Basic HTML Version
Romans and the Corinthians. Surely Paul had said something on this
problem that plagues God's Church today. The Corinthians had
written Paul about problems -- these he was answering.
The one chapter Paul wrote them on the subject of marriage is
the seventh chapter of I Corinthians. Corinth was a hotbed of
divorce and remarriage abuses. Verses 12 through 17 had never
seemed completely clear to us. Verses 8 through 11 have been
perfectly clear -- and in perfect harmony with Romans 7:1-3. In
these verses Paul wrote: "To the married I give charge, not I but
the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but
if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her
husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife" (v.
10-11, RSV). This is addressed to "the MARRIED" and shows "the
married" are bound to each other for LIFE. If a divorce occurs,
each must remain single. A second marriage makes one an adulterer
or adulteress, just as in Romans 7:1-3. But they MAY be
reconciled. The husband MAY take his wife back again.
Next, verse 12 (RSV): "To the rest I say, not the Lord...."
In verse 8, Paul addressed himself "to the unmarried and widows";
in verse 10, "to the married"; and in verse 12, "to the rest."
WHO are "the rest" -- besides the UNmarried, widows and widowers,
and besides "the MARRIED"? The expression,"I say, not the Lord,"
does not mean that this is not inspired. All scripture is
inspired, and this is part of scripture. It simply means there has
heretofore been no precedent. When Paul writes, "I give charge,
not I but the Lord," he is quoting what the Lord has already said
IN SCRIPTURE. But what he is going to say in verse 12 is something
NEW, without precedent. Yet Paul, even though saying this for the
first time in scripture, is inspired in writing it. I think all
commentaries agree. He continues, "If any brother has a wife who
is an unbeliever...." Let us stop here and ask, "WHEN was such a
brother married?" NOT since becoming a baptized believer, for
believers are prohibited from being unequally yoked together with
unbelievers. Therefore, this is speaking of a man converted, but
already married while HE and his wife both were unbelievers.
Continuing: "...and she consents to live with him." WHY should she
NOT? She already had "consented" to live with him when they were
married. She still was living with him when he was converted and
baptized. The reason she might NOT consent to live with him now is
his conversion, which she might not agree with and turn hostile
because of it. How many such experiences have we had today like
that?
So here is a NEW type of case. A newly converted person
married to an unbelieving wife. She may refuse to live any longer
with him because of his conversion. Paul solves this by NOT
QUESTIONING the validity of the pre-conversion marriage. He simply
says to this NEW situation that if she consents to live with him,
he should not leave her. If SHE is willing, he should CONTINUE
(verses 17-20) in the same married state in which God called him.
Next (verse 13): "If any woman has a husband who is an
unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not
divorce him."