Studies in i corinthians

STUDIES IN I CORINTHIANS
BY GLENN PEASE
CONTENTS
1. THE INDWELLING SPIRIT Based on I Cor. 3:10-16
2. THE CHRISTIAN AND SUICIDE Based on I Cor. 3:1-17
3. THE CHRISTIAN AND DIVORCE Based on I Cor. 7:8-16
4. DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE PART 2 Based on I Cor. 7:10-16
5. THE IDEAL AND THE REAL Based on I Cor. 7:12-16
6. THE PAULINE PRIVILEGE Based on I Cor. 7:12-16
7. THE THIRD CHOICE Based on I Cor. 7:17-24
8. SINS AND MISTAKES Based on I Cor. 7:25-31
9. DEVOTION TO THE LORD Based on I Cor. 7:32-40
10. LOVE MAKES THE SIMPLE COMPLEX I COR. 8
11. FROM START TO FINISH Based on I Cor. 9:24 to 10:12
12. AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE Based on I Cor. 10:1-5
13. THE CONCEPTION OF COMMUNION CLARIFIED I Cor. 11:17-34
14. A MOVING EXPERIENCE Based on I Cor. 11:23-26
15. THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING INFORMED Based on I Cor. 12:1-11
16. TEST OF THE TONGUE Based on I Cor. 12:1-3
17. GIFTS UNLIMITED Based on I Cor. 12:4f
18. GIFTS FOR THE COMMON GOOD Based on I Cor. 12:7f
19. THE GIFT OF WISDOM Based on I Cor. 12:8f
20. THE GIFT OF WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE Based on I Cor. 12:8f
21. LAYING THE GROUNDWORK Based on I Cor. 15:5-11
22. THE BURIAL OF HIS BODY Based on I Cor. 15:1-11
23. THE GOSPEL AND THE BODY Based on I Cor. 15:1-12
24. THE CONTEMPORARY CHRIST Based on I Cor. 15:12-28
25. THE IMMORTALITY OF PERSONALITY based on I Cor. 15:35-49
26. BODY LOVE Based on I Cor. 15:35-49
27. THE RESURRECTION BODY based on I Cor.15:35-49
28. THE MYSTERY OF DEATH Based on I Cor. 15:51-58
29. WORK AND WAGES Based on I Cor. 15:58
1. THE INDWELLING SPIRIT Based on I Cor. 3:10-16
In the Old Testament the emphasis is on Jehovah, the God who is above us. In the Gospels the
emphasis is on Jesus, the God who is with us. In the book of Acts and the Epistles the emphasis is
on the Holy Spirit, the God within us. There can be doubt that this is the age of God’s indwelling.
Pentecost began a new relationship between God and man. Jesus pointed to it when He taught His
disciples in the upper room that the Holy Spirit, the Father and Himself would all abide in them. No

longer would God be one afar off, and one to whom you had to go. He will be nearer than your
hands and feet, for He will be within.
In the Old Testament this relationship was a promise, but at Pentecost it became a possession.
In Ezek. 36:26-27 we read, “A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and
I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit
within you...” The promise is of a two fold change. A man’s own spirit is to be renewed, and then
God’s own spirit will dwell within. Man’s old spirit in incompatible with the spirit of God, and so
there has to be a radical renewal of it before God’s Spirit can dwell within it. T he disciples of Jesus
were prepared, and their spirit was renewed, and they waited then for the promise of the Father.
Pentecost fulfilled that promise.
There was fire and a demonstration of power at Sinai also, but it was a fire that stirred up fear
rather than joy. Men were compelled by external power to bow and obey God. At Pentecost the
picture is radically different, for God no longer stands above and apart from man. He comes within
and demonstrates His power, and He gives His message through man. Keble wrote,
The fires that rushed from Sinai down,
In trembling torrents dread,
Now gently light, a golden crown
On every sainted head.
Men became the temple of God. This was a basic fact and essential truth of Christianity, but it
was one that was difficult to grasp, and it still is today one of the most difficult concepts for
Christians to make real in their lives. The Corinthians had an especially hard time understanding
this truth of the indwelling Spirit. Paul tries hard to get it across to them. They were very poor
Christians, and they were ignorant and immature, and some of them were even immoral, they were
still Christians. Paul begins this chapter by writing, “But I, brethren, could not address you as
spiritual men, but as men of the flesh...” He goes on to tell them how they are just like ordinary men
yet. They are jealous, envious, and they fight over which man to follow. They are like children
arguing over whose father is the strongest, and how many people their big brother can beat up. Then
he comes to verse 16 and asks this question: “Do you not know you are God’s temple and that
God’s Spirit dwells in you?”
It is obvious they did not know, or at least never gave it much consideration. If they had, they
would not have been such miserable specimens of the Christian life. In chapter 6 Paul repeats this
question again after pointing out that if they realized the Holy Spirit dwelt within them, they would
not continue to be immoral, and they would stop visiting prostitutes. Our bodies are to be used for
the glory of God, for they are temples of the Holy Spirit, says Paul. Only very ignorant and
immature Christians could be doing the things the Corinthians were doing with their bodies. Paul
knew that the key to their being lifted to a higher level was in the truth of the indwelling Spirit. The
more Christians are aware that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the more they will become like
Christ.
The tragedy is not just that the Corinthians did not emphasize this truth, but that it is still not
emphasized today. It is a revolutionary truth, and yet it is seldom heard or practiced. Christians do
not deny the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit, but they do ignore it. One of the reasons for this is the

fact that it is such a radical truth that even Christians fear to take it literally. It seems almost
presumptuous to claim that you are a temple of God. It would be construed as pride for me to say
that the trinity abides in me. People would either laugh or be disgusted. Can we take this truth
seriously? Can the infinite indwell the finite? It may be hard to believe it, but it is basic to New
Testament Christianity.
W. T . Davison in his studies on the Holy Spirit writes, “T he religion of the New Testament is a
religion of the Holy Spirit, and the Christianity of subsequent times that would realize the New
Testament type under new conditions must also be a religion of the Spirit. Most of the declensions
which have marked the religious life of Christendom have been due to forgetfulness of this
fundamental fact, and all striking revivals of Christian life and power have sprung from its
recollection and reinforcement.”
It is a fact of history that revivals are always accompanied with a consciousness on the part of
Christians of the work of the Holy Spirit. When Christians neglect this aspect of God’s relation to
them, there is cooling off. This means Christians more often than not are ignorant of this truth.
Sophir wrote, “For how long a period, even after the Reformation, were the doctrines of the Holy
Spirit, His work in conversion, and His indwelling in the believer, almost unknown.” This is the
hardest truth to get across to believers, but one of the most important, for it is a truth distinctive to
Christianity, and it is the source of the power to live the Christian life. Sir Monier Williams, a great
oriental scholar, asserts that the consciousness of a personal union and fellowship with God is a
unique feature of Christianity. He fails to find it in any of the religions of the East. Dr. W. L.
Walker in The Spirit And The Incarnation says, “The Spirit is the great thing in Christianity. It is
the distinctive doctrine, vital, fundamental and permanent”
The power of Pentecost and of the early church was not in creed or ritual, but in the indwelling
Spirit. A whole new relationship between God and man had come into the world. Peter said to the 3
thousand converts on the day of Pentecost, “You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Then he
says in Acts 2:39, “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Him.” No longer was the Holy Spirit to be confined to
the favored few. He would indwell every believer. Paul says He was even indwelling the
Corinthians, who such poor Christians. Of course, they were grieving and resisting the Spirit, but
they were still temples of the Spirit. Power for a victorious life of holiness was available to them,
but they were not aware of it.
James M. Campbell in his book After Pentecost, what? Compares the Christian who is
ignorant of the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit to a fish who lies gasping in the sunshine only an
inch away from the water. One flip would take him over into his native element, but there he lies in
a sad plight as if the water were miles away. Christians are always near to abundant life, for God
with all His resources dwells within, but we are so seldom conscious of this reality, and we do not
know how to take advantage of it, even when we become conscious of it.
Our whole way of life, and the total pattern of our culture make it hard for us to develop a
consciousness of the inner life. We seldom meditate and develop an awareness of the world within.
We do not think of preparation on the inside before we read the Bible, and yet men of the Spirit tell
us it is the key to Bible study. George Fox wrote, “A man can understand inspired Scriptures only
as he is in the same spirit in which they are given.” The unique New Testament perspective is to see

life from within. It is to see with the eyes and mind of Christ who dwells within. We depend almost
totally upon externals, but the poet reminds us:
The outward word is good and true,
But inward power alone makes new;
Not even Christ can save from sin
Until He comes and works within.
The inner life is the greatest reality, and yet it is the most ignored aspect of life. Even
Christians feel it is impractical and a waste of time to focus on what seems like self-centered
introspection. There is to much to do, and so we give ourselves to doing rather than to becoming,
even though the New Testament makes it clear that God cares more about what we are than what we
do. Paul says in Col. 3:3, “Your life is hide with Christ in God.” God hides within us, and we are
hidden within God. There is a mysterious hidden life that is the key to effective Christian living, and
we must give this truth its rightful place in our lives. Flowers spring from hidden seed, and the fruits
of the Spirit likewise spring from the hidden life of the believer. Only as we cultivate this deeply
personal and private relationship to the indwelling Spirit can we be outwardly productive.
If Paul expected the Corinthians to develop the inner life, how much more should we be
expected to do so? The beginning point is simply in awareness and desire. Do you not know you
are a temple of the Holy Spirit? To know it, and to keep it in mind will develop in us a new
perspective with new desires. A steady and consistent consciousness of the indwelling Spirit cannot
help but make a radical difference in our lives. It calls for concentration, for the very fact it is a
truth so much ignored shows it is a truth hard to grasp. It is like nerve action in the body. Muscle
action we can understand, but the nerves are so mysterious and hard to figure out. So the hidden life
of the indwelling Spirit is hard to be conscious of. To deny it or ignore it is as harmful to the
spiritual life as a ignoring nerves is to the physical. Whether you feel it or not, your nerves are in
operation for good or ill, and so it is with the Holy Spirit. We need to ask ourselves constantly this
question of Paul: Do you know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells
within?
2. THE CHRISTIAN AND SUICIDE Based on I Cor.
3:1-17
Shakespeare said, "Against self-slaughter there is a prohibition so divine that cravens my weak
hand." He was expressing the attitude of the vast majority towards suicide. We did not find that
prohibition in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. The whole Bible does oppose the
taking of one's life even if there is no explicit prohibition. Life is sacred; God is its author; we are to
present our bodies a living sacrifice; we are to do all that we do to the glory of God. No one can
doubt that self-destruction is sinful, and opposed to the whole plan of God.
So obvious is this truth that it has been recognized to be evil by the majority of non-Christians.
Pythagorus and Plato, the ancient Greek philosophers, condemned it "on the ground that we are all

