Not Under Bondage: The Pauline Privilege?

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 KJV

There are two marital demographics that Paul addresses in this text, “the married” and “the rest.” I am going to demonstrate that “the married” refers to marriages where both spouses are believers, and “the rest” refers to marriages where one is a believer and the other is a unbeliever. Paul never explicitly addresses marriages where both are unbelievers, although I believe that he implicitly refers to them in 1Corinthians 7:14.

Unto The Married

An important point to be made at the outset is the audience that Paul is addressing is the Church. The instructions in this text are given to Christians, unless otherwise stated; therefore, are to be understood as regulating marriage within the Church. Let us demonstrate that when Paul says, “unto the married (verse 10),” he is speaking to Christian marriages, and not to marriages of unbelievers or to mixed[1] marriages.

He is writing to those who had written to him (1 Corinthians 7:1). He is writing to people who pray and fast (1 Corinthians 7:5). He is writing what he ordained in all the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17). He is writing to the called in the Lord (1Corinthians 7:22-24). He is writing to the brethren (1Corinthians 7:29). He is writing to those who care for the things of the Lord how they may please and serve him without distraction (1 Corinthians 7:32-35).

These are the people that Paul is writing to in verse 10, namely believers. “The married” cannot be speaking of marriages where one is believer and the other is not. Paul addresses the religiously mixed marriages in verse 12 and calls them “the rest,” and “such case.” I think it is obvious from the context that “the married” are both believers. I am not alone in this understanding as the majority of scholarship also agrees.

““the married,” 1Co_7:10, where both husband and wife are believers”[2]

“in which he has respect to such as were upon equal foot in matters of religion, who were both of them believers in Christ”[3]

“to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10).”[4]

The text as well as these scholars agrees that “the married” refers to marriages where both spouses are believers. The rules that Paul gives concerning equally yoked marriages is: The first rule says, “Let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10b)…and let not the husband put away his wife(1 Corinthians 7:11b).” The second rule says, “let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.” This going to be set in contrast to the rules that Paul gives about marriages where one is a believer and the other is an unbeliever.

But to the Rest

What does Paul mean by the phrase, “but to the rest,” and what are the implications? “But to the rest” must refer to the marriages of a believer to an unbeliever. Paul says, “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him (1 Corinthians 7:12-13).”

Notice Paul modifies his language for the unequally yoked marriages. To “the married” he says, “let not the wife depart from her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10);”however, “to the rest (unequally yoked marriages of a believer to an unbeliever),” he modifies his command to, “if he be pleased dwell let her not leave him (1 Corinthians 7:13).” Paul does not place this qualifier on “the married;” their command is unequivocal, do not depart.

Paul gives a different rule to the equally yoked marriages than he does to the unequally yoked marriages. Evidently Paul and God viewed the two classes of marriages differently and placed different rules on them. It could not be clearer to the open mind that two different rules about departing exist in contrasting these two groups.

Not only did the departing rule differ, but the response rule for if they do depart differed also. For “the married (equally yoked)” the rule is “let them remain unmarried or be reconciled;” however, the rule for “the rest (unequally yoked)” is quite different. Instead of remaining unmarried or be reconciled like “the married,” Paul says the believer is, “not under bondage in such cases.”

The question is, what bondage are the believers, in such case that the unbeliever leaves, not under that the other cases are? The bondage that these deserted believers are not under are exclusive to their case alone. No one else has this particular liberty.

Those that hold to a no exception, or to a fornication only exception view of divorce and remarriage, argue that “not under bondage” does not refer to the marriage bond. They argue that what Paul is saying is that they are not obligated to follow them or make them stay, and that they can let the unbeliever go, but they can’t remarry.

Remember now, whatever “not under bondage” refers to is exclusive to “such cases;” no one else would have this liberty. If I can show that no one is under the bondage of merely cohabitating if they are deserted, then I can prove that “not under bondage” do not mean mere cohabitation.

“The married” of verse 10-11 are also “not under bondage” to cohabitate in any way, because they can also depart or be departed from and “remain unmarried.” So what is the bondage that “the rest…in such cases” are not under that “the married” are under? The only possible answer is “the married” are under bondage to “remain unmarried,” if they divorce; however, “the rest…in such cases” are not under that bondage. That can be the only liberty that this particular circumstance has that is unique to “such cases.”

---

[1] Religiously mixed, not racially mixed.

[2] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

[3] John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

[4] Vincent’s Word Studies, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 10.01.10, commentary on verse 12.

Is Transubstantiation Cannibalism?

I became interested in how Catholics would respond to the charge of cannibalism while listening to the Donahue-Martignoni Debate on transubstantiation. In searching the web I came across the following explanation.

