Comments for February 24

v. 29 - This oil was not for use in the tabernacle, but for anointing the priests in order to sanctify them. It was made of 2 parts myrrh, 2 parts cassia and 1 part sweet Calamus (Ex.30:23,24), and these were mixed 'according to the work of the apothecary'. The apothecary, according to the margin, and supported by other sources, was a perfumery rather than a medical institution, and would have been a place of favourable smells. (except when violated - Eccles.10:1, and the lesson from it). The smell created symbolically a purity for the priests (Ex.30:25-38). Consider also Ps.23:5, 92:10, Isa.61:1-3, 2Cor.1:21-22, 1John 2:27.

The exactness of the workmen to their rule should be followed by us, seeking for the influences of the word, that we may rejoice in and glorify God while in this world, and at length be with him for ever.

v.12 'Gold for the borders thereof round about' is picked up [Song of Solomon 1:11] as already noted when commenting on Exodus 27. So again we see the 'daughter' of the Song as having the attributes of the tabernacle which was of God's design and making. We have to conform to the image of His son [Romans 8:29]

This chapter deals with the construction of all the items in the Holy place. There is even structure in the way in which the recording of the manufacture of the tabernacle is recorded.

37:5 ‘to bear the ark’ and :14,15 emphasise that the furniture of the tabernacle was to be carried. This means that the tabernacle did not have a settled resting place. In fact God reminded David of this (2Sam 7:7) which forces us to appreciate the transient and sojourning nature of Israel – a pattern of our lives in Christ. We must take care lest we think of ourselves as being settled in this world.

How big were the "tables of stone"? We don’t know, but we can make a fair guess. They were to be placed inside the ark. From v1 we read the ark was 45 inches long by 27 inches wide, (= 114 x 69 cm) The two carved stones would presumably sit side by side, to save rubbing out the writing if it wobbled in transit. Therefore the blocks of stone would be a maximum of 22 inches by 27 inches,(= 56 x 69cms). But probably less than that so that the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod could also sit on the base as well.

Exo 37  The Ark is representative of the multitudinous bride of Christ. Corruptible bodies (wood) Clothed upon with incorruption. (gold) Having enshrined within them the law of God. (The tables of stone) Divinely chosen. (Aaron's rod) and having eaten of the life given bread from heaven(The manna)

V.7-9 As we read through this account of the making of the cherubins, we have to appreciate the talent that had been given to Bezaleel by God. Not many, if any to day could construct such a thing, starting with a single solid piece of gold

37        We might think it superfluous to record in detail what was done as the detail has already been given in the instructions as to what was to be built. However there is point in recording it as it was done. It demonstrates that those involved in building the tabernacle ensured that they did do the work exactly as God had requested. How often do we think that we know a better way of building the house of God than what is laid down in Scripture? There is always the danger of importing worldly wisdom and practices into ecclesial life and we need to be wary of this.

37:2-29 Notice the repeated use of ‘he’ but we should remember that Bezaleel did not do all the work. There were others who also had the skills – Exo 31:6- what we see is that the ‘brother’ with the responsibility of making sure that the job was done took responsibility for what was done.

V.7 It must have been some work to beat the cherubim out of a solid peace of gold.

V.17 the KJV uses the word candlestick (Heb. menorah). A better translation is lamp stand.

Exo 37:6-9 - watching over the atonement cover were two cherubim. Some feel the cherubim refer to the glory of God in the earth and/or one in whom God dwells. Might the two cherubim refer perhaps to both Jew and Gentile covered by Christ's sacrifice and/or refer to the two angels present at the resurrection (Luke 24:4)?

Exo 37:25-29 - incense is generally associated with prayers to God (Rev 5:8) and Christ's sacrifice was the ultimate prayerful petition.

37:29As well as the structure of the tabernacle the anointing oil and incense were under the charge of Bezaleel. The tabernacle was of no use without the anointing oil and incense. All the work we might do in the ecclesia is of no value if it is not sanctified by God – the anointing oil and prayed about – the incense.

Notice the engineering detail that went into the design of the tabernacle furniture. In v14 we read that the rings were "close to the frame as holders for the poles to bear the table". This means the carrying poles lifted the frame, not the rings. So the rings (made of relatively soft gold) weren't broken. Their function, rather than to lift the table, were to hold the poles to the table when it was at rest - a much less strenuous function. Similarly for the incense altar, the rings were "under its moulding", so as not to snap with the forces exerted.

37:1  Bezaleel, as the one who is styled as making the various items of the tabernacle represents Jesus who is building the ecclesia according to God’s instruction. The main difference being that we and our behaviour often get in the way in which Jesus is building!  Eph 5:25-27

Exo 37:9 - We are told again (see, Exo 25:20) that the cherubims were on each end of the mercy seat. The Hebrew word (Strong’s H251) for “another” occurs 629 times in the OT.  It is frequently translated as “brother”, (e.g.Exo 32:29). The cherubim faced each other across the mercy seat.

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others  (Phil 2:4).  As the cherubim faced one to another so brethren should look to help and support one another.

37:17 That the lampstand was made of “beaten work” is an indication of effort and skill in its making. It was not simply a matter of pouring molten gold into a mould. Likewise if we are to produce light for God there is no mould to shape us. It is through effort that we might become light bearers.

37:17 Throughout the description of the tabernacle the word “pure” is associated with “gold”. This indicates that second best will not do. Whilst a brief look at gold will not tell us its quality God knows. Likewise in our service to Him. Whilst others might not see our motives God does.

37:1  When we read that “Bezaleel” made we should realise that it is most probable that he supervised those who did the work. However he carried the responsibility for what was produced. Likewise if we delegate a task we still retain responsibility for its effective implementation . By allowing others to do a job we cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility if things do not go as planned.

Exo 37:17-22 The candlestick was made of pure gold and appears to have been made in one piece, see v.17 all the elements, “were of the same’.  Also, v.22 “all of it was one beaten work of pure gold”.  The candlestick was the source of light in the Tabernacle to give light the Holy Place.  

Notice that there are no dimensions given for the size of the candlestick.  The light of God’s Word is not limited, it is available to all who come to seek a path of obedience to God’s way. The ecclesias of the Lord Jesus Christ should be light bearers for truth. They comprise many parts, yet they “...are one body in Christ...”(Rom 12:4-5). We must work to ensure this can be said of our ecclesia.

The seven lamps on the candlesticks are a symbol of ecclesias, (Rev.2, Rev.3).  Each ecclesia has a responsibility to be bearers of the light of the Gospel message to all who will listen.

37 The order in which we are told that the items of the tabernacle were made different in order form the instructions to make it. The instructions start at the outside and work inwards whereas the description of the making starts with the innermost part of the tabernacle and works outwards.

37:1 The way Bezaleel is presented as making the things described in the chapter we have to appreciate that others were involved. The same is true of activities amongst believers today. One might be given the responsibility for some event but others are involved in executing the plan. However it is valuable that one is given responsibility for the process, taking the responsibility to ensure that the plan is executed affectively.