soldiers of God, stationed at appointed posts of duty, which it is rebellion against our maker to
desert." Aristotle and Greek legislators condemned it as abandonment of duty to the state. The
ancient poets, like Lucretius the Roman, condemned it as cowardice. Buddhism and Islam condemn
it. Practically all pagans have recognized it to be a sin. The rare exception is the Stoics whose goal
of life was to avoid trouble and pain. If all did not go right, they encouraged suicide as a solution.
Zeno the founder hanged himself when he broke his finger, and the famous poet that Paul quotes in
Acts 17:28, Cleanthes, starved himself to death because his gums were sore. Apart from these we
have the whole weight of the moral conscience of heathenism again suicide.
That it is a sin we cannot doubt, and that it is a grave sin we cannot question, but what we want
to do is to get some answers to some very important questions related to suicide. These may be only
idle speculation for some, but there are Christians in our world who would feel them to be
desperately relevant, and the day may come when American Christians will also feel this. Now is
the time to ask the questions, and prepare ourselves for proper attitudes and understanding. T he first
question is this:
I. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A CHRISTIAN TO TAKE HIS OWN LIFE?
If we come to this question with preconceived notions, we will, of course, already have an answer
before we examine the evidence. There is only one preconceived idea we can have, however, and
that is that it is sin, and a grave sin at least as bad as murder. This means that we are seeking to
determine if a Christian can do the worse kinds of sin.
Jesus implied it was possible when He gave the Sermon on the Mount. He said that it was not
only murder when you kill, but it was also murder when you are angry without a cause, and so full
of hate that you call a brother a fool. This puts the believer in grave danger. This becomes
meaningless if it is not possible for the believer to do such evil. The whole New Testament implies
by its moral standard and prohibitions that it is possible for a believer to commit any of the sins
forbidden by the ten commandments. There is no basis for saying that the sin of suicide is
impossible for the believer. It is morally impossible, just as stealing, adultery, lying, and
covetousness.
What does history tell us. The question was debated in the early church. One of the big
questions was this: Could a Christian woman take her own life in times of persecution to escape the
dishonor she would suffer by brute soldiers, who would rape her before she was killed? Eusebius,
the church historian, Chrysostom, the golden mouth preacher, and Jerome, the Bible translator, all
favored it as the lesser of two evils. Augustine condemned it, however, and later church councils did
also. They passed a law refusing church burial to anyone who did so. The debate arose out of life's
battles where women did take their lives to escape the awful fate awaiting them. Even Augustine
allowed exceptions, since some were called martyrs and made saints. The modern Catholic
Encyclopedia says this question is still open for debate.
What is not debatable is the fact that true Christians did take their own lives. In more modern
times we find that after the Reformation the question arises again. There was no problem with
suicide in the so-called dark ages. It became a universal problem only since the Enlightenment. In
Tirospol, Russia in 1897, 28 persons buried themselves alive to escape the census which they felt
was evil and against God's will. In 1666 Russian Zealots looked for the antichrist to come so soon

that they urged Christians to escape him by suicide and entering into heaven. Whole communities
hailed with enthusiasm this gospel of death, and they put it into practice. Such fanaticism
characterized the Anabaptist also. They claimed they were setting up the kingdom of God, and they
brought destruction on themselves when they tried to rebel and make society socialistic. Luther and
his princes went to war and killed over 100,000 because of this fanaticism.
This was not suicide in the same sense as it was with the Russians, but it was close to it in terms
of the folly of it all, and in terms of getting Christian people so fired up over fanatical ideas that they
were willing to die for some man made scheme. The purpose of sharing this history is to show that
God's children can, and have, been victims of false and fanatical leadership, and have even taken
their own lives as a result. Martyrdom was so prized at one time that Christians fought to be killed.
Some early Christians deliberately threw themselves to their death under the delusion that a violent
death gained merit.
Leslie T. Lyall in his book Come Wind Come Weather gives an account of evangelical reactions
to the Communist takeover in China. Christian leaders were disgraced and accused by other
Christians of crimes and sins. He reports that people of evangelical persuasion were driven insane,
and a number of them committed suicide. These he mentions were leaders and not just new
Christians. They were people like T. H. Sun who was editor of the Christian Farmer. Some were
pastors, and one was archdeacon James Fu who was accused by his own sons. How are we to look
at this? First we must recognize the differences in cultures. To be accused by ones own family and
friends, and have public demonstrations, and have it put in the paper was, for an oriental mind, a
burden beyond us to comprehend. The saving face attitude is a part of the Christian life in the
orient, and this type of thing could crush the heart of even the strongest. It will not do to say that
maybe none of them were true Christians. That could very well be, but it begs the whole question,
and ignores the testimony of their lives. Since there is no basis for believing that it is impossible for
a Christian to take their own life, it is better to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The Bible makes it clear that the most godly of men can develop all the symptoms of loneliness
and despair that lead to suicide. Moses who was tired and discouraged cried out to God in Num. 11,
"The load is far to heavy! If you are going to treat me like this, please kill me right now; it will be a
kindness. Let me out of this impossible situation." Moses spoke with the mind that fits the majority
of people who commit suicide. Then there is Elijah who was emotionally and physically exhausted
in his battle with Jezebel. He cries out to God in I Kings 19, "I've had enough. Take away my life.
I've got to die sometime, and it might as well be now." Keep in mind, we are not looking at the
words of new believers who could not take the pressure. These were pros, and the cream of the crop
of God's best men. Job and Jeremiah both cursed the day of their birth they fell so low in depression.
What about the prophet Jonah who was so embarrassed because God in His mercy did not
destroy Nineveh after He preached that He would. He cried out to God in despair in Jonah 4,
"Please kill me Lord: I'd rather be dead than alive." Life was unbearable, and that is precisely where
the suicide is when he takes his life. From the time you ate breakfast this morning until the time you
eat breakfast tomorrow one thousand people will have killed themselves on this planet. And not a
day goes by but that some of that thousand are born again Christians. Christian doctors,
psychiatrists, and those working with suicide prevention centers as well as pastors know this to be
true. I have counseled a number of Christians who were suicidal.

Billy Graham has acknowledged that Christians can so fall under the deceptive power of Satan
that they can be enticed into suicide. Duane Peterson who headed the Jesus People Organization
published many letters from Christians who attempted or succeeded in suicide. Leslie Weatherhead,
the well known preacher and author in England writes, "When Captain Oates-a valued colleague of
Captain Scott in his epic journey to the South Pole-found that frost-bite in his feet was holding up his
companions, he walked out into the blizzard to lay down his own life and was rightly labeled, "A
very gallant gentleman." No one would criticize a man who, after a shipwreck, leapt to certain
death in a stormy sea because a raft containing women and children was already over filled." What
he is pointing out is that there are circumstances in which the taking of one's life is an act of heroism.
You might think it is dangerous to make these facts known, and ask, won't this encourage
Christians to take their own life? Not at all. The reason the Bible does not hide the deep negative
emotions of the best of God's people is because God knows that the key to conquering Satan's
temptation to suicide is the freedom to share your burden and be accepted. No Christian will ever be
defeated by the devil or depression who can feel free to share their despair without fear of rejection.
Christians need to know they can commit suicide and will if they refuse to use the weapons God has
given to outwit the enemy. If I fell and sprained my back I would not hesitate to share with you
about the pain, and get your encouragement and prayer. But if I fell into depression and life became
a dark pit with no light penetrating into my gloom, I may try to hide that from you, and in so doing
be playing right into Satan's hands. If I could treat my mental injuries as I do my physical injuries,
and be honest and open about them, I would discover they were often easier to heal than the physical
ones.
All of this is to say that we need not fear to talk of suicide and despair. Nothing is more
necessary than to get the gloom out into the light of God's love and understanding. It is the only way
you are going to beat it. Since most human beings consider suicide at some point or another, it is
folly to feel you are some kind of freak or weirdo if the thought ever comes to you. Fear it and hide
it, and it could ensnare you. Face it and fight it, and you will certainly win. Having thoughts of
suicide is not a sign you are not a Christian. Don't let Satan deceive you. Many of the greatest
people God ever used in history had these same thoughts. If you recognize this you will disarm
Satan of one of his most powerful weapons against you.
Christians can and do commit the grave sin of suicide, but they would do it far less if they could
only realize it is no different than temptation to any other sin. Christians are tempted to lie, cheat,
steal, and every other sin, but because they know it is possible to fall into these sins they fight the
temptation. But when it comes to suicide they feel so depressed over it that they tend to yield to
Satan out of sheer despair, and feeling forsaken even by God for such a horrible desire. Don't let
Satan get you into a guilt trip where he can persuade you that you are so unworthy that suicide is all
you deserve. Since all the evidence indicates it is possible for the Christian to commit this sin, the
next question is all the more important.
II. IS SUICIDE UNFORGIVABLE?
If a Christian does take their own life for any number of reasons such as, to avoid what they think
to be a greater evil, or out of devotion to a fanatical leader, or because pressure to the breaking
point, do they commit a sin so evil as to forfeit their salvation? We know Judas was not forgiven, but

