Matt. 17:17; Mk. 9:19; Lk. 9:41; Lk. 12:46; Jn. 20:27; Acts 26:8; 1 Co. 6:6; 1 Co. 7:12; 1 Co. 7:13; 1 Co. 7:14; 1 Co. 7:15; 1 Co. 10:27; 1 Co. 14:22; 1 Co. 14:23; 1 Co. 14:24; 2 Co. 4:4; 2 Co. 6:14; 2 Co. 6:15; 1 Tim. 5:8; Tit. 1:15; Rev. 21:8

The specific problem in question: The believer is sending the unbeliever away in spite of the fact the unbeliever wants to stay.

“and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.” consents: Consents (4909) suneudokeo from sun = together with + eu = good + dokéo = think) literally means to "think well with", and so to consent or to give hearty approval to something (cf Lk 11:48). It means to join in approval, agree with, approve of, consent to or sympathize with. Used only 6x in the NT - Lk. 11:48; Acts 8:1; Acts 22:20; Rom. 1:32; 1 Co. 7:12; 1 Co. 7:13

The Specific instruction: And whose idea is this? “Not the Lord but I”. Meaning that Jesus did not specifically say this, but Paul as an Apostle is giving a judgement on this now. In the first case, Jesus spoke specifically. Now, Paul is offering authoritative teaching for further application. Whose idea? this is God’s idea by way of revelation through an apostle.

Note: Don't miss the fact that four times in 1 Cor 7:10-13, Paul prohibits divorce. Paul is not stuttering! He wants the Corinthians to get the message clearly.

“Must not send away”: Just as the previous case is “must not” here you “must not”. In the previous case there is a judicial consequence, but here there is a concession.

If the unbeliever abandons the marriage…v 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.”

“Not in bondage/enslaved”…not in the bond of marriage. the bond is broken, and the believer is free. the bond of joining together is no longer joined.

Rom 7:3: A widow whose spouse had died was no longer “joined”

1 Cor 7:39 a wife is bound as long as he lives (tied to him) like sticks in a bundle…) but here...…doulao from doulos…slave… meaning… you are free!

1 Cor 7:27 he says “are you free from a wife?” meaning you were married and now untied… “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” (are λύω impf.to undo someth. that is used to tie up or constrain someth., loose, untie bonds (Da 5:12Theod.), fetters ① to undo someth. that is used to tie up or constrain.

If the unbeliever departs, he/she should be allowed to do so peacefully. The wife is not under any obligation to keep the marriage together by fighting, or legal actions.

MacArthur on “not under bondage” - In God’s sight the bond between a husband and wife is dissolved only by death (Rom. 7:2+), adultery (Matt. 19:9), and an unbeliever’s leaving. When the bond, or bondage, is broken in any of those ways, a Christian is free to remarry. Throughout Scripture, whenever legitimate divorce occurs, remarriage is assumed. Where divorce is permitted, remarriage is permitted. (Where I differ with MacArthur is that he feels the case of two believers is one where the abandoned believer is still bound. but agian the context was, “she should remain unmarried.”

Specific benefit of this instruction:

Holy influence: [For] the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. (NLT Paraphrases it "For the Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage, and the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage. Otherwise, your children would not have a godly influence, but now they are set apart for him.")

Swindoll - when a Christian spouse stays with the willing non-Christian partner, the children also benefit. Children raised in a mixed home have greater opportunity to see the love of Christ exhibited in the believing parent’s life than those who must live with the consequences of a broken home.

Keener has an interesting insight - Both Greco-Roman and Jewish law debated the status of children of socially mixed unions; Jewish law also debated the status of children of religiously mixed unions. Here Paul argues that children of religiously mixed unions are within the sphere of gospel influence and cannot be used as an excuse for divorce. In Roman society, the children normally went to the father in the event of a divorce; a Christian wife involved in a divorce would lose her opportunity to influence her children for God. (Ibid)

Salvation: [For] how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

The holy influence of the one who stays could very well be the tool of God to win the unbeliever. This is consistent with Peter’s discussion on the unbelieving husband. (1 Pet 3:1-2)

Paul is saying the glory of God is at stake in your marriage, and it is worth it.

Supporting Scripture: 1 Pet 3:1-2 “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” 1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as a delicate vessel, and with honor as fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

If you are married: to an unbeliever: Stay with your husband, it may be that God’s plan is to use you to win your husband to Christ! Stop looking for the escape...

If you you are not married yet, dont be unequally yoked with a non believer. 2 Cor 6:14 “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”

A yoke is a wooden bar that joins two oxen to each other and to the burden they pull. An “unequally yoked” team has one stronger ox and one weaker, or one taller and one shorter. The weaker or shorter ox would walk more slowly than the taller, stronger one, causing the load to go around in circles. When oxen are unequally yoked, they cannot perform the task set before them. Instead of working together, they are at odds with one another.

1 Cor 7:39 “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.”

Conclusion: So, this is not encouragement those looking for a way out of marriage. He is saying to those looking for a way out, that this is the path to Glorify God. this to tell them to look for ways to glorify God in your marriage.

