 |  |
polygamy, which finds no place in the N.T. The Apostle goes on to refer to himself and
to state:
"Yet I would that all men were even as I myself" (7: 7 R.V.).
This does not mean that celibacy is necessarily ideal. What Paul desired was that all
had the capacity for resistance to sensual allurements that he himself possessed. Yet he
recognized that this was not so, and that it was "better to marry than to burn" (in desire,
verse 9). However, there was a far more important reason even than this, and that was
the possibility of the early return of the Lord, according to the conditions and promises of
Acts 3: 19-26. There was little point in taking on the obligations of marriage if the Lord
might come at any time. If one was unmarried, it was far better to remain so providing
continency was maintained. On the other hand, marriage was not a sin:
"Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not
sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned" (7: 27, 28 R.V.).
But as the end of the age was near with its tribulation, such would have `trouble in the
flesh' (28). If the problem of separation arose, owing to one of the partners being an
unbeliever (one being saved after marriage), providing the unbeliever was willing, such
separation should be avoided (verses 12-14). Divorce between believers must be avoided
at all costs. Paul uses two words in this context, chorizo separate, and aphiemi divorce.
In Judaism only the husband had the right to divorce, but here the Apostle uses the word
for both sexes, ". . . . . and that the husband divorces not his wife" (11), ". . . . . and the
woman which hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her
not divorce her husband" (13). A word must be said concerning the difficulty of
verses 14 and 15:
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy"
(R.V.).
It is surely obvious that Paul was not teaching that an unbelieving partner in marriage
was automatically saved by being so linked with a believer, nor that children of such a
marriage were likewise automatically saved, for this would be entirely contrary to all his
teaching regarding salvation by grace and faith in Christ and the tenor of the N.T.
generally.
The uncleanness here is the ceremonial uncleanness of the O.T. The reader should
note the argument on such uncleanness in Hag. 2: 11-13. The linking in marriage with a
foreigner in O.T. days would have resulted in uncleanness and being cut off from the
covenant relationship. The Apostle is now saying that the O.T. principle of the
communication of uncleanness does not hold in this case. And there was also the
possibility that the believing partner might be the means of leading the unsaved one to a
saving knowledge of Christ (16).
In any case, the general principle, youching every sphere of life, is to abide in one's
calling, providing this was straightforward and acceptable to God (18-24). Even slaves