the New Testament nowhere condemns his suicide, but only his betrayal of Jesus. Judas was not lost
because of the way he took his life, but because of his betrayal. Nothing he could do after that could
add to his condemnation.
Jesus made it clear that there is only one sin that is unforgivable both in this world and the next,
and that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If suicide was also unforgivable, Jesus would have said
there are two such sins, but he said there is only one, and suicide is not it. So then the question is, is
it possible to be forgiven after one is dead? Catholics have their purgatory, and so they say very
definitely the answer is yes. Protestants have no such doctrine, and so they have to wonder how sin
can be forgiven after death. If a Christian dies with some sin unconfessed, will he enter heaven with
a sinful soul? This is, of course, not possible, and so the common view is that when a Christian dies
he is made whole by the blood of Christ. If this be so, then we have no basis for saying the same is
true of the suicide who is a Christian. This sin will be cleansed by grace just as all other sins.
In debate on this issue one of the first text to come to the surface is, "Thou shalt not kill." I do
not know of anyone in all of history who does not agree that murder is forbidden by God, and that it
is one of the gravest sins. Self-murder then is obviously also a grave sin. But this says nothing
about it being unforgivable. David plotted to murder the innocent Uriah to cover up his adultery
with his wife. It is one of the most despicable sins of history. Yet I know of no one in all of history
that does not recognize that David was forgiven for that grave sin. What he did makes the suicide
victim seem mild in comparison. The suicide may be laying down his life for the sake of others.
David's sin was pure evil, and yet he was forgiven.
The Bible has been searched from cover to cover to find a shred of evidence that suicide is worse
than murder, and after reading dozens of books by those who have done the searching, I know of no
Bible verse that support the view that suicide is unforgivable. Karl Barth, one of the greatest
theologians of the 20th century, said, "If there is forgiveness of sin at all, there is surely forgiveness
of suicide." Bonhoffer and Thielicke are two other great theologians who agree. All you have to
ask is the question, did Jesus die for this sin also, or is this one He left out when He took on Himself
the sins of the world? Unless you would risk the wrath of God by adding this sin to the only one
Jesus said was unforgivable, you have to leave it where Jesus left it, and that is with all the other
forgivable sins.
Joseph Bayly, one of the outstanding evangelical authors, says that he finds nothing in the Bible
that alters his conviction that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from the sin of suicide. John R.
Rice, a great fundamentalist leader who has influenced millions, responded to a letter about a
Christian girl who committed suicide. He wrote, "I am so sorry about your sister, but I'm sure you
can have sweet confidence that she is with the Lord, and now happy." This is from a fighting
fundamentalist who split hairs over all kinds of issues. Why? Because he knew the Bible gives no
basis for thinking there is any difference in the destiny of a Christian who dies by the sin of suicide
then the Christian who dies with the sin of lust, envy or pride in his soul.
Where then does the idea come from that so many Christians have in their head that anyone who
commits suicide is automatically damned? It is a tradition that grew out of the middle ages, and has
not yet died, but like many old wise tales and superstitions it clings to men's minds. The motive of
the tradition was good. It was to so frighten people with the fear of hell that they would not dare kill
themselves. It probably saved many lives through the centuries, and still does yet today. But there

is a better way, and that is the way of truth. If the Bible does not teach it, then it is false doctrine,
and it is wrong to use false doctrine even if you do good with it. It is better to use true doctrine and
do more good in the will of God.
I have no desire to go and steal, or lie, or murder, because I know it is forgivable. Nor do I feel
less repulse by suicide because it is forgivable. But I feel more secure knowing that if I should be
deceived and fall into the snare of Satan, I am not cut out of the family of God. I have assurance in
Christ, and this makes me stronger to face up to the causes of depression that could lead to suicide. I
do not need to suppress it in fear, but I can openly face it in faith and conquer it. This is better than
going through life scared stiff that I could kill myself and end in hell. To prevent suicide by fear
does not lead to the abundant life, but to prevent it by faith does.
This brings us to our text at last. This is the only New Testament text I am aware of that is used
to show the danger of suicide, and to support the view that if one does take his own life he is forever
damned. On the surface it appears to be a sound argument, but closer examination reveals it to be
another case of taking Scripture out of context to prove something that the passage is not even
hinting at. The whole context makes it clear that Paul is not talking about their bodies as such, but
about themselves as the church-the temple-the dwelling place of God. The problem is that they are a
disgrace to the temple. All their divisions and strife and envy are terrible, and Paul rebukes them and
warns them that if they destroy the temple of God, they will be destroyed by God. Self destruction is
not the issue here, but the destruction of the body of Christ-the church. To read suicide into this
passage is called eisegesis, or a reading in of what is not there. It is an abuse of the Bible to use this
passage to deal with suicide.
It may seem to be a logical implication, however, since they body of a believer is the temple, and
even if Paul does not refer to it, self destruction would be destroying the temple of God, and would
be worthy of being destroyed by God. The only problem with this deduction is that it proves too
much. It proves more than those who use it would want to admit. It proves that one can lose his
salvation by doing anything that mars his body. This would lead to damnation for smoking,
drinking, getting a tatoo, and many other self inflicted injuries. Nobody wants to take this to its
logical conclusion, for it damns millions of believers.
The Greek word used here is worth studying. There are ten Greek words translated destroy in the
KJV. The differences are very great. Some mean to kill; some to demolish; others to lay waste or to
make of none effect, and still other to mar or corrupt. The word here is phtheiro which means to mar
or corrupt. It does not even mean to mar or corrupt thoroughly, for there is another word for that
which is diophtheiro. So the KJV translators had a right to give weaker meaning to the first use of it,
and say defile, for envy and strife do not demolish the church but they do defile it, and bring evil into
the holy place. The whole point is, if you try to draw teaching about suicide from this text, you end
with a view that Christians are in danger of losing their salvation for anything that mars of defiles
their body, or the church.
Even those theologians who strongly believe that it is possible for a believer to be lost do not take
this passage as support, for they recognize with all biblical scholars that this, though a serious matter
of judgment, cannot be applied to the loss of salvation. It does teach that the Christian who causes
division in the church is in danger of judgment, but even such an unholy Christian as this will not be
damned for his hindrance to Christ. If it could be made to mean this, it would be taken advantage of

by those who warn of Christians losing their salvation. Therefore, to use this passage to prove that
suicide is unforgivable is foolish, for it does not even prove that about the very sin that it is written
about, which is church division. If anything can be inferred from this passage about suicide, it would
be that there is more hope for the suicide than for the trouble maker in the church.
If suicide cannot be forgiven because the person doing so is dead, then neither can any other sin,
and we are caught is the same dilemma that led the early church at one point to baptize people just
before they died so they could die without sin. We need to face the fact that most every Christian
will die with some sin in their life. If nothing else, there are the sins of omission. If one needs to be
free of all sin to go to heaven, then all sins are unforgivable is not forgiven before you die. This is
theology not found anywhere in God's Word. All sin can be forgiven after death, and must be, and
this includes the sin of suicide. Paul says in Rom. 8 that nothing can separate us from the love of
God, and that would include the sin of suicide, or his statement is not true.
If all we have said is true, what are the implications? It means that the Christian must be on
guard and recognize they can be victims of Satanic forces; they can be misled by fanatics; they can
be crushed by psychological warfare, and circumstances can lead them to lose all interest in life.
These dangers are real, and they call for increased devotion and maturity in Christ. It calls for the
practice of the Biblical exhortation to bear one another's burdens. It calls for a commitment that goes
beyond all that life has to offer, so that we can say at the lowest ebb with Job, "Though He slay me,
yet will I trust Him." Satan is still going about seeking who he may devour, and not one ought to
know better than Peter that Satan is more than a paper lion. He has real teeth, and he who stands
must beware lest he should fall.
Self-destruction is just one of the many grave sins that Christians can be ensnared with. If we had
time we could examine many of the forces that compel people to self-destruction, and we could see
that all of us are subject to these forces. Our defense against these, as well as all forces of evil, is
constant commitment and growth in Christ. All sin is possible for the believer, but it is to be
avoided, and we must include more subtle sins as well. John Howe said, "What a folly it is to dread
the thought of throwing away life at once, and yet have no regard to throwing it away by parcels and
piecemeal." All of life is sacred and needs to be used for the glory of God.
3. THE CHRISTIAN AND DIVORCE Based on I Cor.
7:8-16
Dave Howell, The World Service Secretary Of The YMCA, was going to give a speech on his
experience in Liberia. There were three speakers before him, and the first mentioned that Howell
had come from Libya to be there, instead of Liberia. Howell whispered to the next speaker that he
would appreciate it if he could correct the mistake.
This second man rose to speak, and referred to Mr. Howell, there guest from Nigeria. Howell
nudged the speaker who was to officially introduce him, and reminded him to set the record straight.
The gentleman nodded, and rose to introduce him. He said, "Now it is my pleasure to present Dave
Howell from Siberia." There are some situations where it is so hard to set the record straight,