37:2-29 So whilst the tabernacle was made by many who God had given skills to the work is ascribed to one man!

So we see in the “ecclesia” that built the tabernacle a unity of purpose.

It is as if they were so focused on working together they were “as one man”,

Is this how we are as groups of believers in striving to build the “house of God” or are there dissenters amongst us pulling down that which is being built?

37:22repeatedly in the instructions of how the elements of the tabernacle were to be made and now in how they were made we are  told how hat items which were intricate and detailed were made out of one piece!

By now we should be appreciating that the tabernacle was to teach about the unity that should exist amongst believers and God.

37:17 He also made the lampstand of pure gold ... of one piece

There are 5 occasions in this chapter (vv8, 17, 21, 22, 25) when artefacts are made of one piece (either pure gold or acacia wood which was then overlaid with pure gold). Why this rule, especially when it would have been much easier to manufacture each artefact in separate pieces that can be joined together?

A possible answer: Our faith (pure gold) is indivisible and fused with everything we do and with our fellowship with our brother and sisters. There are no separate compartments or divisions.

96 v.4 - This concept of God being above all the gods is quite common (see some of the refs at the end). We looked at this word 'gods' before and realised that it refers to anyone in a position of authority. Let us learn then that God comes first, even, if necessary, before the laws and the leaders of the land. Ex.18:11, Ps.89:7, 95:3, Jer.5:22, 10:7, Luke 12:5, Rev.15:4.

Psalm 96 Verse 13 that God will judge the world with righteousness is a repeating refrain in Scripture. It will have its fulfilment when Christ returns Acts 17:31. God is going to judge the world because of the way in which man consistently is idolatrous. Idol worship - worshipping a non existent god - demeans the creator. This is the main thrust of this Psalm.

Psalm 97 This Psalm continues the theme of the vanity of idol worship and adds some references to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. :4 lightning :5 the presence of the LORD

Psalm 98 The faithful should rejoice because God has saved them. The original salvation was from Egypt but this typified a much greater salvation - salvation from sin and death. The God who has save us is going to judge the world - but not like men. His judgement will be with equity. This type of judgement is to be manifest by the one prophesied in Isaiah 11:4 - the Lord Jesus Christ at his return.

Psalm 99 In saying 'sitteth between the cherubim' the psalmist is reflecting on the promise Exodus 29:45 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. In mentioning the cloudy pillar (verse 7) there is another reference to tabernacle worship. Thought the Psalm was certainly written after that time - see the reference to Samuel (verse 6). So worship in Zion (verse 2) reflects worship in the wilderness.

97 v.10 - We are often reminded that one of the most straightforward ways to show our love for God is to develop along with Him a hatred for evil. This is very hard to do as we are so inextricably tied up with evil in all our natural ways, but it is presented as being possible so it gives us something to strive for.

96:5 In saying that the Lord made the heavens Yahweh is truly being singled out as superior to all the gods of the nations. As creator He clearly must be lord of all.

97:7 this verse gives us a contrast. Instead of the gods - idols - being worshipped the 'gods' that is the angels [Hebrews 1:6] actually worship Jesus after his resurrection. So the correct relationship is shown. The idols are nothing but to Jesus every knee shall bow.

99:6 Moses and Aaron certainly were dead and Samuel probably was by the time this Psalm was written. In speaking of these three faithful men together the Psalmist is demonstrating, in an almost incidental way, that he believed in the resurrection.

96:13 Paul (Acts 17:31) quotes the work of God. From Acts we see that the way in which God is going to judge the world - by Jesus Christ. All judgement has been given to the son (John 5:27)

97:2 That God is surrounded by darkness is seen elsewhere Exodus 20:21 1 Kings 8:12 - but 1 John 1:5 'God is light, and in him is no darkness at all'. How are these two seeming contradicting concept reconciled?

98:4-5 The call to praise God is a consequence of the fact that God 'remembered His mercy' (:3) which relates to the coming of Jesus - so it is not surprising the angels praised God (Luke 2;13)

99:2 That the Lord was 'great in Zion' means that this Psalm was written after David had brought the ark to Zion (2 Samuel 6)

96:7-9 Notice ‘give’ ‘give’ ‘worship’. Worship is actually another way of saying ‘give’.

98:9 Judging the world in righteousness is seen on a number of occasions in Scripture (Psa 9:6, 96:3, Acts 17:31) which is a stark contrast with the judgement of the world which is according to greed and self interest.

99:4 Earthly kings tend to use their strength to give favour to some and oppress others. David, by contrast, as the Lord’s anointed, used his power and position to execute God’s judgement. It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This was not so of David, a man after God’s heart.  We must take care that we, when we have the opportunity, do not miss use our status or position. If we cannot be faithful in little things we will not have committed to us the greater things – matters of rulership and judgement in the kingdom.

Psa 96, 97, 98, 99. These four Psalms were written by David, they are an expression of joy, at the time of the bringing up of Ark to Jerusalem.(1Chron 16) O sing unto the Lord. Psa 96, 98, and in the 99th. We have a song urging care and attention to be given to the worship of God. Showing the examples of Moses, Aaron and Samuel.

There is little doubt that Psa 96 is speaking primarily of the kingdom, when all nations will indeed praise the Lord.  But the psalm is equally applicable to David’s day, and to our time.  Therefore, Psa 96:3 tells us to preach. Declare God’s glory among the heathen.  Then again, there is Psa 96:10, “Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth”. We must spread His Name among our neighbours, and colleagues.

Psa 96:10  This Psalm looks to the kingdom when Christ sits on the throne of David. A time spoken of in Isa 52:7where similar language as ‘the Lord reigneth’ is seen as ‘God reigneth’.

97:8     Of course ‘Zion’ as a place cannot ‘hear’. It is that which Zion stand for that is rejoicing. Zion stands for all things to do with God being seen in the Earth.

98:1      We often read about God’s ‘right hand’ bringing deliverance – for example the Exodus - Exo 15:6,12

99:7      As the record says that ‘He spake unto them in the cloudy pillar’ and we know that the cloudy pillar was visible to Aaron and Moses can we conclude also that it was still visible in Samuel’s day?

Psa 97 This entire psalm is a majestic hymn of praise, which will find its fullness of meaning only when "the glory of the Lord is revealed"  and fills the earth to its utmost bound.

96 This Psalm is seen in its entirety, with slight differences, in 1Chron 16:23-33. This places this Psalm at the time of bringing the ark to Zion. Or at least it shows that the Psalm elates to that event.

97:10 If we believe ‘He preserveth the souls of His saints’ this should really affect our lives. We would truly believe Jesus’ assurances about God’s provision for His children – Matt 6:25-33

LOVING GOD - A TEST

Do I really love the LORD? Or am I just going through the motions of being a Christian? Do I just go to church, pray and read the Bible because that is what people expect of me, or is it what I think I should do?

It is easy to love my wife. She is here beside me, we talk together, she responds to me and I respond to her. I can see her, hear her and touch her. I know I love her. But loving God is different because his visual physical presence is not right here with me.

