Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
Jesus gave his life a ransom number on Calvary, on Mount Calvary, cruel Calvary, paved the
way by blood that we might win a bright shining crown.
his holy name!
to the Harvester podcast.
We are happy that you are joining us today for this podcast.
We are in our season number four.
And that season is entitled, Expedient Season Marriage, a Study of 1 Corinthians 7.
I am one of the hosts, Brian Kenyon, and with me is...
And we both come to you from Lakeland, Florida.
And it just so happens to be sunny Lakeland, Florida today, but we appreciate your
listening with us.
And so we're in a very thick discussion about Romans, or excuse me, 1 Corinthians 7.
And 1 Corinthians 7 is...
potentially a controversial chapter that deals with the expediencies of marriage.
Not so much who to marry, but when to marry.
And a lot of good meat in this chapter, but an understanding of this chapter, I think, is
necessary for us to get a full picture of God's will for marriage between husband and
wife.
And of course, we started out with the first two episodes dealt with
fundamental passages on marriage.
Particularly we looked at Genesis 2 verses 18 through 25 and Matthew 19 3 through 12 and
in our discussion of Matthew 19 we did take a closer look at Deuteronomy 24 since that is
alluded to by the Pharisees and scribes in that passage as they try to trap Jesus in his
words.
But after we laid that
preliminary groundwork of Bible passages.
We got into 1 Corinthians 7 properly in episode 3, and there we talked about general
principles of marriage and sexual relationships.
And this chapter really naturally divides itself as Paul lays it out through the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Chapter, or episode 4 concerned the unmarried and widows and those who were already
married.
And then in episode 5,
We dealt with verses 12 through 16 that concern Christians who are married to
non-Christians.
And as we pointed out in that episode, it's the only place in this chapter where he
distinguishes Christian and non-Christian, and it's very important that we understand
that.
So we're gonna start out by reading those verses 12 through 16, and then today's episode
is going to be focused on
what's often been termed as the quote Pauline privilege, end quote, which some see even
brethren see in verse 15 that Paul, they would claim that Paul gives another reason
besides fornication to what Jesus gave in Matthew 19, nine for scripturally divorcing and
remarrying.
And so we're going to take a focus study on that today in today's episode.
But first, let me go ahead and read
verses 12 through 16 to get our minds back in the context.
And so in verse 12, but to the rest I, not the Lord, if a brother has a wife who does not
believe and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce or put her away.
And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let
her not divorce or leave him.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband.
Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart.
A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.
But God has called us to peace.
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband, or how do you know, O
husband,
whether you will save your wife.
Again, 1 Corinthians 7, 12 through 16.
Now, when we looked at this on the previous episode, we pointed out that when Paul says,
the rest I, not the Lord, that the Lord did not address separation.
You know, what if a husband and wife separate?
The Lord did address divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19 and other places.
but not separation.
And so that seems to be the best candidate for what he means by, yet not I, but the Lord
say.
And also, as we pointed out in the previous episode, that the unbeliever is the one in
verses 12 and 13 who is going to, to use one of Stephen's terms from that episode, is
going to be the hinge upon which the marriage is going to swing.
That is, if you look at verse 12, if a brother has a wife who does not believe, so an
unbelieving wife, and she, the unbelieving wife, is willing to live with him, let him not
put her away or divorce her.
And then in verse 13, a woman who has a husband who does not believe, and so an
unbelieving husband, if he, the unbelieving husband, is willing to live with her, let her
not divorce or leave him.
Now also as we pointed out the word divorced is translated twice in these verses by the
new King James.
The first one in the King James is translated put away and the second one is translated
leave but they're both the same exact word the same case and everything and the same what
do call it?
Tense.
Yeah tense.
What's the word I'm looking for?
But anyway yeah the same the same yeah the same tense the same
Not an apology, but when you parse, the same parsing and everything.
Yeah, but anyways, it's the same word.
All right, but I do like the word put away because it's more general than the word
divorce.
When I read divorce, I think about courtroom proceedings and all that stuff.
And of course, that's not necessary to be a part of this passage, the actual courtroom
proceedings.
anyway, so, but the point comes up, well, what if the unbeliever is not willing?
You know, verse and 13, if the unbeliever is willing to live with the believing spouse,
then the believing spouse is not to divorce or put away or to leave.
But what if it is the case that the unbeliever does depart?
And so that's where verse 15 comes in.