because you cannot get people to be accurate by focusing on details.
Agassiz, the Swiss Naturalist, was one of the world's best teachers, and many of his students
became famous, because his first lesson was on detail. New students would come to his study, and
he would give them a fish in a jar. He would tell them to observe it, and he would be back. He
would be gone for hours, and the student had nothing to do but watch that fish, and count the bones
in the fins, and the number of scales. They would get disgusted and discouraged, but when the
professor returned, he did not relieve them of their task of observing. For three days they spent
hours looking at that fish, and they learned the knack of careful observation of all detail, and the rest
of their lives were benefited, and they went on to become the best in their field.
If you want to be the best at anything, you have got to be an observer of detail. This is not the
same as being picky, and a person who is devoted to the trivial. Paul warned about getting all hung
up on foolish questions dealing with genealogies. There is also the folly of dwelling on detail. Like
the man who said, "My wife and I had an interesting fight last night. She said it was five days since
our last fight, and I said it was four." Detail is only crucial when our understanding of more major
issues depends on our grasp of detail. This is certainly the case with this complex chapter of I Cor.
7. Paul is making all kinds of distinctions in this chapter, and if you do not give heed to detail, you
will miss the essence of his whole approach, which is, a clear recognition of individual differences.
One of the first things you learn in counseling is that people who have the same problem are
radically different. You can not deal with people like barrels on an assembly line. You have to deal
with them as persons, and to do this, you have to reject legalism as your guide. If the church would
have followed Paul in rejecting legalism, and have dealt with people as individuals, there would
never have been the dark ages of the church, and the folly that has done so much harm to God's
people.
Just one illustration out of many dozens reveals the point. St. Benedict, as a youth of 16, fought
off lust for a beautiful maiden. So determined was he, that he cast off his simply garment, and threw
himself into a thicket of brambles and nettles. He thrashed and rolled until his body was lacerated
from head to foot. This crude, but successful, method of conquering the flesh made him a hero, and
he founded a monastery, and gained a great following, and did great things for the kingdom of God.
So far so good, but the church officials said, "What is good for St. Benedict is good for everybody,"
and they passed a law that said all priests were to abstain from sex. They were not to marry, or if
they were married, they were to stop sleeping with their wives. All clergy were to be celibate, or
lose their office. Some actually were successful. One holy man kept his wife at a distance for years,
and when she approached him on his death bed to see if he was still breathing, he gathered up his
strength and said, "Woman depart! Take away the straw, for there is yet fire here."
The tragedy, however, is that this legalism forced the non-gifted to live a life they were not fit for.
The result was centuries of Christian scandal. By forcing everyone to be celibate, they made a
mockery of all the Bible teaches about sex. Sex starved priests, by the thousands, who could have
been happily married, were visiting prostitutes, sleeping with parishioners, making all kinds of
arrangements with nuns, and, at one point in the tenth century, the Archbishop of Sens had the entire
Abby of St. Peter filled with concubines. Temple prostitution became as common as it was in pagan
Corinth.

You cannot begin to imagine the mess Christians have made in history by not paying attention to
Paul's advice. He is constantly making distinctions, but legalists make no distinctions. They just
cast everybody into the same mold, and say this is it, there is no other perspective. Paul says to
avoid to being a fool you have got to recognize that people differ. They differ in their gifts, in their
personalities, and in there circumstances. For example, in verse 8 he says it is well for the unmarried
and widow to remain single, but then he immediately says it is better for them to marry than to burn
with passion they cannot control. It is well to stay single, but better to marry if there is this
difference in their makeup. So Paul clearly puts the burden on the individual. There is no rule here
that applies to all. Which is best for you depends upon you, and only you can know what you are
capable of handling. It is folly to make a rule which applies to all which does not recognize
individual differences. T he church has tried it many times, and it always leads to tragedy. Those
who learn nothing from history are condemned to repeat it.
Two tired donkey's came to a stream on a hot day. One carried a load of salt, and the other a
huge pack of sponges. The one carrying salt went in first, and when he came out the other side he
called back and said, "It was easy and delightful," for his burden was lightened as the salt dissolved
in the water. The second donkey plunged into the stream and the sponges filled with water and he
drowned. The point is, do not assume that what is a blessing for you is a blessing for others in
Christ. It may very well be a burden to them. Celibates who feel all should be celibate, and marrieds
who feel all should be married, are dangerous legalists, for if they had the power they would impose
their preference on everyone. History is full of this kind of nonsense.
Paul will have no part of it. He recognizes distinctions, and honors individual differences. We
see him maintaining the same spirit as we come to his dealings with divorce. He makes a distinction
between marriages of two Christians, and marriages of a Christian and a non-Christian. His point is,
divorce in never good, but it may, in certain cases, be the only alternative that makes sense. The
case he deals with is a non-Christian mate who refuses to live with his Christian spouse. If the
non-Christian gets a divorce, Paul says in verse 15, let it be so, for the Christian mate cannot be
bound in such a case. It is obvious to all that a non-Christian can just say, "I refuse to try and save
this marriage," and go off and get a divorce. The divorce Christian, in this case, does not need to
have the slightest guilt for being divorced, unless, of course, they were terrible mates.
For now, let's focus our attention on verse 10-11, where Paul deals with two Christians who are
married to one another. He first addresses the wife, and gives a clear word of warning that it is not
just his authority, but from the Lord. The Christian wife is not to get a divorce. By not paying
attention to detail, I always saw this as a warning not to separate, as if the mere act of separation was
itself wrong. Paul is not writing here about separation, but about divorce. This is clear from the
11th verse, where Paul says, if the wife goes ahead and does what he says not to, she should remain
single or unmarried. Obviously, a mere separation does not make her single or unmarried. She has
gotten a divorce, and so Paul is saying the same thing to the wife as he does in verse 11 to the
husband-don't get a divorce.
The one thing that is clear in the Bible is that divorce is never the best way to go. Divorce is
negative. Nobody ever rejoices that a divorce is a part of their life. The most liberal Bible
interpreters recognize that divorce is a sad ending to a beautiful dream. The cults even agree, there
is no praise for divorce. Paganism, and even secularism join in the universal agreement that divorce
is not success, but failure. But the fact is, it is a reality. It always has been, and always will be. It is

a growing menace in our culture, and Christians can no longer be smug about it, for it is no longer a
problem of the world only, it is a major problem of the church. The church can never escape the
changes in the culture, and the result is, Christian marriages are breaking up at a faster pace than
ever in history.
It is not new, however, for Paul dealt with a culture where the same problem existed. He is
writing to Christian couples, telling them not to divorce each other. You may think Paul knew very
little about women, but he proved you wrong, right here. He told the Christian wife she was not to
divorce her husband. Then in the very next sentence, he tells her what to do after she ignores that
first command. Don't let anybody ever tell you that Paul did not understand women. Paul knows
some of the problems in Christian marriages are so bad that it is superficial to assume there will
never be a divorce. Instead, he assumes there will be, and so he goes on to say what the next step is
after a Christian wife does get a divorce. Paul was a realist. He would like to see all obey the first
rule, but he knew he had to have a back up plan, for those who would ignore it.
For example, let's get back to the Corinthian husband who is still going to the temple prostitute.
Paul knows he will not prevent this sin among all the men. The result will be, some of the wives
will be divorcing their husbands. They have a right to do so, for Jesus made it clear, this is a valid
reason for divorce. If a mate cannot be faithful, God does not demand that anyone live with such a
person. This explains why Paul does not lay it down as an absolute law, that the Christian wife
should never divorce her Christian husband. To do so would be to rob her of a God-given right, and
Paul knows he cannot do that. All he can do is go on to urge her to remain single, and try to bring
about a reconciliation. Paul is hoping that Christian wives can be channels of God's grace, and rise
above their rights to a divorce, and strive to forgive their husbands, and keep their Christian
marriages alive.
Paul has as great faith in women. He believes that they can let the grace of God triumph over sin,
and win a victory. You notice, he does not have any elaboration after telling the husband not to
divorce his wife. It is almost as if he is saying, if a husband disobeys, and does divorce his wife, the
game is over. He does not ask him to stay single, and try to be reconciled to his wife. I don't know
how much we can read between the lines, but it seems as if Paul is saying, he has more hope of a
wife seeking reconciliation then a husband. In the Corinthian context, and in much of history, the
wife usually gets a divorce because she is hurt and betrayed. She can be persuaded to forgive and
try again. The husband usually gets a divorce because he wants another woman. He is not likely to
be forgiving and be reconciled, for he has nothing to forgive, in that he is the guilty party.
Whatever the case for the divorce, Paul is confident the wife is most likely to still save the
marriage by not getting married to another, but remaining single, and seeking reconciliation. Paul
does not add another verse saying what this Christian wife should do
if she ignores his second command, like she did the first. What if she not only gets divorced, but
then, instead of remaining single and seeking reconciliation, she goes off and remarries another
Christian? Paul does not say, here is what you should do if you do what I told you not to do, after
you did what you shouldn't. In other words, Paul is not covering all the possibilities by any means.
What he is doing is establishing a pattern for Christian counseling, based on grace rather than
law. If a Christian does not chose the ideal, then you have to deal with them where they are, and
shoot for another goal which is best on that level. The Christian counselor is not to be concerned so