"Cannibalism is eating of the dead flesh of a human person. Christ is not dead, His flesh is not dead, and He is not a human person (He is a Divine Person). Further, when a cannibal eats human flesh that flesh is gone forever. Over the centuries Catholics and Orthodox have eaten millions and millions of pounds of the Eucharist, and yet Christ surely didn't weigh more than 150 pounds or so. How is this possible if the Eucharist is cannibalism?

The very charge of cannibalism, the eating of the dead flesh of a human person, denies the Incarnation, the Divinity of Christ and the Resurrection. Since we Catholics don't deny any of these things, we understand that the charge of cannibalism is nonsense."1

This answer postulates that cannibalism is "eating of the dead flesh of a human person." So, eating the flesh of Christ is not cannibalism because Christ is not dead. This is absurd as the definition of cannibalism does not require that the person be dead before it is considered cannibalism. Cannibalism is simply, "the eating of human flesh by another human being."2

I would like to see the definition that demands that cannibalism is ONLY the eating of the dead flesh of a human. That is absurd! In fact, cannibalism is also defined as, "the act of pecking flesh from a live fowl by a member of the same flock."3 This the equivalent of human cannibalism; the same act performed by two different species. Therefore cannibalism is not limited to dead flesh.

This argument that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is not the eating of dead flesh of Christ is absurd. Jesus describes the blood and bread like this: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28 KJV)." "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me (1Corinthians 11:24). So, the blood that is drank is the shed blood and the bread that is eaten is the broken body of Christ. In drinking the shed blood and eating the broken body we show the Lord's death (1 Corinthians 11:26). So, if it is the LITERAL blood and body of the Lord, it is the LITERAL DEAD body and blood of the Lord. So, it would be, even by his definition, cannibalism.

Maybe this is an elementary and ignorant point, but if it is LITERALLY the body and blood of Christ, then have the Eucharistic bread and wine analyzed for traces of human DNA. What LITERAL proof do Catholics have that the bread and wine are the LITERAL body and blood of Christ? It would not be hard to prove, if the body and blood were literal. The bottom line is, there is no proof. All they have is their misunderstanding of scripture.

I welcome and solicit response from my Catholic friends. Please help us understand how this is not cannibalism.

Favorite Past Time

For those of you who know me well know that I love debates. I love debates on all different topics. I have debates on the following subjects: Godhead, Baptismal Formula, Infant Baptism, Essentiality of Water Baptism, Miracles, Gifts of the Spirit, Homosexuality, Papal Infallibility, Sola Scrptura, Women Preachers, Communion (one cup vs. many cups, Second Serving, First Day of the Week LS), Swearing (Oaths, Courts), Deity of Christ, Dietary Laws, Marriage and Divorce, Sabbath and more.

Today the debate that I am listening to is the Donahue-Hicks debate on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. Pat Donahue is affirming that fornication is the only exception to divorce and remarriage, and if one remarries for another reason they must divorce that unlawful spouse and seek reconciliation with the first spouse.

Olan Hicks is arguing that a person can divorce and remarry for any reason, and remarry and stay in that second marriage. Pat Donahue is doing a great job of affirming and defending his position. Hicks points out some interesting things, but ultimately falls miserably short of answering Donahue's argument. Good debate!

Week Old Baby Boy!

We are getting a 1 week old baby boy placed with us today. We are very excited. We have been wanting and praying for a boy. As usual we don't know how long we will have him, or ultimately how the case will turn out. However the case case turns out we glad to have him. We love foster care. It is such a blessing to provide care for the very needy (I do mean needy) children.

For the record, this is not an actual picture of the child.

The Master's Method for Measuring Mercy

But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; Psalms 103:17 KJV

God has mercy on them that fear Him. There are a number of powerful things that are inferred by this verse:

1. God does not decide to measure mercy to you based on the severity of your sin, but rather on the sincerity of your fear. If you fear Him, God will grant you mercy even in time of great failure. If one truly fears God He will give mercy and be long-suffering, because God knows that the person who fears him will eventually get it right. The person who does not fear God will continue to abuse the mercy and grace of God.

David's sins were much more egregious that those of Saul, but David feared the LORD (Psalm 103:17) and Saul feared the people (1 Samuel 15:14-15). Saul and David's stories end drastically different because of one single quality, the fear of God.

2. The second thing that this verse tells us, it is possible to fear God and fail God. It is often misunderstood that if you fear God you won't fail God. The measure of whether or not a person fears God is NOT determined by the magnitude of their sin, but the magnitude of their repentance. You can fear God and fail Him, but the fear of God will cause you to come to deep and complete repentance.

Note the difference in how the just man sins (Psalms 37:23-24; Micah 7:8-10), and how the wicked sins.