But if the unbeliever departs.
Now, also in the context, we covered a couple episodes ago in verse 11.
Well, verse 10 and 11, to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord.
A wife is not to depart from her husband, but even if she does depart, then she only has
two options.
Let her remain unmarried, option number one, or be reconciled to her husband, option
number two.
Now, the last part of verse 11, and a husband is not to put away
or divorce his wife.
And so that tells us that the unmarried up in verse, well, in verse 11, the front part,
the letter remain unmarried doesn't mean she's divorced, but let her remain as if she were
unmarried.
That is no sexual contact, et cetera, in whatever she's doing.
so, but those two options would carry down to verse 15, if the unbelieving depart,
Yes, if the unbelieving departs, where'd go?
Let me see.
yeah, if the unbelieving departs, let him depart.
And so we'll just say right there that the one who departs only has the two options to
remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Now, Stephen, I know in preaching full-time we have run into all kinds of marital
situations where some have actually been taught the truth.
But then they'll find a passage like this and they'll find a brother in Christ who
explains it as giving another reason for divorce and remarriage.
And then we get into all kinds of situations in the local work.
I've had that happen.
ah And sometimes you have to just be patient with people because you don't learn something
in a day and you don't unlearn it in a day.
ah But then there are times, excuse me, that there are individuals who just want to find
justification for what they want to do, regardless.
And, you know, for those scenarios, I'll just kind of back off of this topic and go back
to the authority of Jesus.
and what are we seeking to do?
Do you want to please yourself or do you want to please the Lord?
Do you want to honor yourself or honor the Lord?
And then once we can establish that or not establish it.
then at least we know where we're going from there.
Because if you say, look, it's God first, that's true over whatever I believe, then we can
move on back to this topic.
But if you say, well, I want to be happy, God wants me be happy, well then we know where
we are from there.
So you can't even get to this topic yet if you say it's all about my happiness.
And so, like you mentioned, local work will present all those situations, but that's why
this study is important.
Because there will be individuals who are looking to try to understand what the text says
and what it doesn't say.
And so if there's a, uh
another preacher or a member of the church who's saying, I want to understand this topic
correctly so that one, I can keep myself in the right situation with God and maybe help
others to be in the right situation with God.
Studies like this are going to be essential.
Yes, and that's a very good point.
And you know, it doesn't matter what the topic, if we have our mind made up that we want
to be pleasing to Him, then we're going to do what the Lord says.
And one thing I like about the Bible, that no matter the translation, and I say that kind
of loosely, I mean, I'm sure there are some translations, like maybe the cotton patch
version or something like that, that I'm unaware of, but basically the major translations,
even though
Some of them have words that shouldn't be translated the way they are, like I'm thinking
sinful nature in the old NIV.
It's been revised, But even with that, you can see the consistency throughout the
passages, you know?
It's not just one verse that tells you everything about everything, usually.
I mean, you've to put the total teaching of the Bible together.
And even with this passage in 1 Corinthians 7.15, if somebody has been taught that it
teaches appalling privilege, another
reason to scripturally divorce and scripturally remarry, when you point things out to them
and show the total teaching of the Bible, even they, if their heart is right and they want
to do what God says, even they will come around to the conclusion that no, this does not
give another reason for divorce and remarriage scripturally.
And so we're going to see that here today.
It was good that you started in the first few episodes, as we mentioned in our last
episode, it good that you started with some of the groundwork around marriage.
What did God say in the beginning?
What did Jesus say about what God said in the beginning?
know, going back to Genesis, going to Matthew 19.
Looking at those passages gives you a framework to view this passage.
So no matter what Paul says, Paul is under the authority of Jesus.
And so Paul is not going to usurp what Jesus said.
And this is...
this passage here in 1 Corinthians 7 does not abrogate what you see in those earlier
passages.
It's not like, oh, the later writings have more authority than the earlier writings.
No, they are all under, they all carry the same authority, they're all inspired by the
same Holy Spirit.
So there's no later ones have greater authority than the older ones.
That's a very, very good point because, you know, the New Testament, the whole thing was
written after the cross, after the church was established.
And so it's not like what Jesus said only applied to the old law, and so now Paul is
usurping that.
That's not the case at all because, you know, God's law and marriage has always been
consistent from the beginning of time, at least from the sixth day of creation, when it
was established.