The psalmist says this about loving God: "Let those who love the LORD hate evil." (Psa 97:10) We can turn this around to give ourselves a test as to whether we love God or not. Do we hate evil? Do we hate violence, sexual immorality, lies, hatred, jealousy, selfishness, greed and drunkenness? We may struggle to overcome some of these, but do we hate them? If we love God we will hate evil. If we don't hate evil both in our lives and in the world around us, we need to work on getting to know God better.

96:1 The ‘new song’ is the song of the redeemed – Rev 5:9, 14:3

96:6,13; 98:9 Yahweh here is a metonymy (a substitution by association, e.g. Crown for Queen). And so, Yahweh is really talking about the Lord Jesus, who will be the one to judge and reign on earth.  This association is easy to understand when we consider the seamless relationship of Jesus and His Father (Matt 11:27; John 5:30; 17:11; Heb 1:5).

97:2 Yahweh, with His Son Jesus at His right hand, dwell in brilliant, unapproachable light (1Tim 6:16). Those changed to immortality, at the judgment, will bear this light which shall illuminate the whole world (Rev 22:5). But meanwhile, mortals on earth cannot be exposed to Yahweh’s brilliance or they would die.

And so, Yahweh keeps His light under wraps, literally occluded by thick, dark cloud. Consider the description of Yahweh when He came down to see His Son on the cross (Psa 18:9-12; Matt 27:45).

97:4 The ‘lightnings’ that enlightened the world’ are also seen in Psa 77:18 - speaking of the giving of the law of Moses at Sinai.

98:3      The way in which ‘He hath remembered his mercy’  was in the provision of Jesus – see how these words are used by Mary in Luke 1:54

Intercessors

Psa 99:6-8 Moses, Aaron and Samuel all interceded for Israel so that they were not destroyed:

Moses: Num 14:10-24

Aaron: Num 16:41-50

Samuel: 1Sam 7:3-10

99:8   We do well to remember that there is no valuing in knowing the God of creation unless He does forgive. The wonderful assurance is that He does forgive. It is all too easy to take for granted this wonderful aspect of the character of God.

1. Psalm 96 is the call to sing a new song.

2. Psa 96:1 - "a new song...sing unto the Lord all the earth" - perhaps this is a song of the new creation (Rev 14:1-3;1Cor 15:22-23).

3. Psa 96:2,10,13 - "shew forth his salvation...he shall judge the people righteously...he cometh to judge the earth" - Christ will return to judge (John 5:21-22,27).

4. Psa 96:5 - "the gods of the nations are idols" - modern day idols can be materialism, humanism, pleasure, the internet, science, health/fitness, recreation, etc.

5. Psa 96:6 - "beauty"<8597>, Psa 96:9 - "beauty"<1927>.

1. Psalm 97 is the new song.

2. Psa 97:1,5 - "The Lord reigneth...Lord of the whole earth" - perhaps this refers to when Christ returns to earth as king.

3. compare Psa 97:6 with Matt 24:30.

4. Psa 97:7 - "worship him, all ye gods<430>" - "gods" can mean a number of things including judges or rulers (Exo 22:9,28;John 10:34).

5. Psa 97:8 - "Zion" is the city of the great king (Isa 2:2-4).

6. Psa 97:10 - "he preserveth the souls of his saints" (1Cor 15:50-53).

1. Psalm 98 is the call to sing a new song.

2. Psa 98:1 - "a new song" - perhaps this is a song of the new creation (Rev 14:1-3;1Cor 15:22-23).

3. Psa 98:1 - "his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory" (perhaps this refers to Jesus - Isa 59:16;63:5;53:1).

4. Psa 98:2 - "his salvation" - perhaps this means "His Jesus".

5. Psa 98:2 - "his righteousness" (Jesus is the Lord our righteousness - Jer 23:5-6;Rev 3:12).

6. Psa 98:3 - "He hath...the house of Israel" (Luke 1:54,71-73).

7. Psa 98:3-4 - "all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation...all the earth (Acts 1:9-11;Matt 5:5;Isa 2:2-4).

8. Psa 98:6 - "trumpets" are associated with the resurrection (1Cor 15:52;1Thess 4:16;Rev 11:15-18).

9. Psa 98:9 - "he cometh to judge the earth" - judgment left to the Son (John 5:21-22,27).

1. Psalm 99 is the new song.

2. Psa 99:1 - "let the earth be moved" - perhaps this refers to the earthquake when Christ returns (Zech 14:3-4).

3. Psa 99:5,9 - "worship at his footstool...worship at his holy hill" - perhaps this refers to the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple where the Almighty resides on earth in Zion (Psa 132:7;Lam 2:1;1Chron 28:2;Isa 60:13;66:1;Matt 5:34-35;Isa 2:2-3).

99:1    Do we think that the Lord reigneth?  Looking at the sorry state the world is in we might be tempted to say “no”. However he is reigning – Dan 4:17,25,32

99:6        The mention of Moses, Aaron and Samuel as praying to God and having their prayers answered is a little like the catalogue of faithful men and woman in Heb 11. Their faith that God would answer their prayers as the reason why they appealed to Him. There is no value in appealing to one who is unable to help. Thus they had faith. 

Psa 98:5, Psa 33:2 It is interesting that no percussion instruments are mentioned?

Drums mimic human heart beat? Therfore as the heart of man is wicked? ( just a thought)!

WInd and string instruments are said to elevate the mind.

Singing of course was a way to praise Yahweh, but it was also a way of speaking to yourself therefor memorising something. Eph 5:19 we all remember from our school days the alphabet song? The same principle is in singing of Yahwehs promises .

The trumpets were only used by the priests perhaps pointing to the time here when we shall all (god willing) be a kingdom of kings and priests.

97:6  Psa 19:1 tells us that the heavens declare God’s glory, now we see that His righteousness is seen I the heavens. His glory and righteousness are interconnected.

Psalm 96

"O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth."

The phrase "new song" is very important in the Old Testament. It always talks about the sudden shift in national culture for Israel, from an inward looking one of taking the land and keeping invaders out, to one of embracing the Gentile nations and teaching them about God. It is a change that the Jews never grasped; they never made that transition, so that even at the time of Jesus they still thought it their role to look down on foreigners as invaders. Ultimately it was only when God cast out the Jews from His land that this new song was sung, without them, although they should have been the choir.

See in this Psalm how many references there are to a new way of access to God for the Gentile nations. What other symbols, other than the song, does it use? Where else in the Bible can you find these?

Psalm 97

Verse 5 links to Micah 1:4. The contexts also are similar, as both speak of judgements on idols and graven images (v7). Notice that in this Psalm there is a clear distinction made between those that practice idolatry and those who hate it. God's presence, while bringing automatic judgement on some, means salvation to the other (v10).