much with punishment for sin and failure in marriage, as with trying to gain victory over them.
Christians are making wrong choices all the time, and in the area of divorce and remarriage they
make a lot of mistakes. They often chose to ignore God's will, and deliberately sin, and get their
lives messed up.
Paul's approach to life is the Christlike approach. It often can be misunderstood as being soft on
sin, but in fact, it is the key to victory over sin. Jesus could have justly had the woman taken in
adultery stoned, but instead, he told her, go and sin no more. That was quite a light sentence for so
serious a sin, but Jesus knew you can bless people out of sin more effectively than you can blast
them out. Grace experienced by the guilty in forgiveness and acceptance saves people from more sin
than does condemnation.
The goal of Paul is to help the Corinthians get out of the vicious circle, where sin runs their lives,
and enter into an orderly and godly pattern of life, where they can experience peace. He does not
once hint at any form of punishment for those Christians who are still trying to live like pagans in
the realm of their sex life. He does not mention excommunicating this Christian wife who goes
ahead and gets a divorce. He does not suggest that the single who struggles with fornication, or goes
to the temple prostitute, should be rejected. Is Paul being too soft on sin? He is, if the goal of the
church is to punish sin, but if the goal of the church is to win people out of a life of sin, and help
them live a life pleasing to God, then Paul is doing what has to be done. Loving the sinner, and
accepting the sinner, while condemning the sin.
The legalist, in contrast, is not as concerned about the person as he is about the sin and its
punishment. The goal of the legalist is to see that the law is obeyed, or the penalty is paid.
Churches, like individuals, tend to operate on a value system that is guided either
by legalism or grace. The result is, you have many churches where this Christian wife that Paul
writes to, would be made to feel rejected, and would be forced to leave. Listen to the testimony of
one such contemporary wife.
"Its been 19 months since I've been a member of church,
and it will probably be 19 years before I am again," said the
young woman angrily. "I sang in the choir, attended every
worship service and worked in the Sunday School. When my
husband began to have trouble, we went to the pastor. He gave
us a lot of advice and tried to help, but it didn't work. We were
divorced. Right about that time the pastor was saying from the
pulpit that divorce was the biggest sin in America today. Well,
I didn't want to mess up his precious little group of saints, so
I just quit going to church. And no one asked me back. The
church isn't for the divorced."
This is not an isolated case. There are many thousand who have felt the same way, and many
have their testimony in print. June Carter Cash, the wife of Johnny Cash, wrote about her life, and
the fact that they were both previously divorced. They both became Christians, but they were hurt
most by Christians who could forgive thieves and
murders, but who, for some reason, felt divorce was unforgivable. She wrote, "There are those in
the Christian church who will never forgive us for those broken marriages. But Christ died for

people like me. People who mess up their lives and stand shaking in their boots with guilt,
wondering if they're really going straight to hell. But he tells us to repent, and if we really do this
and know in our hearts that He has forgiven us, then the sin is no longer ours. That's what I did.
And if they cannot forgive me, they must answer for that.
Please remember-we are justified in Jesus when we believe, but it can take a long time to be
sanctified." Never once does Paul single out the Christian caught in the tragedy of divorce for
special punishment.
The plea of Mrs. Cash is the very thing that Paul is responding to in this chapter. He is dealing
with Christians who are justified by faith, but who are not yet sanctified by a life of obedience.
Without the loving spirit of Paul in striving to guide such people, the church tends to become
legalistic. They say that now you have fallen short, you cannot teach any more, or be an officer in
the church. There are times when violating God's will does demand severe discipline. In chapter 5
Paul does demand that the man living with his fathers wife be excommunicated. But in this chapter
he does not suggest any such thing for those who are divorced. In fact, he has compassion for those
in circumstances beyond their control, such as the Christians married to a non-Christian who wants
to leave. In verse 15 he says if the non-Christian spouse divorces the Christian, the Christian is no
longer bound. In other words, Paul does not expect a Christian man or woman to be a slave to a
non-Christian, and their life style. If they go off and end the marriage the bond is broken, and the
Christian is free to remarry a Christian.
This merciful treatment of the divorce has been a part of Christian history. Let me share with
you a brief outline of the history of acceptable divorce in the church. By acceptable I mean, one
where there is a right to remarry and be blessed by the church.
1. Jesus said if adultery enters a marriage, this can be a legitimate reason for divorce.
2. Paul says, a non-Christian leaving a Christian is a legitimate reason for divorce, and the Christian
mate is not bound, but free to remarry.
3. The early church added that abandonment by a mate leaves one free to remarry.
4. When barbarians raided the Roman Empire, and carried people off to be slaves, if a mate was so
taken, after a period of waiting, there was freedom to remarry.
5. When a mate joined a convent or monastery, the other mate was free to remarry.
6. If one, unknowingly, married someone they found to be near of kin, they were free to divorce and
remarry.
7. If one discovered they were married illegally, such as being married to a bigamist, the right to
divorce and remarriage was granted.
8. In our day it is common for a Christian wife to discover she has married a homosexual. Even the
most conservative churches permit her to divorce and remarry.
There are no doubt others, but these are those I have picked up in reading Christian history.
What they reveal is that the Bible does not give us all the possible problems we may have to face. It
gives us principles that can be applied in all ages and circumstances.
What God has joined together let not man put asunder is true, but all agree that there are many
marriages that are not God's doing, and so man is free to put them asunder.
The divorced single is no different than the never married single, or the widowed single. They all
either have self-control, and can remain single, or they burn with passion, and must seek a marriage
partner. Those who put divorce people into another category that Paul does not mention, become

very superficial in their dealing with the sex drive. There are those who say that a divorce person
must stay single, even they do burn with passion. Paul says it is better to marry than burn, but they
insist it is forbidden that they marry, and so they must burn. These legalists, because of their
stubborn resistance to all remarriage, reverse Paul, and say, it is better to burn than to marry.
Paul wants the burning passion of the Christian wife to drive her back to her husband, and be
reconciled. But for the Christian who is divorce by the non-Christian, there is no going back. He, or
she, if they do not have self-control, are free to seek a new mate. The encouraging thing to see in
our day is that more and more churches are developing Paul's attitude. The goal is no longer to
punish, but to help people overcome guilt and grief, and begin again.
The six thousand member South Main Baptist Church is the largest of Houston's 222 Southern
Baptist Churches. They have 700 singles, many of whom are divorced, in their active membership.
They have a program for healing, and helping the divorced to start over. This is just one of many,
and we see that Paul did not write this chapter in vain. In spite of periods of legalism, the church has
been able to catch his spirit of love for the fallen and failing. Paul's message has gotten through to
millions. Divorce is always a negative thing, but God works in all things, even the negative, for
good, and this should be our goal in relating to all who have experienced divorce.
4. DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE PART 2 Based on I
Cor. 7:10-16
I got a kick out of the story I heard the other day. This man had gone to a psychiatrist, and after a
great deal of examination he asked the doctor, "What is wrong with me?" The doctor replied, "I
think you are crazy." "I demand a second opinion," the man insisted. "Very well," said the doctor,
"I also think you are ugly." The only relevance of the story to our theme is that we are also looking
for a second opinion on this issue of divorce and remarriage. We have looked at what the Old
Testament said, and now we want to look at what the Apostle Paul said.
The Corinthians had just about every problem known to man, and so we have their problems
being dealt with in Paul's letter to them. This becomes our blessing, for because of their problems
we have authoritative counsel on how to handle them. What we get from Paul confirms what we
studied before. Divorce is not God's best, and it is never His primary will. However, sometimes it is
inevitable in a world where everyone has a sinful nature. The principle we are seeking to establish is
that whenever divorce is legitimate the right to remarry is assumed. Moses and Jesus both assumed
that divorced people would remarry, and both gave assurance that it was proper and acceptable to do
so when the divorce was valid.
Paul confirms this in verse 15 by telling the Christian who has been divorced and deserted by a
non-Christian mate that the marriage has been dissolved, and they are no longer bound. Those who
do not like this conclusion go to verse 39 where Paul says, "A wife is bound to her husband as long
as he lives." They say this has to apply to the one that Paul says that is not bound in verse 15. It
cannot be both ways. You can't be bound an unbound to a mate at the same time, and so they say
this principle is superior to the words of Paul in verse 15. The confusion is the result of carelessness

with terms. Everyone agrees that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. That is an
absolute principle, and I have never heard or read of anyone even trying to find an exception to it.
There are no exceptions.
When you introduce the subject of divorce, however, you are dealing with different terms and
relationships. When a wife is divorced from her husband for adultery, as Jesus said, or for desertion,
as Paul says in verse 15, she is no longer his wife, and he is no longer her husband. If they were still
husband and wife, they would still be married in the sight of God, and, therefore, bound to each
other. Paul could only say to the wife in verse 15 that she is not bound, because the divorce from
her non-Christian husband made her no longer his wife. Everywhere that a true divorce takes place
the terms husband and wife no longer apply. We saw in part 1 in our study of Deut. 24:1-4 where
divorce changed the husband to a former husband, and set the wife free to remarry. Paul is not
saying in verse 39 that a former wife is bound to her former husband as long as he lives. That is the
very thing we are establishing that is not true to Scripture, and that is why Paul says in verse 15 that
a mate properly divorced is not bound.
We want to look now at what appears to be an exception to the principle we are expounding. In
verse 11 Paul tells the Christian wife who has divorced her Christian husband that she is to remain
single and not remarry, but rather seek to be reconciled. Here is a divorce where remarriage is
clearly forbidden. Why? Because in verse 10 Paul says this kind of divorce is forbidden. It is not
acceptable for two Christians to get divorced. Paul does not get into the exception of adultery being
a valid cause. He is just dealing with divorce in general. The kind of divorce he is dealing with here
is not valid, and so in God's eyes it does not break the marriage bond. Neither mate has the right to
remarry in such circumstances. One only has the right when the marriage bond is broken.
This is really not an exception then to the principle we are expounding. Forbidden divorce
naturally does not give the right to remarry. If you are married it cannot be legitimate to remarry,
for this would be bigamy. The point of the principle we are seeking to establish as being consistent
with all of Scripture is that God expects all unmarried people to have the right to marry. If you are
not married, there is no reason you should be hindered from getting married. A legitimate divorce
returns a person to the state of being unmarried, and in that state they have the same right to get
married as anyone else who is single. They will have the same desires and needs that lead them to
get married in the first place. There is no Scripture that says God expects them to remain unmarried.
In fact, all of Scripture expects that they will remarry. If marriage is legitimate for all unmarried
people, then all we have to do is establish that divorce makes a person no longer married.
Paul does this in verse 11 where he is dealing with the most unacceptable kind of divorce in all of
the Bible. It is the divorce of a Christian wife from her Christian husband. Note that Paul says that
if a Christian wife does this which is forbidden, she is to remain unmarried, or as some versions have
it, she is to remain single. There is no getting around this clear word of Paul. Even an illegitimate
divorce returns a mate to a state of singleness where they are no longer married. This Christian wife
is now single says Paul when she divorces her husband. She is not free to remarry, however,
because in God's eyes the marriage bond is not broken, and as far as He is concerned the man is still
her husband, and they are to strive for reconciliation. Now you can see that if the divorce is
legitimate, and is based on adultery or desertion by a non-Christian, the Christian is returned to a
state of being unmarried with no marriage bond existing. There is not a hint anywhere in the Bible
that this single person is not free, like all other unmarried people to enter into a relationship that will