And so
Paul is not going to override anything Jesus said or anything Genesis said for that matter
because Jesus endorsed the Genesis 2.24 passage that Paul is not going to say anything
that's going to cancel out that or rewrite that.
Right, right.
Unless there's something in the context that demands it, but there's nothing here that
does.
which again is one of the reasons why when he says, I say, yet not the Lord,
is that the Lord never addressed separation.
What if some husband wife separate?
He never addressed that while he was in the flesh, though he did address, you know,
unscriptural or scriptural and unscriptural divorce and remarriage.
All right, but with that in mind, Otis says we go to verse 15 then, but if the unbeliever
departs, let him depart.
A brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.
And again, the peace, we talked about that a little bit yesterday and we'll talk about it
again some more.
But as we go up to this, if the unbeliever departs, let him depart.
Now there are some that would say that this teaches what's often been called the Pauline
privilege of God-approved divorce and remarriage.
Now that Pauline privilege refers to the false idea that Paul gave another reason to
divorce
and remarry in addition to what Jesus already gave, and that would be fornication in
Matthew 19.9.
Remember there, Jesus said, whosoever shall put away his wife, accept it be for
fornication, and marries another, commits adultery.
And so adultery would be putting away and remarrying.
And so anyone who does that, except to be for fornication, is going to commit adultery.
And so Jesus made clear that there was only one reason
to scripturally put away and remarry and that was fornication.
Now again we talked about that back in Genesis 2.24 and every time Genesis 2.24 is
repeated or alluded to the same thing is taught whether in the patriarchal period, Mosaic
period, or the Christian uh age or period Genesis 2.24 holds true.
And so uh notice there to be one flesh which indicates the
permanency of marriage and of course when one spouse passes away or dies then that one
flesh can no longer be maintained and thus remarriage is accessible to God.
But then the other is fornication.
Fornication also just disrupts that one flesh relationship and then the innocent of
fornication spouse in a scriptural divorce has a right to remarry.
And we should point out, as we did back in Matthew, when we were studying Matthew 19, that
it's an option for the innocent of fornication spouse to put away the guilty of
fornication spouse, but it's not required.
They can work it out in a lot of ways.
It's better to work it out to save the marriage.
But God, who'd made us, designed us, He knows what's best.
And so He knows sometimes that trust is so broken that, you know, it's better to put away
the guilty for occasion spouse so that the innocent for occasion spouse can remarry or at
least be single whatever he chooses
But there are two reasons why, and I give in 1 Corinthians 7 15, two reasons why the
Pauline privilege is not supported in this verse.
And both of these words in English begin with the letter V.
V.
And when I teach this at the school of preaching, I always make sure I test them on this,
but vocabulary and verb tense are two reasons why.
1 Corinthians 7 15 cannot support the Pauline privilege, cannot support the Pauline
privilege.
So first let's take a look at the vocabulary that Paul uses.
The vocabulary here when God says you are not under bondage, he is using the word
do law do law away form of the word do law and that that word just simply as a verb form
of the word slave the word slave is do loss and do losses slave servant the old king james
will usually translated servant uh...
the new king james will translate slave but sometimes was referring to christians it'll be
translated bond servant and
Bond-servant is different from a slave in that a slave is forced into labor, slavery, but
a bond-servant volunteers himself.
And Paul will often in the New King James will say, Paul, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ.
And what that simply means is he's not being forced to be a servant of Christ, but he has
volunteered himself, bond-servant.
But doulao is the verb form of that, and the word means slavery, to be enslaved.
It means enslavement.
Now marriage was never intended by God to be a master-slave relationship.
In fact, if you go back up to verses 3 through 5, 1 Corinthians 3 through 5, remember
there he says that the wife's body does not belong to her.
Well, in verse 3, let the husband render to his wife the affection due her and likewise
also the wife to the husband.
And so there's a mutual affection that is due in marriage.
It's not slave master.
Verse 4, the wife does not have authority of her own body, but the husband does.
And so you might think, well, there, that's giving him the slave master.
But notice he turns around and says, and likewise the husband.
does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
And so there's a mutual authority over the other's body that's involved in marriage.
It is not a master-slave relationship.
In fact, verse 5, do not deprive one another except to be with consent for a time.
And so it has to be mutually agreed upon if that relationship is to be withheld.
And so it's not a master-slave relationship.
and it's to be with consent for a time that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer
and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of
self-control.