Psalm 98

The occasion that fits this Psalm most clearly is the deliverance of Jerusalem at the time of Hezekiah. It was God Himself that saved His people, without any help from Hezekiah's army (v1), and thereafter the whole of the surrounding peoples heard about it and sought Hezekiah (v3). See 2Chron 32:18-23.

This incident and this Psalm look forward to another occasion in the future where God will again show His might on the earth at the return of Jesus. It will again be Jerusalem in trouble that shows God's power to the whole world. At this time it will be Jesus, not Hezekiah, that will be set up as King reigning from Jerusalem and showing righteousness to the whole world (Mic 4:1-4).

96 Paul quotes this Psalm in Acts 17 as can be seen from the table below. However, as can be seen from the table, Paul draws not just on the quotation but on the context of the Psalm also.  Whilst the idea of God judging the world is found throughout the Old Testament it is only Psalm 96 which has an exact match of the words.

Acts 17:22     too superstitious                   Psa 96:5         Gods of nations are idols

Acts 17:23  Him declare I                             Psa 96:3         Declare His glory

Acts 17:31   he will judge … righteousness    Psa 96:10.13   judge world in righteousness

 ‘Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart’ Psa 97:11

96:5    That Yahweh is the creator is presented as the yardstick by which the existence of God is presented. Creation is not an “optional extra” in the faith of a believer. It is integral to knowing God and His purpose as Isaiah says – Isa 45:18. That God created everything is an integral part of His purpose.

99:9  God said – Deut 12:10-12– that he would choose a place where Israel were to worship. The Psalmist recognises that the place is “holy” that is separated precisely because God had chosen it.

99:6-7    Three men are named whose prayers God answered. Can you find at least one prayer voiced by each of these individuals that was answered by God?

99:4 the ability to blend judgment and equity – fairness – is possibly the most difficult thing that the believer will have to do. It is all too easy to be too judgmental or on the other hand too lenient on the grounds that we have to be compassionate. The challenges we experience are designed by our Heavenly Father to train us to be more like Him.

97:9 When the Psalmist wrote about God being “exalted above all gods” the nations around, and some in Israel as well worshipped idols. Scripture teaches that those gods were no gods – not that they did not exist. The existed in the minds of the people and in the form of models created from the imagination of the worshippers. We might think that we are too advanced to fall into the trap of worshipping gods of our own making. However there is a danger of falling into the trap of worshipping gods made by others. This is the whole focus of marketing today. Persuading us that something is a “must have” anything that gets in the way of our worship of God falls into the category of a “god” that should not be reigning in our hearts. That is the place for our heavenly Father.

99:1 the sentiments expressed here about God sitting in a location draws on the description of the Cherubim and their purpose in the details relating to the Law of Moses – Exo 25:22

99:6  Moses, Aaron and Samuel were dead by the time the Psalm was written. But their death (sleep) does not interfere with the certainty of their resurrection that they might praise together in the kingdom.

We have the same hope, as did those of our fellow believers who are now asleep in the grave.

There will certainly come a time when His name will be glorified in the voices of immortalised, resurrected, faithful beliers in the kingdom of God.

97:10 O you who love the LORD, hate evil!

To love God is also to hate evil! They go together. If we tolerate evil in our lives, or feel unmoved by the evil in society, maybe our love for God is not strong.

v.39 - All of the passages that refer to marriage, whilst giving us a perfect basis for our own relationships to which we must stick rigidly in this strangely permissive world, are there that we might see the relationship which God had with Israel and which Christ now has with us as his bride - one which we would only be free to break if he were to die, that we might marry another. As Christ lives for ever, this makes our marriage vows, which we took at our baptism eternally binding. We should behave accordingly. Rom.7:2,3, Deut.7:3,4, 2Cor.6:14-16, Eph.5:31-33.

:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me' marks that Paul is responding to a specific question from the Corinthians so we know that the ecclesia had already written to Paul. See also 8:1 12:1 16:1 for the way that Paul addresses, in a systematic way, their questions.

SEX AND MARRIAGE

In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul's advice to us was to avoid sexual immorality. Sex outside marriage dishonors our body and, more importantly, dishonors God. So in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul goes on to show the best ways to avoid sexual immorality. He puts forward two suggestions. The first is not to marry and to have self control. Obviously that does not suit everyone, so he has another suggestion too. He says "each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband."

It is important, if we are to keep ourselves pure, that as a husband and wife, we stay together and stay devoted to each other, satisfying each others needs. If one partner deprives the other of the physical or sexual side of a relationship, they are opening cracks in the marriage bond that will invite sexual immorality, sin and division. So husbands and wives have a responsibility to help keep each other pure by giving themselves to their partner. We need to keep ourselves and our marriages pure and strong so that we will never dishonor our Lord.

7:18-24 In the brethren to abide in the calling in which they are called Paul is encouraging the believer not to strive to change his station. It should not be taken that Paul is counselling that remaining single is something that should be retained at all costs. Rather, if opportunities to marry come then take the opportunity in the same way that a slave would take freedom 1Cor 7:21. The counsel of Paul is that one should not be obsessed with changing one's situation.

1Cor 7:6  I speak this by permission; V.12 I, not the Lord. It is interesting how careful Paul was in separating his commandments from those that were given by the Lord. 

7:2-3  Whilst we do not know exactly what the Corinthians wrote to Paul about we can infer that there might have been a question as to whether it was better to remain single. In response Paul briefly lays out the way in which a marriage should work.

Paul deals with delicate sexual matters here, but speaks out honestly and openly. In 1Cor 7:1-6 he advises married couple not to deny marital relationships with each other, or else Satan will tempt us. Our bodies are controlled by urges, some of them chemically stimulated, and it is these which can get us into trouble if we do not understand ourselves, or if we have been deprived of our marriage rights. BUT we control our bodies.  We must practise saying “No”, and must always be in charge. Prayers can of-course be said to our understanding Father even about these problems.

7:7 In that Paul says all men are not the same – ‘have not the same gift’ – we have to realise that the advice that Paul gives, even though by inspiration – is not a set of rules which must be slavishly obeyed. Paul, by the spirit of inspiration is laying out the acceptable options available to brethren and sisters. It is for the brother or sister to decide which of the options, where a choice is given is the one that they will follow.

V.34 We would suggest that a sister entering the state of marriage undergoes a greater change of condition, than a brother doing so. The key is; single or married we can not overlook our commitment to the things of the Lord.

7:3   Notice that the marriage relationship is a two way affair. The husband cannot expect the wife to behave appropriately unless he does. Notice it is the husband who is first mentioned – he must take the lead.

An opinion is an expression of what a person thinks or believes. Proof does not have to be put forward to back it up. A person, who hears another’s opinion, can take it or leave it. In v.6, Paul appears to be offering an opinion. However, he is, in fact, giving a directive. It has to be remembered that Paul was given a direct commission from Jesus, and also possessed the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:15-17). And so, although he was not giving a direct command (order) of Jesus, Paul was giving instruction with the authority of the Lord.