Psalms 36:1-12 KJV

1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David the servant of the LORD. The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

2 For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, until his iniquity be found to be hateful.

3 The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to be wise, and to do good.

4 He deviseth mischief upon his bed; he setteth himself in a way that is not good; he abhorreth not evil.

5 Thy mercy, O LORD, is in the heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds.

6 Thy righteousness is like the great mountains; thy judgments are a great deep: O LORD, thou preservest man and beast.

7 How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.

8 They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures.

9 For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.

10 O continue thy lovingkindness unto them that know thee; and thy righteousness to the upright in heart.

11 Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked remove me.

12 There are the workers of iniquity fallen: they are cast down, and shall not be able to rise.

Psalms 37:23-24 KJV

23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.

24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.

The wicked sins and shall not be able to rise up (Psalms 36:12), but when the good man sins the LORD upholdeth him (Psalm 37:23-24); the difference is the fear of the LORD.

Are All Marriages Equally Bound?

DISCLAIMER!!!: THE FOLLOWING POST IS NOT SOMETHING I AM CONTENDING FOR HERE, JUST POSTING IT FOR CONVERSATION. PLEASE COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENT. I WANT PEOPLE TO DISAGREE WITH IT!

1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

There has been much discussion about what Paul means by, “the unbelieving husband is SANCTIFIED BY the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.” A number of different views have been forwarded as possibilities. Inherent to each interpretation are necessary implications. The practical implications of a given interpretation must be considered while deciding which position is true.

CLARIFICATION:

1 Corinthians 7:12 KJV

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

One thing that I would like to clarify before engaging this text is the particular type of marriage that is being discussed here. The kind of marriage that is being discussed is one where a husband or wife is converted and the spouse remains unconverted. Paul is not addressing in this text, though it MAY apply, one who is already a saint in the Corinthian church and becomes “unequally yoked together” with an unbeliever.

“If either husband or wife is converted, and the other is not, they must not on this account forsake the unbelieving helpmeet, provided he or she is pleased to remain.”[1]

“This is a new problem, the result of work among the Gentiles…Paul has to deal with mixed marriages as missionaries do today in heathen lands...The Christian husband married his wife when he himself was an unbeliever.”[2]

“He has been speaking to the unmarried (1Co_7:8) and to married parties, both of whom were Christians (1Co_7:10). By the rest he means married couples, one of which remained a heathen.”[3]

“A Christian man, have a wife that believeth not, i.e. who is a heathen, not yet converted to the Christian faith, and she be pleased to dwell with him, notwithstanding his turning Christian since their marriage, let him not put her away because she still continues in her heathen superstition.”[4]

“that is, if any man who is now a brother, one called by the grace of God, and is in church fellowship, has a wife to whom he was married whilst in a state of unregeneracy and infidelity; who is as she was when he married her, entirely destitute of faith in Christ; not one that is weak in the faith, or only makes an outward profession, but that has no faith at all in Christ, nor in his Gospel, not so much as an historical one; who disbelieves, denies, and rejects, the truths of the Gospel:”[5]

“This might move a scruple in many minds, whether converts to Christianity were not bound to put away or desert their mates, continuing infidels.”[6]

Keep this idea in mind as we continue to study through this text. If one concedes that this interpretation is true, it changes and greatly impacts the way the text is viewed.

INTERPRETATION:

What is Sanctification?

The purpose of this blog is to set forth one of the interpretations as a possibility and briefly explore its practical implications. What does “sanctified” refer to? The various views are laid out by Albert Barnes:

“But the expression cannot mean here: (1) That the unbelieving husband would become holy, or be a Christian, “by the mere fact” of a connection “with” a Christian, for this would be to do violence to the words, and would be contrary to facts everywhere; nor, (2) That the unbelieving husband had been sanctified by the Christian wife (Whitby), for this would not be true in all cases; nor, (3) That the unbelieving husband would gradually become more favorably inclined to Christianity, by observing its effects on the wife (according to Semler); for, though this might be true, yet the apostle was speaking of something then, and which rendered their children at that time holy; nor, (4) That the unbelieving husband might more easily be sanctified, or become a Christian, by being connected with a Christian wife (according to Rosenmuller and Schleusner), because he is speaking of something in the connection which made the children holy; and because the word ἁγιάζω hagiazō is not used in this sense elsewhere. But it is a good rule of interpretation, that the words which are used in any place are to be limited in their signification by the connection; and all that we are required to understand here is, that the unbelieving husband was sanctified “in regard to the subject under discussion;” that is, in regard to the question whether it was proper for them to live together, or whether they should be separated or not. And the sense may be, “They are by the marriage tie one flesh. They are indissolubly united by the ordinance of God. As they are one by his appointment, as they have received his sanction to the marriage union, and as one of them is holy, so the other is to be regarded as sanctified, or made so holy by the divine sanction to the union, that it is proper for them to live together in the marriage relation.””[7]

For the reasons listed above Albert Barnes argues that sanctification in this text refers to the sanctification of the marriage bond; the right for this believer and unbeliever to be married. Paul cannot be arguing for personal sanctification in the salvific sense. It appears to me the only possibility is sanctification of the marriage bond.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown says:

“It is the fact of the husband being a “brother,” that is, a Christian, though the wife is not so, that sanctifies or hallows the union.”[8]

JFB also agrees that sanctification refers to the marriage union and not to the individual person of the unbelieving spouse.