And so again, it's not a master-slave relationship, but it is a mutual relationship, it's
a co-companionship relationship.
We talked about that from Genesis 2, 18-25, a companionship relationship.
She was his help-meet or help-suitable, someone that was just like...
Yeah, they were both like each other in that sense.
All right, so it's not a slave-master relationship.
So the vocabulary here is the word do la'o from a word do la'o.
And there's one translation that I'm immediately aware of that translates it enslavement.
And I believe it's the ESV.
You see, the ESV, the New American Standard will say a brother or sister is not enslaved.
in such cases, not enslaved in such cases.
And that's the actual word.
Now the other word, there's another word that's often translated bound that does have to
do with marriage, but that's from a different Greek word.
That is the word deo, a form of the word deo.
And Paul uses that word, he does use that in marriage contexts.
For example, in Romans chapter 7 verse 2,
Romans 7 and verse 2, Paul says, for the wife who has a husband is bound by the law to her
husband as long as he lives.
But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
Now that word bound is not from the word do la o, but that's from the word day o.
And so it's not saying that...
For the woman who has a husband is enslaved by the law to her husband.
No, she's bound, not enslaved.
But that's a different word translated bound than we have in 1 Corinthians 7 verse 15.
Now, speaking of 1 Corinthians 7, that word is also used in verse 27 of 1 Corinthians 7.
In verse 27, are you bound to a wife?
do not seek to be loosed.
And that word bound is not the same word.
He doesn't say, you enslaved to a wife?
No, he says, are you bound?
And then again, that's from the word deo, which does refer to the marriage, do not seek to
be loosed.
And then also in verse 39 of 1 Corinthians 7, where he's talking about widows marrying, he
does say, wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives.
He doesn't say a wife is enslaved by the law as long as her husband lives, but that word
bound is from a different word than in verse 15.
And I think it's very unfortunate that most of the translations that we have
at least I should say most of the English translations, they translate under bondage and
bound with the same word when really they are two totally different words.
The, I was thinking about the verses 11, 12, and 13 also might speak to that in terms of
commentary because again, you see there's no binding there.
You see, if they choose to stay, then you'll go ahead and let them stay.
It's not like, hey, they can't leave.
They're your slave or anything.
They have the opportunity to leave.
He says, but if they wanna stay, then go ahead and stay with them.
even the preceding verses don't point to this sort of kind of enslaved picture.
It all seems to have a harmony together like you pointed out with the Greek language.
right and that's that's a good very good observation because up earlier there was choices
and all of that.
And it is the ESV
Yes, enslaved.
Yes, so it translates that they are not, he is not, the believer is not enslaved in such
cases and we'll touch on that in just a moment.
But also, and I think back when I was one of the times I was in Africa, in Ghana, West
Africa, and one of the things we would do, we'd usually be there for three weeks, we'd
take one week, we would strengthen the congregation that we was newly planted and then
we'd
plan a new congregation, and also in between there we would have a seminar for preachers
and area-wide preachers to attend, and sometimes their wives too.
And one year we were doing it on marriage and the family, and we came across this
translation here in verse 15, and of course, you know, we speak in English and then they
translate into their local dialect, and the local dialect, you know, and they have
a...some of them will have a translation for that local dialect.
And as I was going over this knot under bondage stuff, the people were looking at me kind
of weird looking like, you know, or the translator was, you know, and then anyway, long
story short, come to find out in their translation, they didn't use the word bondage and
bound.
They had totally different words.
You know, the one in verse 15, as it should, meant enslave or slavery.
And then the other one meant bound as in the marriage bond.
You know, we have that expression, we tie the knot.
You know, that's the word bound right there, okay?
But when I was explaining this Pauline privilege, they were like, where in the world do
you Americans get this idea from?
Well, and I tell you it's because of our translations, our translations.
And it's very unfortunate, as I say, that it's only the ESV of the major English ones that
have the word enslaved in verse 15, which is exactly what that word means.
It's a different word than being bound in marriage.
So in their language, didn't, their language didn't even allow for
yeah.
Right, because, you know, so it's like if all you had, if all you knew was the ESV that
translated it, a brother or sister is not enslaved in such situations.
You would never connect enslaved with a bound in marriage.
You never connected.
And so they never did either as I was explaining this.
And I thought, wow, that's pretty awesome.
So even in Africa, and of course now usually the African translations are not that good
because they basically translate into the native language what the King James had, which
is not, know, depends on what you mean by that, you know, kind of thing instead of going
back to the original.