lead to marriage.
We need to study these verses carefully to get as much light as possible on this issue. The first
thing Paul does is make clear who he is addressing. In verse 8 he addressed the unmarried and
widows. Here he addresses the married, and in v. 12 he addresses the rest. Ignoring this simple fact
that Paul is addressing different categories of people has led to misuse and abuse of this passage. If
you read 20 commentaries, 19 of them will point out to you that the rest that Paul addresses in v. 12
are also married, but they are dealt with separately because they are involved in a mixed marriage
with a Christian and a non-Christian. This is a totally different category than those in verse 10 and
11 where both are Christians and both are members of the church.
Some commentators who are more determined to defend their own views than they are to listen
to the Word pay no attention to Paul's distinction here. Listen, for example, to how one of them
avoids Paul's conclusion by forcing Paul to contradict himself. Commenting on verse 15 he writes,
"There are those who make this verse an argument for a remarriage of divorced people where they
point to the statement that a brother of a sister is not in bondage in such cases. But this argument is
negated entirely by the other statement of Paul in which he says, "But and if she depart, let her
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband."
Do you see what he has done? He has ignored the word of Paul to the Christian divorced by the
non-Christian to whom he says, "You are not bound." He goes back to the word of Paul to the two
Christians to whom he says that they are not to remarry. He takes the word that applies to the two
Christians and applies them to the Christian and non-Christian, and he just ignores Paul's conclusion
that they are not in bondage. He says they have to be in bondage yet, and not set free to remarry
because Paul said they are to remain unmarried, paying no attention to the fact that Paul draws a
clear distinction between the two categories of people.
This is clearly a stubborn refusal to allow Paul to speak for himself. It is done in order to avoid a
conclusion that Paul comes to that does not fit one's conviction. It is a deliberate abuse to take Paul's
conclusion on the Christian couple and apply it to the couple in the mixed marriage, for Paul comes
to two different conclusions. To ignore this is to reject the Word of God for the tradition of man.
You might differ with Paul when he shares his own conviction, but no one can question him when he
states what the Lord of the church himself speaks on the issue, which is the case here with two
Christian people. We need to get this distinction clear in our own minds. In verse 6 Paul says, "I
say by permission not of command." He knows his own conviction is not of absolute authority, for
in verse 7 he says he would prefer all Christians to remain single as himself, but he knows other
Christian feel equally strong in their conviction that every Christian should be happily married.
Christians have different gifts Paul says, and so he knows they will have different convictions, and
he does not expect that his will be acceptable to all.
In verse 12 he again says, "I say, not the Lord." In verse 25 he says, "I have no command of the
Lord but I give you my opinion." It is important that we pay attention to this distinction between
what is clearly commanded of the Lord, and what is Paul's conviction. Allen Redpath, the one time
pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, wrote concerning these statements of Paul, "In other
words, he is using his own judgment supported by what he believes to be the authority of the Holy
Spirit. That does not invalidate this teaching in any way. It does, however, recognize that in matters
concerning marriage there is no law so inclusive as to apply to every situation. Each case will call

for the careful exercise of human judgment under the direction and authority of the Holy Spirit."
What Redpath says makes so much sense to pastors who have to wrestle with real life situations
where there is no clear word from the Bible. Paul is doing that in this context, for he is confronted
by issues that never before existed. Paul could not look to Jesus for a word on a Gentile married to a
Jew who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. It did not exist in the day of Christ, and so Jesus never
spoke to the issue. Paul had to deal with it without help from Moses in the Old Testament, or from
his Lord. He had no choice but to seek the leading of the Holy Spirit for wisdom to do what was
best. This is what every leader has to do as he faces situations not covered by Scripture.
In verse 10 Paul says he does not have to wrestle with this issue, for he has the word of Christ on
it. Whether two Christians should get divorced or not is not a question at all. It is not a matter of
majority vote of the Apostles, or of Paul's conviction. It is a matter of the Lord's command, and Paul
says the Lord has said no to such a divorce. Note that Paul begins in verse 10 with the wife, and
then gets to the husband in verse 11. This is in contrast to all of the rest of the Bible. Why?
Because Paul faces a world totally different from the world of Moses and Jesus. Women did not
have the right to divorce, and so there was no word to them about not doing it. Paul, however, faces
a world where women had the right to divorce their husbands. They have equal rights in the New
Testament, much as is the case in our own day, and so Paul deals first with the women.
The Lord's command in the Gospels applies to wives as well as husbands, and so Paul says a wife
should not depart or separate from her husband. The wife is told not to depart because divorce for
her means leaving her husband and going back to mother, or elsewhere. Divorce for the husband
means to put away, or send away, and so we see two different words are used to describe the
women's perspective and the man's, but they both mean divorce. Paul says a wife should not depart,
but Paul knew that saying you shouldn't do something to a woman does not mean she won't do it. It
didn't stop Eve, and Paul knew that just because it was the Lord's command would not stop all
Christian women from doing it.
He goes on then after saying you shouldn't do it to say, but if you do, what you shouldn't do, here
is what you should do, when you do what you shouldn't. In other words, Paul had a backup plan.
He was no ivory tower idealist. He knew that real saints still live like sinners, and so he shows what
needs to be done when a Christian wife fails to do what is best. Paul says here is what is the next
best thing after you have missed the best. Paul's method here is a great lesson. Like Paul, we must
be asking ourselves all the time, what is the next best thing to do when we have missed God's best?
Some Christians are so pessimistic that when they fail to reach the ideal they collapse in despair and
feel defeated. The proper attitude is this: I have failed to follow the path to the best, but now which
direction can I go to still be in God's will, and receive the second best, or the third, or the 99th best?
This is Paul's approach to life, and it is the only realistic approach. Paul does not go on to look at
all the other possible problems that could develop if this wife also rejects his second command like
she does the first. What if she does go ahead and remarry after he says this is not acceptable? If she
remarried, she would be guilty of adultery, and would thereby destroy the marriage bond, and kill
the union she had with her Christian husband. Paul is hopeful that Christian couples will see what a
blot this would put on the church, and so avoid this kind of scandal. If the wife remarries another
Christian in the church, and the husband goes on to remarry a Christian in the church, it is not far
removed from wife-swapping, and the church would be disgraced before the world. Paul says two

Christians having serious marital problems may be forced to separate, and that is bad enough, but
they are to remain unmarried, and seek by all means to overcome their problems and be reconciled.
Christian couples have an obligation to Christ, and to His body the church to make sure they get
all of the marriage counseling available to avoid divorce. If divorce comes, they are to be open to
reconciliation. Even when a Christian couple get involved in a situation where adultery happens,
they should labor hard to bring about healing and reconciliation. Every author you can read agrees
that two Christian people should pay any price to save their marriage.
Paul does not deal with every possible exception. What if a Christian husband goes off to live in
adultery with another woman, and this leads to divorce? I know of a pastors daughter where this
was the case. Her husband is now married to the woman he went off to live with. The marriage
bond was dissolved, and there was no reason based on the Bible or tradition that would make anyone
assume that he was still her husband. She is now a single woman again, and she is free to remarry.
I know of another pastors daughter who was divorced because she discovered her husband was
homosexual. Nothing in the Bible deals with this situation, and so, like Paul, we have to deal with it
seeking the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. She got her divorce and remarried a Christian man, and there
was no way to see that this was not a wise thing to do. The bottom line in all of this study of divorce
and remarriage is this: Every situation has to be considered on its own merits, and decisions need to
be made in such a way that the grace of God dominates over any kind of legalism. This is a difficult
subject, and the only way to be right most of the time is to make love the priority.
5. THE IDEAL AND THE REAL Based on I Cor. 7:12-16
Mary was branded as a backslider when she divorced her husband of 20 years. Her church asked
her to resign from all her roles, and the outrage pastor demanded-how could you? Mary endured the
pain of criticism as long as she could, and then she moved away. The pastor of her new church
questioned her about her divorce. She burst into tears and sobbed, "No one knows what I went
through. He was a homosexual, and we hadn't had sex for 14 years. I pleaded with him to go for
counseling, but he refused, and would stay away for days with his friend. Finally, I told him you
have 18 months to get counseling. If you don't, I'm going to leave you."
This man was a Sunday School teacher, a board member, and good giver to the church, but 18
months later she left him. They seemed like an ideal couple, but no one knew the reality of the
situation, and so she was condemned as a wicked Christian wife. No one could help her until they
left the level of the ideal, and began to deal with her on the level of the real. That, of course, could
not happen until she shared the real, but she could not do that with people who refused to listen to
the real. The ideal is for two people to get married, and have a lifetime of sharing the joys and
sorrows of life. Adam and Eve had plenty of heartaches with the fall, loss of Eden, and one son
killing the other. We do not have a record of all they endured, or of all they enjoyed, but it was a
lifetime of both together, that is the ideal, even in a fallen world.
Unfortunately, the ideal is not always attained. Even God's people could not maintain the ideal,

