# 28: 5-1-15 E

First Corinthians 7:10-17

Paul has begun to answer questions posed by the Corinthian assembly in their letter to him. The first
question had to do with sexual relations - whether men and women should have them at all.
These particular believers were buying into part of the philosophy of the Stoics - that since the human body
was degraded, its needs were unimportant; the truly wise man is indifferent to such things.
This led some Corinthian believers to conclude that denying the body its sexual need would be a pathway
to greater spirituality - and certainly a means to elevate themselves above their sensual culture. From
Pauls lengthy answer, we can tell that within their various circumstances of life, these believers were
contemplating the virtue of leading a celibate life.
So first Paul makes it absolutely clear that abstention has no place in the marriage of believers. To deny the
body its sexual need - presumably being met in the marriage - would tend to lead to fornication. The
husband and wife are not to deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time of prayer and
fasting, when they together seek the Lord. But sexual relations between husband and wife are the norm.
Paul does indicate that it would be good if widowers and widows could remain celibate, like himself. This
would give them the freedom to minister without distraction or limitation, with the Lord.
But they can only live a celibate life if they are free from sexual desire - something with which God must
grace the individual believer. Otherwise, the good would be to remarry - for clearly, then, marriage is what
God has graced them with.
As Paul continues, he then returns to those believers who are still married. Well begin reading in verse 10.
[First Corinthians 7:10-17]
So we see that Paul is addressing those who are married, once again; first, those married to believers, and
then those married to unbelievers. Again, he is encouraging them to remain as they were when the Lord
called them to Himself, through the gospel.
Returning to verse 10, we might think that Paul has skipped around a little here - from the married to
widowers and widows, then back to the married again - but I think he was following a specific train of
thought. He begins with those who are currently married, but considering abstaining within their marriages
from sexual relations - Paul says no, they are not to abstain.
Then Paul addresses those for whom the marriage bond has been severed. What severed it? Death; a
natural severing, of the marriage bond. Did either spouse choose this severing? No; men dont have power
over life and death. Who does? God does.
So we could say that, in the case of widowers and widows, the severing of their marriage bond was allowed
by God. It was God who joined them together; and then God permitted circumstances which separated
them - death.
As Paul continues, his mind then proceeded to those in Corinth who would think to sever their marriage
bond in an unnatural manner; not through death, but through what? Through divorce. With divorce, it is
not God who does the separating; it is man.

# 28: 5-1-15 E

And to those who would think to do such a thing, Paul issues an unequivocal command: a wife is not to
depart from her husband; a husband is not to divorce his wife.
The words depart and divorce are intended synonymously here, reflecting the fact that the man usually
owned the home, and it was the wife who had to depart from it, in a divorce. In Roman society, either
partner could divorce the other. Paul is saying that neither is to divorce the other; that would be sin.
And notice where the command comes from; not from Paul, but from whom? From the Lord. What Paul is
saying is that these are the Lords very words; that Jesus spoke specifically about this.
And we know that, dont we? We just read it two weeks ago, in Marks gospel; and we find it in Matthews
gospel, as well. Lets go now to Matthews gospel, and refresh our memories.
Turn to Matthew chapter 19. This is the passage that precedes what Jesus said about eunuchs, which we
read last week. Remember that the Pharisees are testing Jesus, trying to discredit Him before the people.
They are trying to get Jesus to commit Himself to one of the two prevailing camps of Jewish thought, in
that day, concerning divorce.
With the Jews in Judea, only men usually obtained divorces, since it was quite disadvantageous
economically for women. The liberals felt that men could divorce their wives for any reason; the
conservatives, only for fornication.
But Jesus pointed the Pharisees back to the Scriptures - to the beginning, when the LORD instituted
marriage, and then He concluded, Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Mt
19:6). Since divorce is a man-made separation, Jesus makes it clear that this is against the will of God;
divorce in general is sin.
From this point, the account in Matthew differs slightly from that in Mark, and has an interesting addition.
Well begin in verse 7.
[Matthew 19:7-9]
v. 7 Similar to the passage in Mark, Moses here does not refer to the man Moses, but to the Law of
Moses. The Pharisees are challenging Jesus with what they consider to be a point of Law: they say the
Law commands that a certificate of divorce be given, and the displeasing wife put away. But notice how
Jesus answers.
v. 8 Jesus points out that the Law does not command divorce; it merely acknowledged the reality of it, and
sought to regulate it.
As we learned from the account in Mark, the LORD knew that, in their hardness of heart, men would
selfishly choose to divorce their wives. So through the Law, the LORD made provision for the wife in such a
case, protecting her reputation, and securing her legal right to remarry.
Jesus said, But from the beginning it was not so. From the beginning, God instituted marriage, in which
two lives are joined as one. God never intended for those whom He had so joined to separate themselves
through divorce. Therefore there is no command in the Law to divorce; it is not lawful; it is not right.
Since divorce was not part of Gods design, choosing to divorce has ramifications.