But in this case it was right on.
All right, so but anyway, the vocabulary does not support the Pauline privilege.
Paul did not use deo when he said you're not under bondage, he used enslavement.
You are not under bondage.
You are not enslaved in such a situation.
And so vocabulary does not support the Pauline privilege.
Secondly, the verb tense does not support the Pauline privilege either.
The verb tense.
Now under bondage is a perfect, what's called a perfect passive indicative form of do la
o.
perfect passive indicative which means to be bound as a slave and is coupled with the word
not which construction is known as a perfect tense negation.
A perfect tense negation.
Now what the perfect tense does in the indicative anyway, indicative mood, is it's
referring and this is from the the prospect of the writer
It's referring to something, the perfect tense simply refers to something that was
completed in the past, action that was completed in the past, but has continuing effect or
results, uh, completed in the past with continuing present results from the writer's
perspective.
And so if you have a perfect tense negation, it negates
that that action was even begun or completed in the past.
So it could certainly have no effect right now.
In other words, he's saying you've never been in that kind of bondage, which again is true
when you think of marriage is not a slave relationship.
So they have never been enslaved to one another, but they have been married to one
another.
They have been bound as, as per the word, NEO, but they've never been enslaved.
as per the word Dulou.
So this would be, from what you're explaining, this would be the perfect tense would be
something happened in the past and its effects are always going on, so it always has this
effect.
The negation would be it never happened and therefore that same.
result of never having happened is never going to have a result in the future.
So it's it happened, it always has result and it never happened and it never will have a
result.
Yeah.
Those are the two.
Yeah, it always has results at least from the perspective of the writer.
Now whether it goes future or past the writer, then we to look at the context and the
total teaching of the Bible to determine that.
But so far as the writer's concerned, it was completed in the past with his present result
as he writes.
And the perfect tense, good illustration of that would be in Matthew chapter 4 when Jesus
answers the temptations of the devil.
And most of the translations have, is written.
It is written, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, whatever, man shall not live by
bread alone.
But that's the perfect tense.
But some of the translations may have, it has been written.
Now, when I took Greek at the Florida School of Preaching back in the 90s, actually late
80s, early 90s, we were told to translate that perfect tenses, at least for class,
something like, it stands written.
it stands written.
Because we don't have the exact tense in English, but you know, the is captures the
present effect of it that has been connects what was done in the past.
And so both of those translations are correct in that we're trying to get the fit in, you
know, in English, some action that was completed in the past, but has continuing results.
And so when Jesus answers the devil in those temptations,
You know, it has been written, it stands written, you know, and notice, because he's
quoting from Deuteronomy in each of those times.
And Deuteronomy was written by Moses way back before Jesus spoke those words.
But yet those words have continuing present results, even as Jesus speaks.
Now, of course, Jesus might use the perfect tense for something that had to do with the
law of Moses, that in Jesus's day was, had an effect right now.
But for us, it's not because
that law has been done away so it just depends on the context.
Yeah, that's important to point out too.
While Greek is not always essential, uh you know, in terms of like knowing how to obey the
gospel, knowing how to love the Lord, things of that nature, with topics like this, some
of that nuance is very important knowing what the, because we don't have an equivalent
always in terms of Greek vocabulary.
We don't have as many moods and tenses and those things as you find in the Greek language.
And so for some more kind of nuanced understanding, it's good to be able to have at least
a cursory knowledge of some of the vocabulary.
And if not, you know, there are some great books that are available and great Bible
software that kind of helps us to see what these words and tenses actually mean before we
make an assumption about what it means to us in English.
What did it mean when it was originally written and how did those words kind of play out?
Yes, and we have a lot of tools available today.
I just think about these cell phones we have.
mean, you can do a whole Greek study almost at a red light, but not quite.
you have it with you all the time.
And so yes, yes, a person does not have to know biblical Greek to go to heaven, but it
sure helps in some passages to see what's going on.
And there's about three passages for sure in 1 Corinthians 7 where it really helps to
know.
the original language, and this is definitely one of them right here.
All right?
And so the verb tense does not support the Pauline privilege.
Notice Paul did not say that they were no longer under bondage or that they are set free
from bondage, but he is saying you have never been under the kind of bondage contemplated
with that word and with that tense of that verb.
And so the Pauline privilege is not taught in 1 Corinthians 7.15.