7:5 It is not at all uncommon in ‘Soap’ series to hear of women talking amongst themselves about using the threat of withholding sexual activity from their husbands. It is all too easy for believers to copy the things that we see other television so if we do have to watch such programmes we should be aware that Scripture teaches a fare more positive and Godly way of thinking that a couple talk together abut on this matter.

sex, the marriage state, and being equally yoked - 1Cor 7:2-15;Gen 24:3;Gen 28:1;Deut 7:1-4;Neh 13:23-26;1Kin 11:1-4;Matt 12:25;2Cor 6:14-17;1Cor 7:39;Ezra 10:2,3,10,11,19.

gender roles and conduct - 1Cor 7:2-6;1Cor 11:3-7,11;1Cor 14:33-35;1Tim 2:8,11,12;1Tim 3:1-15;Acts 18:26;Eph 5:21-33.

Vs.7,8 One can choose to remain celibate or to marry.

Under the Laws of Christ, celibacy is an individual’s choice. It cannot be imposed. And yet, the Catholic Church insists that their priests be celibate. These are their rules and not those of Christ (1Tim 4:3).

7:15 The believer should not try to break a marriage with an unbeliever – see verses 7:12-13. However the strains in the marriage may cause the unbeliever to leave. In such situations it is acceptable to allow the unbeliever to leave. God hath called us to peace doubtless masks a lot of trauma that doubtless exists when a believer is married to an unbeliever.

7:12    When Paul says ‘I, not the Lord’ he is making a distinction between his own inspired comment and specific instruction from Jesus’ teaching  in the Gospel records.

7:16  To the Corinthian it seemed that the possibility of escaping from a marriage to an unbeliever that had been contracted before accepting the gospel was an easy way out of being ‘unequally yoked’. However Paul’s inspired comment blocks that approach – the prime focus of the believer should be to wind the unbelieving partner for Christ.

1Cor 7:12-15

“…But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”

Brother Robert Roberts in the Ecclesia Guide, the marriage section, wrote: "The truth may come to man or woman in the married state: in that case, the man or woman is not to leave the unbelieving wife or husband if there be willingness on the part of the partner to continue the association. This, Paul plainly lays down (1 Cor. 7:12-13). But if the unbelievers depart, he says, ‘Let them depart: a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: God hath called us to peace.’ This departing, however, does not release from the matrimonial bond. ‘Remain unmarried’ is, in such a case, the apostolic command (verse 11)."

To “remain unmarried,” divorce would have had to take place, which is a release from the matrimonial bond; otherwise, he/she is still married though separated. Unmarried is # <22>, agamos from the root, gamos # <1062>. Gamos refers to a married person, and by placing the letter “a” in front of gamos refers to someone who was at one time married, but no longer is (cf. 1Cor 7:8 - note v9). Brother Roberts comment is based on an incorrect premise in that he interprets unmarried as being separated. Also, Brother Roberts did not take into consideration these verses in his conclusion, and thus is contradictory if it is interpreted that they may not remarry. However, if he believed only a separation was involved, he would be correct. The apostle Paul recommended that those widowed or divorced remain alone as he, but at the same time did not make this a matter of command, but only wanted to spare them, "trouble in the flesh" (see vv. 27-28). Please also see my note on 1Cor 7:34 regarding the "unmarried."

Brother Dr. John Thomas in the Herald - 1860/61, page 202 wrote: "...Paul says 'If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away *** for the unbelieving wife is sanctified by her husband. But if the unbelieving depart let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage to such.' 'Art though loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But, and if thou marry, thou has not sinned.' 1 Corinthians 7:12, 14, 27, 28. This is of course for brethren in Christ-not outsiders; for, says Paul, 'what have I to do to judge them that are without?' Still, on the principle of being 'subject to the ordinances of men for the Lord's sake,’ it would be necessary for such not to marry a second contemporary wife without a legal divorce."
Brother Dr. John Thomas further wrote in the Ambassador of the Coming Age - May 1866, pages 92-94 Note particularly page 94! "...The Apostles, whose authority he declared equal to his own in teaching the things of the Deity, allowed divorce on another ground, and for the sake of peace in the Christian party. But to carry out this gospel liberty would place a man or woman as a criminal at the bar of Gentile justice and law. Therefore, Peter has said; ‘Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake;’ provided, of course, that in so doing, his precepts were not transgressed; this apostolic tradition applies also to their ordinances of marriage… Hence, a saint regulated by the word, would only have one wife at a time; he would seek divorce only on scriptural grounds, and avoid the 'social evil' as the plague..."

These pioneer brethren disagreed on verse 15, but did not make their differences a matter of division! They held each other in high esteem, a behaviour we ought to emulate. Isn't it amazing how those whose opinions are not supported by Dr. John Thomas conveniently leave him out! Why? Of course, ultimately, our conclusion must be on, “what saith the Scripture,” rather than who taught what. It just so happens, that Dr. Thomas’ conclusion aligns with both the Old and New Testament teachings on this subject.

7:23    Paul has already – 1Cor 6:20 – made this point with respect to going to law. Now he re-states it again. This time relating it to marriage. A fundamental point is made. The fact that we are Christ’s servants means we cannot please ourselves, no matter how inconvenient following our master’s commands are.

1Cor 7:29-31.

7:1     The clear Bible principle is that one does not give one’s judgment on a matter until both sides of the debate have been heard – Prov 18:13   -  but here we are only being presented with one side of the story, only part of the information. We do not know what was written to Paul.  However the principle outlined above is not being violated. Rather there is value in us not knowing the exact problem. The reason being that Paul lays out principles which have universal application. If we knew the exact problem we may well try to reason that Paul’s comments are only applicable in that one situation. 

This chapter is set in the context of Chapter 6, and is just a logical progression from that chapter. If you don't have time to read ch6 first, then just keep 6:18 in mind:

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

Our chapter 7 then starts with Paul's advice, obviously answering a question the ecclesia had asked him:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
1Cor 7:1-2
 

So you can see how the two chapters are inextricably linked. Chapter 6 speaks of fornication and the disastrous effects it can have on our spiritual health and wellbeing, because it degrades our relationship with Jesus. Chapter 7 steps us through the various practical options we have available to us in order to avoid fornication. Chapter 7 is not a command for everyone to marry, nor is it a command for everyone to remain single. It recognises that we're all in various situations and have varying levels of self control.

7:1 Paul's advice is looking at the realistic and practical side of spiritual life when we have to deal with other humans including our wives. We can in no way construe that he is puting down marriage as an institution. We see that in Eph. 5 where he clearly shows that one man one woman joined together is type of our relationship with Christ.

Paul would never go against the judgement of God in Gen 2

Gen 2:18
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Paul like Christ (Matt. 19:10-12) say that it is a choice for a few that can stand to be alone but it is not for everyone.

It is interesting to note also that God made the animals male and female but he only initially made man. It was not until no suitable partner was found for man that God through a unique process made the woman (taken out of man). No other female creature was made in this manner.

It was God's assessment that man needed a help meet or a partner but this did not prevent that partner from causing difficulty in the life of her husband.

