First Corinthians 7:15-40
So, does this passage justify divorce? If so, for what reasons?
Also, does this passage justify slavery? (v.20-22) What is the key truth Paul is presenting here?
I find Paul's comments on marriage humorous. He certainly has no desire to be married, and wants all other believers to avoid the responsibilities of marriage, if one can do so without sin. Two observations. 1) Again, Paul is concerned about the end of time, so he views marriages and families as a luxury (i.e., for sexual purity) and not a necessity for the preparation of the church for the coming of Christ's kingdom. 2) In discussing marital issues, Paul gives his own advice, and does not present his message as a prophetic word from God (v.25). So, he gives his best opinion, but does not judge anyone concerning marriage or singleness.
So, note Paul's passion for the Gospel, for sexual purity, and for a right relationship with God. I think these are the driving forces behind his comments here. It also forces the questions: what would I give up to serve God? What am I already committed to in this life that I can use for God's glory? Am I serving God to the best of my ability in the life that he has given me? Remember, Paul is not calling for these people to make drastic changes in their walk of life. He is calling on them to live the Gospel right where they currently are. In Paul's mind, this is where God has placed them, and they need to shine!
Also, does this passage justify slavery? (v.20-22) What is the key truth Paul is presenting here?
I find Paul's comments on marriage humorous. He certainly has no desire to be married, and wants all other believers to avoid the responsibilities of marriage, if one can do so without sin. Two observations. 1) Again, Paul is concerned about the end of time, so he views marriages and families as a luxury (i.e., for sexual purity) and not a necessity for the preparation of the church for the coming of Christ's kingdom. 2) In discussing marital issues, Paul gives his own advice, and does not present his message as a prophetic word from God (v.25). So, he gives his best opinion, but does not judge anyone concerning marriage or singleness.
So, note Paul's passion for the Gospel, for sexual purity, and for a right relationship with God. I think these are the driving forces behind his comments here. It also forces the questions: what would I give up to serve God? What am I already committed to in this life that I can use for God's glory? Am I serving God to the best of my ability in the life that he has given me? Remember, Paul is not calling for these people to make drastic changes in their walk of life. He is calling on them to live the Gospel right where they currently are. In Paul's mind, this is where God has placed them, and they need to shine!
Labels: divorce, First Corinthians, marriage, sacrifice, sexual purity, slavery
posted by Randy Rogers at
9:47 AM
4 Comments:
I got no probems with it from a personal point of view and an observed situation whereby woman was faithful in her attendance and prayers incorporating the church into a prayer vigil which lasted many years and several deacons until the unbelieving spouse was convicned of his need for Jesus and confessed the same before the church and ws baptised and is today a leading deacon of that church!
RFR
Well that's what I get for reading two devotions at once--the above post to the wrong date(shouldaben 5/11/2008)!
I tend to agree with what you have said in yesterday's posting, but today, and I may be misunderstanding you somewhat, Randy, but no, divorce is not justifiable(eg. Hosea), but yes it is forgivable and thus ?allowable?. I am not sure how to apply that ?adage? and the analytic suggested interpretation for those times Paul states occasionally 'this is a truth of truths' or somesuch, to tell us he is not interjecting his opinion into God's undefiled word, and so we are to forgive Paul and not take as so much gospel some other passage as the immediately following or preceding passage, as the grammar may indicate in the reading studied. But in defense of a '?literal?, Bible syntax is clearly definable' take, on the one hand, Paul does indicate with good logic that marriage can be, sometimes at best, with its responsibilities, distractions and need for fidelity (eg. Solomon's out of the yoke marriages) a causative to falter. On the other hand he mitigates his stance toward the 'purity and strength of singleness status'
(?Adam before Eve?) with the phrase, 'those who are able'.
He seems to reveal here the very personal, individual relationship we each share with a God who is 'that than the which no greater can be imagined'(from Anselm's Cur Deus Homo)! HayaH!
B Frank-'cause God has x-ray vision-I am RobeFRe
Hey robefre! Glad I was finally able to get someone's attention.
If divorce is allowable (OK before the Law?), then I can reason that it has been justified to some extent, right? I am reminded of Jesus and the Pharisees, where Jesus states that divorce is allowed because the hardness of their own hearts, not the pleasure of God. Yet, the Law allows it. Does it make God happy? No. Does he choose to live with us in the midst of it? Yes, and thank him for his great mercy! My original question, as the second one I have now posted, is open-ended, though. I would love more thoughts on it.
Yes, I agree that we see Paul in a very personal light here. You have also addressed a key interpretive issue here: are there places in scripture that are less authoritative than others. Of course, I think every passage in the Bible carries a divine authority with it. My point about Paul's comments is that there are suggestions, and then there are commands and prohibitions. Paul's personal comments are to be considered, in my humble opinion, as suggestions or ideals that are not direct commands from God. Unfortunately, he does not preface all of his comments this way. I guess a follow-up question would be, "So, how do we know what is a direct command and only a suggestion in Scripture?" Now that I write it, it even sounds funny.
To be honest, there are other directives from Paul, such as how women should dress and behave in church, that I do not take as direct commands but as cultural directives that do not directly apply, unless an updated principle is derived from Paul's original thought. Thus, concerning women in church, I think Paul's principle (intent) was to bring order to worship--so let the church in 2008 behave with order and reverence, regardless of how the women dress or talk. In our culture, there are ways of dressing and talking that are irreverent, and we say they do not belong (let each generation decide for itself!). And try applying these same logic principles to slavery and homosexuality! Now you've got some issues on had, but I digress . . . .
And, let each reader of the Bible approach the scripture with the faith that God has given and interpret in the Spirit to the best of their ability.
Randy,
You said,
"there are other directives from Paul, such as how women should dress and behave in church, that I do not take as direct commands but as cultural directives that do not directly apply, unless an updated principle is derived from Paul's original thought."
The Bible as a living document-- and I believe this from descipleship and personal experience--has, does and will reveal truths to us in a way that occasionally reminds us of 1)our frailty and encourages us to 2)depend upon the Apostolic guidance we have at hand, both of which we tend to 3)temper rather ostensibly and effectively (frequently dubiously), due to our self percieved importance. The first is unveiled in a complex of ways we often refer to as civilization where some perceived progress is had at the expense of traditional thinking and behavior(remember when you thought your dad was superman? I remember when I thought my dad was! Who was I, then?), one onus of that process is the generation gap. The second is found within our respect and reference to the scriptures and the tenets of the church as they have survived and evolved. Somewhere in there is the intent(spirit?) of the word which has been protected, revealed and applied by the Spirit of God to us as we had need to be reminded of our imperfection, our redemption and our 3)modeled image(true value?).
briefly (I hope),
you also said,
" Thus, concerning women in church, I think Paul's principle (intent) was to bring order to worship"
That is so true! I can see how in many ways the gender referencing in the Bible might be more accuratedly depicted today through role descriptors, which is scary to me because I find it easy to follow the imagery of genderfication in role fulfilment. For example the kind and wise one generally is not driving around town in today's traffic, so that one (house husband perhaps) must be at home taking care of domestic chores?! Hayah??
Robefre? 'cause God has x-ray vision I B Frank
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home