It's not taught either by the vocabulary Paul uses or by the verb tense he uses.
Both of those would negate the Pauline privilege.
But yet there are many, and some were very influential, maybe perhaps still are very
influential preachers among the churches of Christ who do hold to the Pauline privilege.
But this verse just does not support it.
and neither does the total teaching of the Bible when we look at that.
we...
was just going to throw in a couple of verses.
um You mentioned, and I really love how you phrased it, that Paul did not say that they
are no longer under bondage, uh that they are set free from the bondage.
And I just wanted to kind throw out that it's not that Paul did not know how to use that
language when it was appropriate.
There's a couple of passages, there probably more.
But two immediately come to my mind the first is in Romans chapter 6 where Paul says in
verses 17 and 18 But God be thanked that you were the servants of sin But you have obeyed
from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to you being then made free from
sin You became the servants of righteousness So he's able to use the language to say that
there was a situation and now there is a current situation and the second would be
Yeah, and before you move to the second, you can turn your pages there.
But in that passage you just cited, Romans 6, 16-18, that uses the very word doulao, a
form of the word doulao and doulas for being a slave to sin.
And that's the proper use of the word.
And of course you're a slave to righteousness, and probably the newer translations would
say a bond servant.
it's a voluntary thing because verse 17, since you have obeyed from the heart.
I think the New Verses do have that.
I'm trying to think of it.
I use the I-E-B sometimes to kind of cross reference, and I think it does have that in
there.
uh But the second passage is in Romans, excuse me, Galatians chapter 3, where Paul was
saying, verse 24, going into 25, says, Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us
unto Christ, that ye might be justified by faith, verse 25.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer
under a schoolmaster.
So in both of these passages he's able to talk about scenarios where something was and
then no longer is.
And the language is pretty precise and that's not what we find in 1 Corinthians 7.
So like you mentioned the vocabulary is important and the verb tense is important.
When Paul wants to make a point he can make the point and it's just not made in 1
Corinthians 7.
because Paul would know how to say, and this is what Stephen's just saying here, that Paul
would know how to say you're no longer under bondage.
Exactly.
Or you're set free.
He knows how to say that, but that's not what he said here.
He said you have never been, just with the verb tense, you have never been in the kind of
bondage I'm talking about here, which again is slavery.
And that point just has to be pointed out.
So we know what 1 Corinthians 7.15, not under bondage, does not mean.
Well, what does it mean?
What does it mean?
So let's take a look at this ah here.
What does it mean?
Well, bondage here does not refer to the marriage, but to the fact that the Christian must
not think that his or her spouse, or anyone else for that matter, has absolute power over
him when it comes to faithfulness to God.
That is because the unbelieving spouse departs from the marriage does not mean the
Christian spouse is compelled, that is, enslaved, to also depart from the marriage.
Now there's a really good commentary within 1 Corinthians 7 itself that addresses this.
If you look at 1 Corinthians 7 and go to verse 21, in 1 Corinthians 7, 21, now of course
here, and this will be our next episode, you know, it's in a section that begins up in
verse 17, as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him
walk.
And so a person can
continue in what he's doing as long as it's not sinful.
And we'll talk about that later, but you know, as long as it's not inherently sinful, a
Christian can serve God no matter what his marital status is.
And he uses these illustrations to show that.
When you get down to verse 21, he says, were you called while a slave?
That's doulas.
Do not be concerned about it, but if you can be made free, rather use it.
For he who is called in the Lord while a slave, doulos, is the Lord's freed man.
Likewise, he who is called while free is Christ's slave, doulos.
You were bought at a price.
Do not become slaves of men." Now that phrase, do not become slaves of men, is exactly
What he's saying in verse 15, you are not under bondage.
Do not become a slave of your departing spouse and leave the marriage also.
Now, if I had a whiteboard up here, I would draw a circle and within that, and I call that
circle, God ordained marriage.
And within that circle, I would put husband and wife.
And then I would, to follow 1 Corinthians 7.15, if she departs, let her depart.
You know, if the wife leaves,
the marriage, I would put a dotted line with that wife going outside that circle, but the
husband stays within that circle.
And so, not under bondage would be just because she goes outside that circle of
God-ordained marriage doesn't mean you go outside that circle of God-ordained marriage.
Again, because within that circle is keeping God's Word.