Paul's reflection here may be an echo back to Gen 3 where the man ate of the fruit at the urging of the woman.

7:20-22         Being baptised is what is important. It is not important what our social standing is. However human nature places so much emphasis upon status that we can easily have our judgment clouded by the thinking of the world. We should remember Paul’s teaching here when reflecting on our position in this world’s order of things.

7:17  Here and also in 1Cor 4:17 and , 1Cor 11:16 Paul explains that what he is saying to the Corinthians is not a unique message to them. He is appealing to events and principles which apply throughout the first century churches. If we are thinking to try and change well established practices we should reflect on whether we are trying to change our own group or whether our opinions fly in the face of widely accepted practices.

7:18-19           The Corinthian ecclesia, it would appear, was made up mainly of gentiles. The introduction of the comment here about circumcision indicates that there was an element or influence in Corinth who would have tried to impose aspects of the Law of Moses. Not surprising as two of the leaders of the synagogue at Corinth were baptised. Acts 18:8, 1Cor 1:1

1Cor 7:15

"But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

In the revised fourteenth edition, 1970, of ELPIS ISRAEL, by Dr. John Thomas, it appears that a revisionist/s at the BIRMINGHAM publishing, U.K. omitted certain passages written by Dr. Thomas. It concerns A GREAT MYSTERY, as found on page 51, and page 55, 56 in the 1904 edition. Here is that section as originally written:

“In writing to the disciples at Ephesus, the apostle illustrates the submission due from wives to their husbands by the obedience rendered to Christ by the community of the faithful in his day.  'As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.' This was an injunction of absolute submission to their Christian husbands as unto the Lord Himself; because 'the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the church.' But, while he enjoins this unqualified obedience, he exhorts their husbands to return them due benevolence, not to treat them with bitterness, but to love them 'even as Christ loved the church, and gave Himself up for it.' IF THEIR WIVES, HOWEVER, WERE DISOBEDIENT AND PERVERSE, AND CHOSE TO DEPART, LET THEM; A brOTHER 'IS NOT UNDER BONDAGE IN SUCH CASES' (1Cor 7:15). THEY ARE LIKE THOSE WHO WILL NOT SUBMIT TO CHRIST.  The love which should subsist between Christian brethren and sisters in the married state is such as Christ manifested for the church by anticipation. 'While we were yet sinners Christ died for us,' says the apostle (Rom 5:6-8). This is the greatest love a man can possibly show, that He should die for His enemies; and this is the kind of love which Paul (WHO BY THE BYE WAS NEVER TRIED BY A TERMAGANT WIFE) commends to the attention of the Ephesians; though always on the supposition, that the wives 'adorn the hidden man of the heart with that which is incorruptible, even a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling Him Lord: whose daughters such women are, as long as they do well, and are not dismayed at any threat' (1Pet 3:3-6).” www.antipas.org/

LOGOS publishing, AU, 1980 edition of ELPIS ISRAEL, has not altered its contents, and I recommend obtaining the writings of the pioneer brethren from them.

1Cor 7:27,28

“Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned…”

The first loosed is # <3089> luo “… break (up), destroy, dissolve…”

The second loosed is # <3080> lisis “a loosening, i.e. (spec.) divorce…”

Thou here clearly refers to divorced people, yet the apostle Paul's teaching and Dr. John Thomas' teaching on this is rejected! The back and forth controversies over what Robert Roberts countenanced, or did not countenance on this subject, I present a direct a quote from Robert Roberts, which clearly expresses his mind on this matter and is not subject to misinterpretation: "Divorce is inadmissible according to the law of Christ, except in the case he mentions in Matt. xix. 9. Where this case arises, and the parties are divorced, they are at liberty to marry again, both by human law and divine. Objection may be well meant, but is without ground" - Christadelphian 1884. A further comment states: "Bro. Roberts upheld the teaching of Christ and did not countenance suing at law to clear anyone's character nor to obtain financial redress for wrong suffered." Ultimately, the Bible is our measuring stick and the only standard of right and wrong and for this the pioneer brethren stood.

Bro. Roberts in FURTHER SEASONS OF COMFORT, p. 186-7 also wrote in 1884, "A man knowing the gospel and able to talk of it, but acting the part of a tyrant at home, is no brother of Christ, however he may pass current among men. He is what Paul calls 'sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.' So of a woman having understanding of the ways of God, but acting an insubordinate unloving part in private, is no member of the sisterhood of Christ, however distinctly and decidedly she may be recognized as 'a sister' among the professors of the truth. These things concern the spirit of Christ, and 'if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his.'"

Objection of a believer divorcing a believer is without ground when either spouse conducts him/herself contrary to the Word! Such are considered as "nothing" (1Cor 13:1-3)! What impresses Yahweh, what pleases Yahweh, what gets Yahweh's attention, and what gets His blessing is a loving, compassionate, kind, humble, meek, gentle, patient, merciful, forgiving kind of person in Christ who strives to keep His commandments (cf. Col 3:12-16).

Verses 12-16 of this chapter are often quoted to justify/excuse marrying "out of the Faith". I remember Bro. Harry Tennant saying many years ago that for every one case he knew of where "marrying out of the Faith" had resulted in the "unbelieving" partner being baptised, he knew of four other cases where the opposite had occurred ie. the "believing" partner had left the Truth after marrying someone out of the Faith.

Bro. Harry's experience bears out the Apostle Paul's warning to the Corinthian ecclesia in 2Cor 6:14-18. The Apostle's Holy Spirit-guided use of the the phrase "unequally yoked" is very telling!

Added to which, latent (and sadly sometimes highly overt) psychological pressure can be put on the "unbelieving" partner to be baptised, which can coerce them into being baptised for the wrong reasons and which may well result in them walking away from the Truth at a later date, thus bringing upon themselves greater condemnation than if they'd never been baptised in the first place (2Pet 2:20-21)

7:38 What is the “law” that Paul appeals to? It is not the Law of Moses. Rather it is the “law” that was introduced at creation and endorsed by Jesus.

7:25 Whilst Jesus did not give specific commandments about remaining single he does comment about it – Matt 19:12.

7:35  Notice, despite Paul throughout the letter, reproving the believers his focus is their “profit”. Does the wellbeing of our fellow believers motivate us in everything we say and do?

1Cor 7:39

A reader writes: “Thank you very much for the documents which you have sent me. There are several points which are made which are very helpful to me. Since our immediate issues at --------- concern 'marriage out of the Truth', I wonder if you would provide me your definition of the words in our Constitution which are similar to the ones from the original constitution of the Birmingham meeting of September 1908. Their Clause 36 says "That marriage with the alien is an offence against the law of Christ, That those who maintain the contrary are unfit for fellowship with those that consent to the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus Christ. etc. . . . .." Would you kindly advise me of your understanding of those words please. Particularly 'that those that maintain the contrary'.  I have always understood that to mean 'those that go ahead and marry outside of the Truth even though they had be encouraged to discontinue the relationship before marriage and to provide loving education and explain the Scriptural position on not being unequally yoked together. I even provided that excellent contribution to the Daily Readings that you wrote 'Be ye not unequally yoked together'. Any help would be greatly appreciated.”