and so God permitted divorce for His people. You would think God's people could hold to the ideal,
but it was not so. God is a realist, and He knew there was no point
in expecting His people to reach the ideal when their hearts were hard. God accommodated Himself
to man. He came down to their level of attainment for their sake. It was grace and mercy that
brought Him down to the level of permitting divorce. Men were so determined to leave their wives
for other women that if the law did not permit it unless their wives were dead, they would be tempted
to murder their wives. It was to prevent this worse evil that God permitted divorce. Divorce was the
lesser of two evils, and God is realistic. He will not demand the ideal if it leads to intolerable evil,
for then the ideal is a sham. Better to permit the lesser evil than to promote the greater evil.
This is the principle that guides Paul as he deals with the issue of the Christian and non-Christian
marriage. The ideal is to keep this marriage alive, and hopefully win the non-Christian to the
Christian faith. Paul makes it clear, if the non-Christian wants the marriage, the Christian is to
strive for this ideal, and not get a divorce. The real ideal is to always have two people married who
are Christians. But the fact is, all through history you have deal with the mixed marriage of the
Christian and non-Christian. This is a lesser level than the ideal, but on this level there are still
ideals to reach, and so the Christian is encouraged to live with the non-Christian and make it work.
But someone will say Paul wrote to these very Corinthians in II Cor. 6:14-15, and warned them
not to marry non-Christians, for what fellowship has light with darkness? Paul is trying to prevent
the problem that leads to so much divorce by warning of the conflict such marriages produce. The
ideal is to avoid the conflict by not falling in love with a non-Christian. But in our present passage,
Paul is dealing with the real, those who have already missed the ideal. They are already in a
marriage with a non-Christian. Does Paul say it is hopeless? Not at all. He says, if the non-
Christian is willing to live with the Christian, the marriage can work. I know of marriages where the
mates are happy, and truly love each other, even though one does not trust in Christ as their Savior.
It is a problem, but people can have good marriages in a less than ideal relationship.
Is it a sin for the Christian to be one with the non-Christian? Not at all. It is a sin not to satisfy
the sexual needs of the non-Christian mate. But if it is wrong to marry a non-Christian, how can it
be right to live with them and meet their sexual needs. We need to see that an act of sin does not
mean the same as a life of sin. If a Christian girl marries a non-Christian, that is an act of sin. It is
the sin of rebellion, disobedience, and ignorance. They are out of God's will in marrying a non-
Christian. Once they have committed this sin,they need to repent, and seek God's forgiveness, but
this does not mean they must reject their non-Christian partner. They do not now live in sin, by
remaining faithful and loyal to this one they sinfully married. On the contrary, they live in sin only
if they refuse to be faithful and loyal to their mate.
God accepts their marriage as valid, and one they have an obligation to make work. Here is
reality, a child of God married to a non-Christian, and the child of God is under obligation to this
unbeliever. God did not want his child in this relationship, but now that it is real, they have an
obligation to strive for an ideal marriage on that level.
Paul says in verse 14 that the non-Christian is sanctified, or consecrated, through the believing
mate. The result is, the children born to such a union are not pagan children, but Christian children.
Paul is saying, on the spiritual level the Christian genes are dominant. When a black and white
marry, the children are always dark, and never totally white, because the black genes are dominant.

So when a Christian and non-Christian marry, the child is always a Christian child, and never a non-
Christian. In other words, God looks upon all children from a mixed marriage as a part of His flock.
They are not saved by merely having a Christian parent, but they are a part of the Christian
community where they will likely become part of the kingdom of God.
Timothy was a product of just such a marriage. In Acts 16:1 we read, "A disciple was there
named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek." This
implies he was not a believer. Here is a non-Christian father who gave birth to a son, and he became
a leader in the Christian church. Many great Christians have had non-Christian father's or mother's.
One parent being a Christian means that the children are not unclean, says Paul. They are not part
of the pagan world in darkness, and cut off from the people of God. Not at all, they are part of the
people of God, and set apart to be in the service of God.
A marriage of a Christian and a non-Christian is not ideal, but it is a tolerable reality that can
even produce fruit for the kingdom of God. Therefore, the Christian is not to use the non-Christian
as an excuse for divorce. The believer is not contaminated by the unbeliever, but just the opposite is
the case. The unbeliever is made acceptable because of the believer. The non-Christian is not saved
by being married to a Christian, but he does gain a unique status before God, as one who is part of
the community of God's people. He is lost, but he is still part of the Christian community, and is
having an influence in that community. If it is positive, and he is growing, then there is a good
chance he will come to Christ, and become a full fledged member of the community. If he rebels,
and finds the whole relationship intolerable, he will probably leave the marriage, and find a mate to
his liking in the pagan world.
What this means is, if one partner is a Christian in a marriage, you have a Christian family. That
family is part of the kingdom of God. It is not ideal or complete, but, nevertheless, it is included in
the kingdom. God is not offended that the Christian loves, and makes love, to a pagan mate, nor
does in consider the offspring of such a union illegitimate. Again, we see God adapts to reality. It is
not the ideal, but he does not ring his hands in despair and refuse to have anything to do with the
mess. He says, I will deal with the real, and bring good out of it.
Paul does not say, if a marriage is not made in heaven, you can treat it as of no value on earth.
Not so-it is legitimate, and precious to God, and you can count on it, God will even hear the prayers
of this non-Christian mate for his children, for God considers them His children. So we see, there is
an ideal even in the less than ideal relationship. But in verse 15 Paul go on to deal with reality of
not being able to maintain this secondary ideal. What if the non-Christian mate refuses to live with
the Christian? If they refuse to seek the ideal, the Christian has to face this reality. Paul says the
Christian is not bound. When the Catholic church refused to let Christians be free in such a
circumstance, this became a major battle in the reformation. Listen to these words of Martin Luther:
"But shouldn't the Christian mate wait until his non-Christian
spouse comes back or dies, as has been the custom and canon
law until now? Answer: If he wants to wait for his mate, that
is up to his good will. For since the Apostle proclaims his free
and unbound, he is not obliged to wait for his mate but may
change his status in the name of God. I wish to God that people

had made use of this teaching of St. Paul, or would begin to make
use of it where man and wife run away from each other, or one
leaves the other sitting, for much whoring and sin have resulted
from them. This has been increased by the senseless laws of the
pope, which, indirect contradiction to this text of St. Paul,
compel and force the one mate not to change his status on pain of
losing his soul's salvation, but to wait for the run away spouse
or the death of the same. This means that the brother or sister
in such cases is truly bound in irons, because of the wantonness
and wickedness of another, and for no cause is driven into the
danger of unchastity."
The reformers were angry at the Catholic church because they were indifferent to the hardships
they created for people because of their legalism. They would not make provision for people who
were back in verse 2 of this chapter, where they were full of temptation. Paul said such should get a
wife or husband. The Catholic church said no, not even if you have been divorced, or if your non-
Christian mate has left you. The Catholic church clung to its ideal, even when it had already been
shattered. They refused to come down from the ideal to the level of the real. The reformers said this
is sheer folly. God knows better than that, and the church ought to follow His lead. You need to
come out of the ivory tower, and meet people where they are. Luther said, any Christian who is
divorced and finds himself in the position of verse 2, should remarry. Remarriage is always right,
rather than living in immorality.
There is a great deal of guilt over this issue. Many people struggle with whether they have a
right to remarry. Typical of many is the letter to Dr. C.S. Lovett. "Dr. Lovett, my husband divorced
me 6 years ago to marry another lady. He is still living. Would I be living in a state of adultery if I
married again?" Dr. Lovett replied that there is no such thing as living in a state of adultery.
Adultery is an act of sin, and not a state. Of course, if you are committing adultery over and over
again, you could be said to be living in a state of adultery. But is sex by any legally married couple,
adultery?
Most agree that once adultery has been committed, and a marriage bond is severed, and a new
marriage is entered into, even if the sin of adultery was the cause of the divorce, the new marriage is
not a living in adultery. If two people sin by divorcing without a Biblical reason, and remarry, they
do commit adultery, but they do not live in adultery, for once the former marriage is dead, sex in the
new marriage is not adultery, but an obligation. The point is, once you are married to a pagan, or to
an adulterer, or adulteress, you have all the same obligations as any couple who marry wisely. You
may be guilty of sin for getting into such a marriage, but once you are in you are not living in sin.
You cannot live in sin with someone who is truly your mate.
The woman, whose husband divorced her, and then she remarried, cannot commit adultery by
remarrying, for she is no longer a married woman. Her husband, by remarrying, has shattered their
marriage bond, and however guilty of sin he was in doing so, his present marriage is a real marriage,
and he is not living in adultery. He committed adultery by getting married, but he is not living in
adultery, for his new wife is his only wife. His former wife does not have a husband, and so if she
finds herself, as a single, in great need of love, and cannot be happy single, there is no reason in the
world she should not remarry if she finds the right partner. She would not be living in adultery, or

even committing adultery, for she is not married, and if her partner is not married, there are perfectly
free to marry with no sin whatever.
This is what Paul means in verse 15 when he says, the brother or sister is not bound. Not bound
means free. There is no marriage bond binding once the unbeliever has deserted. The Christian is
free to remarry because the union is dead. This is the key to all valid exceptions. If a marriage is
dead, and cannot function to fulfill the purpose of marriage, and it cannot be restored, it is no longer
a marriage, and people are free to remarry.
Paul prefers everyone to stay single. It is the perfect solution to divorce. Marriage is the primary
cause of divorce, and so you prevent it by never getting married. But Paul is a realist and he knows
people will burn with passion they cannot control if they don't get married. The divorce single is in
this same boat. Paul's logic must be seen here also. It is best not to remarry, but if you are going to
burn and be tempted, then get yourself a mate. Those who reject remarriage, and demand that
divorced singles remain unmarried are idealists who refuse to deal with the real as Paul did.
Nobody ever wanted people to stay single more than Paul, but Paul recognized this is not possible
for a great many.
Those who force Christians to remain single when they could be happily remarried, often drive
these Christians into an immoral lifestyle. They are actually forced to live in sin to avoid an act of
sin, and this is folly. Paul would have all giving singleness a try, but if the sexual frustration is
intolerable, his principle is simple, better to marry than to burn. That goes for never married,
widows, and the divorced. To say the divorce single does not have this option is to say, it is better
for them to become prostitutes, or live with somebody than to remarry, for remarriage is absolutely
forbidden.
The facts of life make it clear, the divorced person is often in greater temptation than anyone, for
they have enjoyed marital sex, and there need is usually greater than that of the never married. Men
tend to see the divorced woman as a likely partner, because of being deprived, and she too is open to
greater temptation because of this attitude of men. The philosophy of life that Paul teaches is, aim
for the ideal; strive to reach the highest; stretch for the best, but when that goal is not attainable,
make the best of the real level you are living on, for in those cases, the real lived at its best is the
ideal.
6. THE PAULINE PRIVILEGE Based on I Cor. 7:12-16
Thousands of young boys walked past the Bathwell Castle in England, and none ever dreamed
of climbing up the chimney to carve his name at the top. There was one exception, however. One
boy did the unusual, and his name was David Livingstone. That boy went on to become one of
histories most famous missionaries to Africa. Browning wrote,
You see lads walk the street.
Sixty the minute, what's to note in that?
You see the one lad astride the chimney stack.