# 28: 5-1-15 E

v. 9 What Jesus is bringing out is that the regulation upon divorce found in the Law does not speak to
Gods mind concerning divorce; it speaks to mans hardness of heart. What speaks to Gods mind on
divorce is what Jesus quoted from Genesis 2: Gods original design for marriage.
Divorce was never a part of Gods design; therefore, God does not authorize it - even though He knows
that people will choose to do it.
Jesus shows that in Gods view, the husband and wife are still married. Therefore, if the husband remarries,
that would make him an adulterer; he is violating the bond of his original marriage, which is seen by God
as still intact.
And except for the fact that it is Jewish men who usually initiated divorce, we can see that Jesus lays this
out in a very equivalent manner, for both men and women - for any man who marries the divorced woman
is also considered an adulterer by God.
Marks gospel records Jesus speaking to the unusual case of a woman divorcing her husband, and marrying
another - she also is committing adultery (Mk 10:12). And Jesus said elsewhere that the man who divorces
his wife causes her to commit adultery (Mt 5:32). In every case, the guilt resides with the one who decides
to end or to no longer acknowledge the marriage. And the idea is that mans divorce certificate cannot
override Gods marriage contract.
But there is one exception that Jesus gives, not mentioned in Marks account; what is it? Sexual
immorality; fornication. If a wife commits adultery, she has already severed the bond of her marriage
through the unnatural perversion of joining of herself to another.
In such a case, Jesus is indicating that divorce and remarriage for the husband is permitted. And
considering the equality with which Jesus views the marriage partners, we can assume that the same would
be true in the case of a husband who commits adultery; that the wife would then be free to divorce and
remarry.
What Jesus was getting at with the Pharisees - and the people - was that they tried to rationalize their sin,
using the Law. They tried to find in it a justification to fulfill their selfish desires.
What they needed to do instead was to take responsibility for their sin - to recognize their selfish
motivations and actions, and to rightly see the ramifications of their sin. The goal was that this would lead
them to then repent of their sin; to turn from it, to Jesus, in order to be saved.
[Return to First Corinthians 7]
So we understand that here, Paul was citing the Lord Jesus as the source of the command not to divorce.
But as we looked at the words of Jesus in Matthew, we saw that important qualifier; divorce was permitted
in the case of fornication; specifically, adultery. So why doesnt Paul mention that, to the Corinthians?
Paul doesnt have to mention it, because adultery is not why these particular believers were interested in
divorce; quite the opposite. This goes back to their original question, which we have reconstructed to be
something like, Isnt it good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman?
These Corinthians were thinking that being celibate would be a more spiritual way of life. Paul has already
made it clear to them that they are not to abstain from sexual relations within their marriages.