My reply: An email sent to a brother by a brother in 2007 was brought to my attention, the heading reading: “Is it lawful to marry unbelievers?” This brother writes regarding marrying only in the Lord the following: “And, as Paul proscribed, no punishment, I see no reason why you should be more stringent than the apostle.” “But in contrast, misbelievers can put those technically in the Lord to shame.” “Let your moderation be known unto all; the lord is at hand.’ I beseech you ‘be of the same mind in the Lord’ which is much more important for you than disputing about marrying in the Lord.” (Highlights are the writer’s). Now, contrast this reasoning with Holy Writ.

In the booklet, MARRIAGE Ought Believers to Marry Unbelievers? By Sundry Christadelphians, I present the following quotes from the brethren all of the same mind:

“THERE is a general impression to the effect that the objection to marriage with the unbeliever is founded on the expression of Paul in 1Cor 7:39, that widows are at liberty to marry again ‘only in the Lord.’ It will be found on investigation that this is a mistake. Paul’s expression taken in its special connection is certainly a strong indication: but the objection to mixed marriages stands on a much broader ground… An unbeliever is part of the world, understand by ‘the world’ those whose affections are not set on things above, but on things that are upon the earth only. How can a believer of the scriptural type… take the world into the closest of friendship in husband or wife, without being disobedient, and without being polluted?... ‘Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers.’ Though marriage is not mentioned in this command, its application to marriage cannot be denied if it is admitted to apply to any kind of yoking: for it cannot be that the apostolic interdict should apply to unimportant yokings and not apply to an important one…”  Brother Robert Roberts (Highlight added).

“Marriage was ordained by God in Eden before sin entered into the world; and the woman was formed of the substance of man, as recorded in Genesis… Later on universal apostasy set in, until all flesh had corrupted God’s way upon the earth. This came about through mixed marriages… ‘They saw,’ says Moses, ‘that the daughters of men were fair; and they took wives of all they chose.’ This was a fatal step. Can a man take fire in his bosom and not be burned? The sons of God corrupted themselves in marrying the daughters of Cain. Instead of bringing them over to ‘the Way of the Tree of Life,’ they were beguiled into ‘the Way of Cain.’ For the sons of God to marry daughters of Belial is to jeopardize their fidelity to God. This practice has ever been fruitful of apostasy.” Brother John Thomas

“With much solemn exhortation, Moses said to the Israelites: ‘Neither shalt thou make marriages with them (the surrounding nations); thy daughters thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son’ (Deut 7:3). Thus God laid it down that no Israelite was to unite himself to one outside his own nation. There were no exceptions made by Him in favour of aliens whose religion might take a less objectionable form. The line of demarcation was clearly drawn, and was not to be crossed… In this God-given object of marriage it is impossible for a believer to be equally yoked with an unbeliever—the two cannot walk harmoniously.” Brethren A.T. and C.H. Jannaway (Highlight is mine, and let’s add Deut 7:4: “for they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you…” (cf. Ezra 10:2).

“Modern experience agrees in all respects with that of old time. We are not wiser nor better than Solomon. It is folly and presumption for us to think we shall do better than he, or than Israel of old. When God forbade alien marriages in Israel because they would turn away the hearts of the people from God, it was the laying down of an abiding law [moral law]. If we now say, ‘Not so, but we will turn their hearts unto God,’ we shall only be proved wrong.” Brother C.C. Walker (Highlight and bracket is mine. Thinking that we can turn their hearts to God after marriage to a believer is unscriptural and is disobedience; it is to do “evil that good may come” (Rom 3:8). When we look at the alien with natural eyes, they, for the most part, appear to be very nice people, but looking at them with spiritual eyes tells a different story).

The apostle Paul wrote: “That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints…” (Rom 16:2). This expression is illuminating in that marrying in the Lord is marrying a saint – a fellow believer. S/he are to marry in harmony with the Lord’s will. The real question that is very disturbing is why would Christadelphian parents allow their child to date an alien in the first place? So, the problem begins with the parents, unless the baptized child is rebellious and disobedient, which according to Scripture must then be disfellowshipped, yet, we do not count them as enemies, but continue to admonish them in love, not within the fellowship, but outside of it (cf. Matt 18:15-17; 2Thess 3:14,15).

Alien marriages are an offense against both God and Christ. Our espousal (engagement) to Christ is contingent on knowing the Truth and submitting into his death and resurrection in baptism, and in no other way. Our marriage to Christ is contingent on a life of obedience to him. Espousal does not guarantee a marriage. Christ does not espouse himself to the alien, let alone “marry” one! We are to follow his example. However, such are not left without hope because, “a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart,” God will not despise. Genuine repentance is required. I am in full agreement with Clause 36 being Scriptural, and not based on fleshly reasoning that are contrary to the wholesome words of God and Christ, and apostolic teaching!

7:12-16 It seems that the Corinthians had clearly understood the requirement to marry a fellow believer. Maybe we need to think about this really carefully when we or others we know are contemplating marriage to one not “in Christ”.  We all need help on our journey in Christ, if our partner is not driven by the same objectives tension is inevitable.

7:35 Later – in chapter 14– Paul will emphasise that things must be done to “edify”. Here he speaks of their “profit” - that is their benefit. Is this what motivates us every time we speak with our fellow believers? Is everything we say or do designed to help them towards the kingdom of God?

1Cor 7:15

“But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases…”

Paul in this chapter specifically addressed the marital questions raised by the Corinthian ecclesia largely made up of Gentiles converts. Having come from Corinth, a city known for its corruption, immorality and Paganism, they wanted to know how they now stood under Christ. The Mosaic Law never applied to the Gentile converts (cf. Acts 15:24-29), and under Roman law, a woman was allowed to leave and divorce her husband. “By the first century B.C., either spouse could divorce the other or they could agree mutually to divorce” Ancient Romans led the way in no-fault divorce (stanford.edu) Paul clarified their position under Christ.

Depart is # <5562> in vv. 10,11,15, choreo, and chorizo, # <5563>, both from <5561>, “to separate.” It is the same Greek word, asunder, read in Matt 19:6; Mark 10:9. We have established that depart as asunder is to separate, not divorce, though some maintain it is, thus contradicting Christ and Paul who clearly make the distinction! “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved [douloo]. God has called you to peace.” ESV

Bondage is # <1402>, douloo, “enslave,” from <1401>, doulos, “a slave, … sense of subjection or subserviency.” Bondage, douloo, is found in Acts 7:6; Gal 4:3; 1Pet 3:1; 2Pet 2:19. Are these verses saying that bondage is insoluble?

“Loosed,” v. 27, is # <3089>, Iuo, “break (up) destroy, dissolve.” The marriage covenant has been dissolved, i.e., “to bring to an end: TERMINATE,” www.merriam-webster.com/ “Loosed” is the complete antithesis of “bound.” Verse 28 is a continuation of v. 27 concerning the loosed spouse. “But” is a conjunction connecting them, the second phrase differing from the first one:

“If you are married, do not seek divorce. If you are divorced from a wife, do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin…” (1Cor 7:27-29).