1. Marriage is dissolved by Death, Adultery, or Abandonment.

2. Remarriage is free at death (by the living), Adultery (by the innocent), and Abandonment (by the one wanting to stay).

When you find irreconcilable differences… stay married to the Glory of God

When your foundations change… stay married to the Glory of God.

Don't Quit- Author Unknown

When things go wrong, as they sometimes will,

When the road you're trudging seems all uphill,

When funds are low and the debts are high,

And you want to smile but you have to sigh,

When care is pressing you down a bit,

Rest if you must, but don't you quit.

Life is strange with its twists and turns,

As every one of us sometimes learns,

And many a failure turns about,

When he might have won if he'd stuck it out.

Don't give up, though the pace seems slow

You may succeed with another blow.

Often the goal is nearer than

It seems to a faint and faltering man;

Often the struggler has given up

When he might have captured the victor's cup,

And he learned too late, when the night slipped down,

How close he was to the golden crown.

Success is failure turned inside out

The silver tint of the clouds of doubt,

And you never can tell how close you are

It may be near when it seems afar;

So stick to the fight when you're hardest hit .

It's when things seem worst that you mustn't quit.

Footnote:

Matthew 2. Paradigmatic Preaching: The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29)

5:31–32 The third antithesis follows naturally, inasmuch as sexual sin often leads to divorce. Again Jesus requires a more exacting standard of his followers than was prevalent in the Judaism of his day. In the Old Testament divorce was legislated but never banned. Deuteronomy 24:1–4 formed a central part of that legislation, and Jesus alludes to v. 1 here. In the first century two slightly older contemporaries of Jesus, the Pharisees Shammai and Hillel, vigorously debated the legitimate grounds for divorce. Hillel permitted a man to put away his wife for “any good cause” (which could be as minor an issue as frequently burning his food!), while Shammai limited it to “adultery” (m. Git. 9:10). “Marital unfaithfulness” here translates porneia, a broader term for sexual sin of all kinds. Many have therefore attempted to distinguish it from adultery in this text on the grounds that Jesus would otherwise not differ from Shammai and because Matthew did not use one of the regular words for adultery (e.g., moicheia) as he did in translating Jesus’ words in vv. 27–28. Other alternatives have therefore become popular—most notably that Jesus was referring to the discovery of premarital unfaithfulness or prohibiting certain marriages among close relatives that would have been defined as incestuous. Others argue that “except” means except for a consideration of, so that Jesus is not ruling one way or the other on divorce for adultery. Many scholars attribute Matthew’s exception clause to a later redactional change. D. A. Carson gives a good, brief survey of the various exegetical options here and an excellent defense of the NIV rendering. Objections to that rendering overlook the point that Jewish law required divorce in the case of adultery (m. Yebam. 2:8; m. Soṭa 5:1), whereas Christianity never does. Even with the exception, Jesus is stricter than Shammai. Jesus never commands divorce but only permits it if all attempts at reconciliation have failed because he recognizes that the adultery has already undermined one of the most fundamental elements of a marriage—sexual exclusivity. Porneia (rather than moicheia) is used probably because it was the term more commonly used to describe female rather than male infidelity. Jesus follows social convention by phrasing his example from the perspective of the man who has been defrauded, but v. 32b makes plain that, in radical opposition to prevailing mores, he considers a man’s infidelity as equally grievous. Ancient Jews (like Greeks and Romans) almost universally agreed that lawful divorce granted a person the right to remarry. So Jesus’ words would almost certainly have been taken as permission for remarriage when divorce was permitted, i.e., after marital unfaithfulness. In other cases divorce causes adultery. The phrase “causes her to become an adulteress,” however, is misleading. The Greek does not use the noun “adulteress” but the verb makes her commit adultery. There is no indication here that a second marriage, even following an illegitimate divorce, is seen as permanently adulterous. Divorced Christians who have remarried should not commit the sin of a second divorce to try to resume relations with a previous spouse (see again Deut 24:1–4) but should begin afresh to observe God’s standards by remaining faithful to their current partners. What is more, it was probably not the taking of a new husband that made the wife commit adultery, since some divorced women remained unmarried. Jesus maintains that the divorce itself creates adultery—metaphorically, not literally—through infidelity to the lifelong, covenantal nature of marriage (cf. the characteristic Old Testament use of “adultery” to refer to breaking one’s commitments to God—e.g., Hos 2:4; Jer 5:7; Ezek 16:32). All of these views, of course, are hotly debated in Christian circles today. Other issues, including some of contemporary application, will be treated under 19:1–12; but it is worth noting here that just as vv. 22 and 28 do not prohibit all forms of anger or sexual desire, and just as the exceptions to Jesus’ commands there are more implicit than explicit, so also v. 32 most likely does not reflect a consideration of every conceivable legitimate or illegitimate ground for divorce. Instead Jesus is responding to a specific debate in first-century Judaism. At least Paul seems to have recognized Jesus’ words as not comprehensive, since in 1 Cor 7:15 he introduces a second legitimate ground for divorce that Jesus never mentioned.