# 28: 5-1-15 E

Now Paul recognizes that these believers may come up with a different route to achieving celibacy - by
dissolving their marriages. If theyre not to practice celibacy in marriage, they certainly could do it, if they
were no longer married!
Again we see in verses 10 and 11 that Paul places the marriage partners in an unusual order, for that day mentioning the wife first, and then the husband. Again the thought presents itself that perhaps it was the
wives who were more inclined to see celibacy as a kind of higher spiritual plane.
But instead, Paul affirms the marriage relationship with the strongest language and authority possible - no
less than the Lord Jesus Himself - we have His command on it. And if the wife goes against Jesus
command, and departs from her husband, Paul indicates her choice is to remain unmarried or return to her
husband. She is not to marry another man - for then, she would be an adulterer, as well - as Jesus had said.
And clearly, Paul intends the reciprocal truth, in the case of the husband.
Then Paul moves on to the case of a believer married to an unbeliever. Well read this again.
v. 12-13 When Paul says, to the rest, he means to address the situation he did not yet cover, for the
married believers in Corinth. The situation of which he speaks is when a believer is married to an
unbeliever.
Now, our first thought might be that a believer shouldnt have married an unbeliever, in the first place.
After all, believers should not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14), right?
But remember that the gospel had just in the last few years arrived in Corinth. When Paul first came,
virtually all of the inhabitants of the city of Corinth were unbelievers; some Jews, and many pagan
Gentiles.
Although there would have been many cases where the good news would have penetrated the hearts of both
a husband and wife, and even their entire household, there were also some cases where only a husband or
only a wife believed. These are the believers who Paul is addressing here.
Notice how Paul clarifies that it is he who is saying this: I, not the Lord. This doesnt mean that he is
just giving his opinion, or that his words lack authority; Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles; his writings in
the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit - as all Scripture is.
What Paul means is that the Lord Jesus did not give an express command concerning such a situation as
this; Jesus had no cause to, in His ministry. But within the sphere of Pauls ministry among the Gentiles,
such a situation has presented itself.
Remember the issue that the Corinthian believers raised with Paul was celibacy, to attain a higher level of
spirituality. These believers were not unwilling to abstain from sexual relations within their marriages, or
even divorce their believing spouses, to achieve their end.
So how much more willing would they be to divorce an unbelieving spouse, to reach their goal? With such
thinking, these believers may even have viewed their unbelieving spouses as a source of defilement, or as a
defiling influence. Divorce in itself would then become a way of purifying themselves for the Lord - at
least, so they thought.
But Paul exhorts them to do exactly the opposite; dont leave; stay. If their unbelieving spouse is willing to
continue to live with them, the believer should not seek a divorce, but instead remain in the marriage.

# 28: 5-1-15 E

Then Paul shows them why this is beneficial.

v. 14 With our usual specific understanding of the terms sanctified and holy, we find Pauls word
choice to be confusing. In the Greek, the word for sanctified which Paul uses comes from the word he
uses here for holy; theyre closely related.
So we wonder, how can an unbeliever be separated from the world, when hes still part of the world? How
can he be separated to God, when he refuses to believe in God? Can an unbeliever be consecrated,
dedicated to God, for His purposes? Can he be purified - when he is still in his sin? And how does having
one believing parent make their children holy?
But Paul is using these terms in a more general way, to simply mean set apart; he does not mean they are
saved. Because husband and wife are joined as one in marriage, the unbelieving spouse is set apart on
account of the believing partner - due to the believers sanctification.
The believing spouse belongs to the Lord, and is the recipient of His divine grace - His unmerited favor.
And because of sharing life together with the believer, the unbelieving spouse observes and to some extent
shares in the blessings of the believing spouse; in Gods protection; His provision.
Also, the unbelieving spouse is exposed to Gods thinking and Gods perspective on life, as well as
witnessing Gods transformative power, in the believing spouse; seeing it up close and personal.
The idea then is that the unbelieving spouse directly and regularly experiences Gods influence through the
marriage union with a believer; he or she is set apart in this sense, with the believing spouse.
Paul explains further that if this were not so, the children of such a union would be unclean - here meaning
defiled. Instead, the children are holy - set apart with their believing parent, as well. They, too, are exposed
to the blessings of the Lord, and to His thinking, through the believing parents training and witness.
In this way, Paul was showing the Corinthian believers that instead of their unbelieving spouses defiling
them, and defiling their children, as they were inclined to think, the opposite was true; their families were
set apart by virtue of their sanctification, with the Lord. Greater is He who is in them, than he who is in the
world (1 Jn 4:4).
This is of course if the unbelieving spouse is willing to continue living with the believing spouse. But what
if they are not? Paul addresses this next.
v. 15a The word for depart in this verse is the same as that used in verses 10 and 11, and is synonymous
with divorce. So Paul is clarifying an exception to what he has just said, about continuing to live with an
unbelieving spouse. If that spouse decides to separate from the believing spouse in divorce, the believing
spouse is not to stand in his or her way; they should give them the freedom to leave the marriage.
Paul continues, saying that the believer is not under bondage in such cases. But what does he mean by
that? This word for bondage comes from the Greek word for slave, and means to be subject to
something.
The idea is that the believing brother or sister is no longer subject to the marriage, to trying to maintain the
union with a spouse who is unwilling. They are free to live separately. Paul does not specifically address
remarriage in this situation.