HOLY BIBLE FROM THE ANCIENT EASTERN TEXT, George M. Lamsa’s Translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta.

“Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned…” Darby Bible

“Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned…” ESV Study Bible

Bound” is # <1210>, deo, “bind, binding, to be in bonds.” The context of this chapter refers to the marriage bond (cf. vv. 1Cor 7:27,28a,39).

The consensus of some is the wife is still married after a divorce and cannot remarry, only separate; the marriage hasn’t ended because “loosed” does not mean released from the marriage. In other words, it doesn’t mean what it says! Interestingly, “bound,” deo, and “loosed,” luo are the same words used in Matt 16:19 wherein no controversy is raised over the meaning of these words! Here, it means what it says! We are either loosed, free, released, or we are not. The meaning of these words explain itself. Scriptures also cited as proof are Rom 7:2; 1Cor 7:39, which then contradicts and ignores Paul in vv. 1Cor 7:27,28, Christ (Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9), and God (Deut 24:1-4; cf. Deut 21:13,14), who allowed for exceptions!  

While Paul strongly encourages staying married based on the possibility of reconciliation (vv. 1Cor 7:11,16, he had in mind that the conversion of a believing spouse can favour the salvation of the unbelieving spouse.  But Paul was also mindful when asking his hypothetical question in v. 16 (taken out of context by some believers to justify marrying an unbeliever in hopes of bringing them into the Truth) the possibility of divorce of a believing husband or wife, which should not happen, but which may happen.

1Cor 7:39

“A wife is bound by the law as long as the husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is free to marry, but only in the Lord.”

“Bound by the law—The oldest manuscripts omit ‘by the law.’” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary. “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives…” ESV Study Bible. This verse along with Rom 7:1-3 are used as proof that no remarriage is ever allowed unless the husband dies. If this is true, did Paul contradict himself in 1Cor 7:15 - and Christ and God who allowed for limited exceptions? Just because Paul didn’t bring it up, doesn’t mean the exceptions didn’t exist or were abrogated (cf. Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9; Deut 24:1-4; cf. 21:13,14). It would have been inappropriate for Paul to mention the exceptions because in 1Cor 7:39 he was instructing widows on remarriage, while in Rom 7:1-3 Paul spoke figuratively of the transitional relationship of Jews from the Law to Christ wherein death was not meant literally (v. 4). Absence of the exception clause did not mean Paul ruled out remarriage after divorce under certain conditions.  Besides, both the Jews and Greeks were aware that exceptions existed.

We find this same thinking used that the exception clause in Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9 do not exist just because it wasn’t repeated in Mark 10:2-10; Luke 16:18 - even though Christ mentioned it twice in Matthew! Likewise, in Matt 19:3, “for every cause,” is omitted in Mark 10:2. Does this mean the Pharisees did not ask Jesus about a divorce “for every cause?” Which verses are contradictory?

Under Roman Law divorce for any cause was a divorce by separation only!

Ancient Romans led the way in no-fault divorce (stanford.edu)/ https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Divortium/ Even to this day some believers tell me the Bible teaches “separation is divorce!” This originated from Pagan Rome!  It was not a valid divorce; it was not based on scriptural grounds nor followed scriptural procedures. The couples were still married, regardless, hence the adulterous union if remarried! Divorce by just separating was the most common “divorce” during the time of Jesus permissible under Greco-Roman rule.  The faithful in Christ were to follow him, not laws that contradicted Scripture.

Looking at New Testament teachings, we see Jesus and Paul are in perfect agreement while addressing different audiences. Jesus taught forgiveness rather than hasty divorces and rejected the notion of divorcing for any cause, gave limited exceptions and denounced the “divorce by separation” of Roman Law as adultery when he challenged the Pharisees in citing Deut 24:1-4 and the original intent of marriage. At the same time, hard-hearted persons who repeatedly broke the marriage vows and unrepentant could be divorced on biblical grounds in biblical ways.

Paul emphasized the sacredness of marriage, reconciliation, and that no believer should cause a divorce by neglecting their obligations to their spouse or by abandoning their spouse. This shouldn’t surprise us as Paul was taught by Christ (Gal 1:12).

Absence of the exceptive clause in Mark, Luke and 1Cor has gendered all sorts of speculations, sort-less assumptions leading to dangerous exegesis. Though the reading may seem stultified at some points, it seems no more so than many other places where the text is unquestionably preserved in its entirety.

Marry “only in the Lord,” was not exclusive to Israelite widows [widowers] but applied also to the single and unmarried in the Corinthian ecclesia referred to in the previous verses. Paul did not give separate instructions to believing Jews and another to believing Gentiles except those given in Acts 15:19,21. Anyone in Christ is to marry “only in the Lord.” In Christ, women were and are still expected to be in subjection to their husbands (Eph 5:22; Col 3:18). If Jew and Gentile believers should marry/remarry, it is to be only in the Lord. This implies the spiritual qualifications that come with it, as defined for us in the Bible. A nominal believer, baptized in Christ with Christ on his lips, yet his conduct is inconsistent with the Truth is not in the Lord, but a profane person, worse than unbelievers (1Cor 5:11; 1Tim 5:8). 

1Cor 7:10,12

“And to the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord… But to the rest speak I, not the Lord…”

These verses have led some thinking that some of Paul’s writings were from the Lord, and others not. This, however, is a mistake. It has led to argue that what is only from Paul is of lesser authority. This interpretation has yielded very different and unintended results.

When Paul said, “I, not the lord,” he simply added his commentary on what Christ said decades earlier. While adultery is grounds for divorce, it is not mandatory that adultery lead to divorce. There is always a better way – reconciliation, a true reconciliation based on mutual forgiveness, repentance, and change. This was in harmony with Jesus’ teaching on forgiveness (Matt 5:24; 6:14).

7:27-29  Living a life faithful to Christ does require the individual to exercise his own conscience on some things. The issues spoken of here fall into that category. Of course is they are matters of personal preference then we would never think that our view had to prevail would we?

Whilst we might think we would never have to deal with the sort of matters raised here we should be careful to appreciate that the principles apply in all aspects of our interactions with fellow believers.

A case in point would be the use of different translations. Whilst exercising one’s own preference one would not wish to enforce that preference on others. You can doubtless think of other relevant example.

1Cor 7:24 the ecclesia in Corinth comprised of both Jew and gentile and bond servants and free men (that might even own slaves). We all come to Christ from various circumstances. It may be that our stats and position changes over time. However we should not be seeking for changes to make us more appealing to others. Our focus should be on pleasing God.

7:14 for the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.

How is the unbeliever made holy by the believer? By the godly influence of the believer (v16) upon the unbelievers in the believer's household, household members can come to faith and baptism. It may take a long time but it can happen.