Him you must watch.
Browning is saying, keep your eyes on the exception, for the exception may be more significant than
the rule. The age old saying that the exception proves the rule is nonsense. What it proves is that
the rule is not all there is. It proves the rule does not cover all cases, and to say it does, in the face of
an exception, is to say that a black sheep proves that all sheep are white. The exception does not
prove the rule, it breaks it, and shows that reality is more complex than the rule. Science must
constantly reckon with exceptions. It cannot say, light is always a wave, for there are conditions
under which light behaves like a particle. This exceptional behavior cannot be dismissed as
irrelevant, but must be incorporated into the total picture. Darwin had to postpone the publishing of
his book for 29 years, because he had to be honest about exceptions. Often he would exclaim,
"This little beast is doing just what I did not want him to do."
Ignore exceptions, and you become, not a seeker for truth, but a manipulator of facts to get your
own way, and a narrow minded legalist, whose only concern is getting your own way. The Bible
demands that you be open to the power of exceptions, for only those who are, are open to the spirit of
grace. Even under Old Testament law we see examples of exceptions that allow grace to dominate.
The law forbids the Jews to marry Caananites or Moabites, but Rahab the Caananite and Ruth the
Moabite are in the blood line of Jesus. They became exceptions by their faith, and played a major
role in God's plan.
The Jews recognized the need to be flexible, and open to exceptions. It was the law that all male
babies be circumcised on the eighth day. It was a sign of the covenant between God and Israel. But
there were conditions that could alter this law, and allow for an exception. A Rabbi wrote, "If a
mother has lost 2 sons by the fever following circumcision, the operation on the third should be
deferred until he is grown and strong." Here was a circumstance where holding to the letter of the
law would be cruel. You destroy the whole spirit of the law if you cannot adjust to exceptions. This
was the whole point of Jesus breaking the Sabbath laws to heal people. He was making it clear man
was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man, and, therefore, it is always right
to do good on the Sabbath. The rule is for man's good, but if the exception is even better, then the
rule can be broken. The exception is more important than the rule, if it accomplishes the purpose
that made the rule good in the first place.
Exceptions are so vital to the whole plan of God that there would be no New Testament without
the power of the exception. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, is the blanket of
condemnation that falls over the whole of humanity. All, that is, except one. There is one glorious
exception to this rule, and that one exception-the Lord Jesus Christ, by not falling short of God's
glory, made it possible for there to be a perfect sacrifice to take away the sin of the world. In other
words, through this one exception the door is opened for grace to triumph over law, and allow all
men to escape the condemnation of the law. God's entire plan of salvation is based on the power of
the exception.
Jesus stressed the motivating power of the exception in His own ministry. The 99 followed the
rule, and they stayed in the fold, but the one exception wandered away. Jesus says the exception is
what dominates the shepherd's mind, for he leaves the 99 and goes after the one to seek and to save
it, and when he does, all heaven rejoices over that one exception being found. T he point is,
sometimes it is the exception that matters most. Those Christians who refused to deal with exception

tend to become legalists, like the Pharisees, and depart from the spirit of Christ. Much of the conflict
of Catholic and Protestants was over this very issue.
Jesus made it clear in Matt. 5:32, and 19:9 that there was an exception which made divorce
legitimate. That exception was adultery. The word actually covers all forbidden
sexual relationships, including sex with animals. Jesus is saying there are some things no mate
needs to tolerate. He does not say they have to divorce for this behavior, but they are free to do so, if
they cannot forgive and be reconciled.
The Catholic church had to reject this exception. Their legalistic system did not permit them to
be open to the Lord's exception. They had developed the concept that marriage was a sacrament. A
sacrament is a means of grace, and once you have experienced a sacrament, you have received
something from God that can never be undone. Baptism is another of the sacraments, and so once
you have been baptized, they say, you have received the grace of God, and this can never be undone.
Applied to marriage, the Catholic church said, there can be no such thing as divorce, for once
married it is like being baptized, and you can't undo it. Only death can end a marriage.
Now, of course, they had to deal with intolerable situations, and so they called marriages like
Jesus and Paul deal with, not true marriages, and, therefore, able to be annulled. The history of this
is a terrible scandal, for people married for many years, with large families, could get their marriage
annulled, if they knew the right people, and had the power. The Catholic church had to deal with
exception, but they did it by pretending there were no exceptions.
Then came the Protestant reformers, and they began to question the Biblical right of the church to
impose on people what God did not. The first thing the reformers did was to reject the idea that
marriage was a sacrament. This was clearly a man made idea, for marriage is universal. All men,
even pagans and atheists, get married, and they do not receive grace in doing so, and so the whole
idea comes from the Catholic desire to get power in people's lives. The reformers discovered that
Jesus not only allowed divorce for the exception of adultery, but that Paul allowed another exception
here in I Cor. 7. Desertion by a non-Christian became the second exception the reformers allowed.
The Catholic church at the Council of Trent in 1563 blasted the Protestants for heresy. The two
sides became locked into their positions. The Catholics became more legalistic than ever,
and the Protestants became more soft hearted than ever.
Luther felt that the exception Paul allowed was based on the recognition that the marriage was
dead. You cannot keep alive that which is dead. This lead to their being still more exceptions.
Once you depart from the absolute of the Catholic church, you open the door to more and more
exceptions, and this is what the Protestants did. Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, and Zwingli, all
agreed that divorce was permissible for other reasons that destroyed the whole purpose of marriage.
They added such things as:
1. Impotence: If sex is not possible, and is yet vital to ones partner, they said there is no marriage,
and divorce and remarriage is legitimate. If a mate refused to meet the sexual need of the other, as
Paul stresses in the first part of this chapter, they forfeit their right to be married. We are getting into
touchy territory here, for the reformers are now going beyond Jesus or Paul, and we are in the area
where the Bible does not speak, and it did not end here.
2. Leprosy became another cause for divorce, for this made marriage impossible. Other sicknesses

were soon added, such as mental illness.
3. John Calvin added extreme religious incompatibility. And Italian leader in Naples became a
Protestant and fled to Geneva where Calvin's authority was strong. His wife remained a Catholic
and refused to come with him, even after he settled down and invited her to join him. Calvin said
the marriage was dead. He dissolved it, and the man was allowed to remarry.
The Protestant view seems to open up more and more reasons for valid divorce and remarriage,
for life seems to get more and more complicated. What if a man's wife became a witch? What if
she tried to poison him? Were these not just as serious as adultery and desertion? The Puritans tried
to limited divorce to the two exceptions of Jesus and Paul, but these other issues forced them to
consider more exceptions. In the late sixty's, the Baptist Convention of Canada called upon the
government to recognize divorce for incurable insanity, chronic alcoholism, and repeated prison
sentences.
There is much more of the history of this battle, but we have seen enough to get the picture. The
Catholic position of absolutely no divorce led to all kinds of cruelty and hypocrisy. But the
Protestant view of divorce for anything that destroyed the purpose of marriage led to more and more
exceptions. One refused to let the water of liberty flow at all, and the other produced a flood. The
conflict goes on to this day, and Christians still tend to fall into one category or the other. They are
either so anti-divorce they refuse to accept the exceptions, even of Christ and Paul. Or they are so
open to divorce they accept it as inevitable for numerous reasons. It is hard to stay in the middle, but
it is important to try and strive for balance. Which way you lean depends largely on how you
interpret Paul in this paragraph which deals with what have come to be called, The Pauline
Privilege.
Having studied the history of the interpretation of this passage, I have to take my stand with the
Protestant Reformers, and recognize that Paul has added an exception that Jesus never dealt with.
There were no Christian and non-Christian marriages when Jesus spoke, but Paul had to deal with
this issue, for when the Gospel came to Corinth, and all of the Gentile world, many families were
divided. On top of this, Christians were in the minority, and non-Christians were the majority.
Where that is the case there are always Christians who fall in love and marry non-Christians. Paul
would not have had to warn Christians not to do it, unless they were doing it. Paul was dealing with
a major social and spiritual problem that did not exist in the time of Christ.
That is why Paul begins this paragraph in verse 12 by saying, "I say, not the Lord." He has no
word of Christ on this issue, and he has not received any special revelation. It is a complex subject
the Corinthians have asked him about, and Paul is saying, here is my best judgment on the issue.
Notice, Paul did not say the Bible has the answer to everything, and then quote a couple of proof
texts to settle the matter. He says just the opposite, and says that we have no word of God on this
problem, because it never before existed. Paul is, therefore, setting a precedent for the entire history
of the church. He is saying that there are all kinds of new problems that can arise that are not dealt
with in Scripture. The Bible is not an exhaustive rule book to cover all of the issues that life can
bring. There is no law for everything under the sun. Instead, there are principles that the believer
must apply to make the best judgments as new issues arise.
Paul said that his best judgment in the case of a non-Christian deserting a Christian mate, was
that the Christian had no marriage, and was not bound. All of the reformers said, by being not

Studies in i corinthians

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Studies in i corinthians

Similar to Studies in i corinthians (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Studies in i corinthians