# 28: 5-1-15 E

The last part of verse 15 presents a contrast to what Paul has just said - But God. He writes this because
he is returning to his thoughts in verses 12-14 again, and his exhortation for believers to remain with an
unbelieving spouse, if they are willing.
v. 15b-17 In verse 15, Paul is introducing the idea of Gods call, to them, as believers. Paul is speaking of
Gods invitation to become a son of God in His kingdom.
How did the Corinthians hear of this invitation? Through Pauls preaching of the gospel. Each of them had
believed, responding to that call - the calling of God, in Christ Jesus - a high calling (Phil 3:14); a heavenly
calling (Heb 3:1); a holy calling (2 Tim 1:9).
That calling allowed them as sons of God to transcend all of their earthly circumstances, so that they could
be at peace, regardless of what those circumstances were. So if their unbelieving spouse was willing to live
with them, they could be at peace with continuing to live with their unbelieving spouse - for the sake of
that ones salvation.
But wouldnt that be difficult, to live with an unbelieving spouse? Of course it would - because husband
and wife could not be like-minded. Their motivations and interests in life would be entirely different.
Decisions would be difficult; leadership or submission would be difficult; and love would be the most
difficult of all - for one of them has love only for self.
But what Paul wants the Corinthians to see is that this is where the Lord has called these particular
believers to be - in a marriage, with one who did not respond to Gods call, when he or she heard it.
Here are the circumstances which God has entrusted to these believers, personally - the place of His
choosing, for them to minister reconciliation, to one who is still at enmity, with Him.
This is a tight, narrow place - where all tends to be visible, on both sides - the reality of the two - together,
exposed, lived - and that, on a day-to-day basis.
So are they willing to be used of God, in that place? To bear witness to the Lord in the face of hostility - to
His truth, and to His goodness? To yield themselves - their will - so that they can be an instrument of the
Lords love - so that He can draw that soul to Himself? Are they willing to suffer, for the name of Christ?
For it is indeed a deep suffering - at the hand of one with whom great intimacy is shared.
To those who are willing, the Lord gives His peace, that transcends all understanding; His presence, to
encourage and guide; and His other-worldly joy - bringing strength to endure the course. And how do you
know? Your husband or wife just might be saved! It is well worth the cost - for Loves sake.
God has called believers to peace - to a state of utter contentment - because they have already been blessed
with every spiritual blessing to be had, by virtue of being in Christ (Eph 1:3). This means that the believer
is as spiritual as he can possibly be! Our spiritual blessings abound; understanding our resources and
putting them into effect in our lives is the issue.
As sons of God, believers have the ability to walk - in the spirit of Life - through any earthly circumstance no matter what it is. This means that believers can be content no matter what state theyre in. But such
contentment doesnt come naturally; its learned. Even Paul said, I have learned in whatever state I am to
be content (Phil 4:11).

# 28: 5-1-15 E
So how do we learn it? We learn it by trusting God, in our circumstances - in the place where God has
called us. We learn it by practicing to walk there - in the spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. Practice makes
perfect.
What Paul was teaching the Corinthians was that a change in circumstances would not make them more
spiritual. They could be at peace, in their marriage - or in their singleness - or in whatever their
circumstances were.
They didnt have to change their circumstances - because if it was truly good for them, God would change
their circumstances. They could simply trust all to the Lord - and live.

Reading: 1 Cor 7, Rm 6:14-23.