And that also reflects back up into 1 Corinthians 7, 12 through 13, where he says,
If the unbelieving spouse departs, no, I should say first of all, if the unbelieving
spouse is pleased to dwell within that circle of marriage, then he is not to put her away.
And likewise, the wife, if her unbelieving spouse, her unbelieving husband is pleased to
stay, dwell within that circle of God-ordained marriage, then the marriage stays intact.
But even if she does depart, and then we use...
principles of 1 Corinthians 7-11, if she does depart, she only has the two options, remain
unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.
And so, whatever the case, you know, two wrongs don't make her right.
Just because she leaves the marriage doesn't mean the husband does.
And then, of course, we have there, at the end of verse 15,
but God has called us to peace.
as Steven pointed out, often, yes, last episode, as Steven pointed out, we often overlook
that God has called us to peace.
Well, the only way to be at peace with God is to do what he says.
And if that means allowing the unbelieving spouse to depart and still holding out hope
that reconciliation can be made, kind of like the prodigal son and his father, his father
never left.
the family of being that son's father, even though the son did.
But yet when that son came to himself and came back to his father's house, his father was
looking for him afar off and ran out to meet him.
And that's kind of what's being depicted here in 1 Corinthians 7.15 for the believing
spouse who has not departed the marriage.
He is not enslaved just because one spouse departs doesn't mean the other one has to leave
that marriage.
And so that's kind of an affirmative of what it does mean, not what it does not mean.
It does not refer to what's often called the Pauline privilege, but it does refer to uh
remaining in the marriage bond.
That's good stuff.
This is something that I think every congregation needs to take time and study.
I think every Christian should take time to study because many people will be married.
Many people will engage in marriage and know people who are married.
And I talk to my girls about this all the time because it's going to be far too late to be
already enrolled in a marriage and then you find out, this is unscriptural or this person
is not a believer.
Now what do we do?
you know, think about it, understand the Bible.
What's God's will for my life?
God's will for my life doesn't necessarily mean, uh His will for my life is not
necessarily that I'll be married.
His will for my life is that I be saved through Jesus.
And so, you know, looking at this passage and weighing it out, some might say, well,
that's just, you know, not good, not fair, I can't do this, or, you know.
Jesus made a real play in Matthew 19, listen, for the sake of the kingdom.
So people wanna get to heaven bad enough, they'll refrain from everything that's sexual
and that, they'll become eunuchs for the kingdom's sake.
Whether that's physically or mentally, emotionally, they'll do whatever is necessary for
the sake of being in and glorifying God in his kingdom.
And so, know, knowing passages like this, understanding them, what does the language say,
I think is important for us all because ultimately,
you know, why would we seek momentary fleeting pleasure?
I want to know what God has to say to me relative to my marriage, my finances, and all
those important things.
And so I think this has been a really good and worthwhile study.
would encourage every person, every congregation, every group, whoever you are, to take
some time to...
to know these passages, to understand them, to study them, look at the Greek language,
look up some free Bible software, as Brian mentioned.
You can have it right on your phone.
And we are literally on our phones and iPads looking at some of the language.
mean, you can have it, most of this stuff is free.
There's some really good stuff that's out there that's not free, but man, that's good
enough stuff that's free.
And so you can have a good worthwhile study with some free digital material.
Yes, and we appreciate your listening to this podcast today.
And do we do encourage your feedback if you have any questions.
In fact, we can do a special episode at the end to deal with your questions if you ask
them during the season where we're aware of them.
And we would just invite your questions and comments and we would invite your feedback.
But we really do appreciate your being with us as we have outlined this Pauline privilege
in today's episode.
and we'll continue our study of 1 Corinthians 7, the expediencies of marriage.
And so join us when you can and these things are also play listed on our website.
Heaven tell!
All salvation is full and free to sin!
And lose all!
And see!
Go to judgment!
Tell!
Every nation!
Tell!
Every nation!
Praise the Lord!
Blessed Lord!
Salvation has been brought!
It's a blessing, home prepared, recovery glory.
in bright glory.
I have trusted in his love.
oh Praise his holy name.
Salvation has been brought down.
glory, praise him.
Salvation has been brought down.
Go preach it and tell it to people in sorrow Tell it today, tell it to all preach those We
might win a shining crown Heaven tell it all so all salvation is full and free to and lose
all over the land and sea Go teach it and tell it of our creation Tell it of our creation
Praise the Lord, bless the Lord Our nation has been raised