It is impossible to read this text without knowing that Paul has in mind Ezra 10:1-3 and the command to put away strange wives. The wives were to be put away solely on the basis that they were heathen. It is important to note that these marriages between Jew and heathen were treated differently than marriages between Jew and Jew. God had command his people not to marry those from other nations (Exedous 34:12-17); therefore the rules of marriage did not apply.

Paul corrects the idea in the church at Corinth that one can put away a spouse solely because they are pagan; however, he too gives a different rule for marriage with two believers than he does marriages where one is a believer and the other is an unbeliever.

Paul says to the married (equally yoked marriages), “let not the wife depart from her husband, but and if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).” Then Paul says, “but to the rest…if any brother hath a wife that believeth not (1 Corinthians 7:12),” he shifts from equally yoked marriages to unequally yoked marriages. To the equally yoked marriages in verses 10 and 11 his instructions are, “let them remain unmarried, or be reconciled.” When addressing the unequally yokes marriages, and the unbeliever deserting the believer, instead of saying, “remain unmarried or be reconciled,” he says, “a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.”

Why the different instructions if God views both marriages equally? Because even though God sanctified the marriage because of the believer, he still views it differently than He does when two believers are married. Why? What is the difference? Why the different rules?

Sanctified, but How?

(1 Corinthians 7:14)

We have clearly demonstrated that there is some sort of difference in God’s eyes between equally yoked and unequally yoked marriages. I suggest to you that the difference is faith. How did sanctification come to the mixed marriage union in 1 Corinthians 7:14? According to the text, sanctification comes “by the believing.”

The unbeliever is “sanctified by” the believer. What does it mean when the Bible uses the phrase “sanctified by?” In every case, whatever the bible says someone or something is sanctified by, it cannot be sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT it. “Sanctified by” describes the means through which the sanctification occurs. Let’s Illustrate.

Acts 26:18 KJV To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Could they have been sanctified BEFORE or WITOUT faith? No!

Romans 15:16 KJV That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Could the Gentiles have been sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT the Holy Ghost? No!

1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Can one be sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT the name of Jesus and the Spirit of our God? No!

1 Timothy 4:5 KJV For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Could this food have been sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT the Word and prayer? No!

Jude 1:1 KJV Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

Can sanctification occur BEFORE or WITHOUT God the Father? No!

Now my friends, apply the same principle to 1 Corinthians 7:14. The marriage of unbelievers cannot be sanctified BEFORE or WITHOUT a believer, because the believer is the means by which the union is sanctified. Marriage without a believer is not sanctified!

Before you insist too heavily that all heterosexual, first marriages are inherently sanctified by God, and are therefore subject to the same rules of marriage, let me remind you of Ezra 10 where marriages were to be put away entirely and solely because an unbeliever/pagan was involved. Ezra 10 and 1 Corinthians 7 proves that God judges marriages that include unbelievers differently and that they have a different set of parameters.

Else Were Your Children Unclean

(1 Corinthians 7:14)

I am not going to spend a lot of time here, but Paul further illustrates my previous point by saying, “else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” “Unclean,” is set in the same context with and in contrast to “sanctified.” Whatever sanctified means, unclean means the opposite. “Sanctified” refers to the marriage union being sanctified in the ceremonial sense, and so “unclean” and “holy” must refer to the ceremonial condition of the children depending on whether the marriage is sanctified or not.

If the marriage is sanctified, then the children are holy; however, if the marriage is not sanctified, then the children are considered unclean (illegitimate). Else, meaning if the union is not sanctified by having a believer in it, the children are illegitimate. The union is sanctified, not because they are legally married. The union is not “ sanctified by the law,” but the union is “sanctified by the believing.” This means that children from a marriage union that is not sanctified by having at least one believer in it are considered unclean.

IMPLICATION:

So, the implication and practical application is that since marriage unions are not sanctified without one of the spouses being a believer, whenever someone comes to Christ and they are divorced for whatever reason they can remarry in the church. A divorced person who becomes a Christian can remarry in the Church regardless of the reason for the divorce, since his faithless marriage was never sanctified.

---

[1] Peoples New Testament, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[2] Roberson’s Word Pictures, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[3] Vincent’s Word Studies, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[4] Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[5] John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[6] Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[7] Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

[8] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, E-Sword Version 9.5.1, Retrieved 09.28.10

Ambition: Steve Pixler

This is an essential message to every preacher, especially young ones. It is also essential to any person aspiring to be used by God in any way. This is a MUST hear message.