STUDIES IN I CORINTHIANS

�� In the Old Testament the emphasis is on Jehovah, the God who is above us.� In the Gospels the emphasis is on Jesus, the God who is with us.� In the book of Acts and the Epistles the emphasis is on the Holy Spirit, the God within us.� There can be doubt that this is the age of God�s indwelling.� Pentecost began a new relationship between God and man.� Jesus pointed to it when He taught His disciples in the upper room that the Holy Spirit, the Father and Himself would all abide in them.� No longer would God be one afar off, and one to whom you had to go.� He will be nearer than your hands and feet, for He will be within.�

�� In the Old Testament this relationship was a promise, but at Pentecost it became a possession.� In Ezek. 36:26-27 we read, �A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.� And I will put my spirit within you...�� The promise is of a two fold change.� A man�s own spirit is to be renewed, and then God�s own spirit will dwell within.� Man�s old spirit in incompatible with the spirit of God, and so there has to be a radical renewal of it before God�s Spirit can dwell within it.� The disciples of Jesus were prepared, and their spirit was renewed, and they waited then for the promise of the Father.� Pentecost fulfilled that promise.

�� There was fire and a demonstration of power at Sinai also, but it was a fire that stirred up fear rather than joy.� Men were compelled by external power to bow and obey God.� At Pentecost the picture is radically different, for God no longer stands above and apart from man.� He comes within and demonstrates His power, and He gives His message through man.� Keble wrote,

The fires that rushed from Sinai down,

�� In trembling torrents dread,

Now gently light, a golden crown

�� On every sainted head.

�� Men became the temple of God.� This was a basic fact and essential truth of Christianity, but it was one that was difficult to grasp, and it still is today one of the most difficult concepts for Christians to make real in their lives.� The Corinthians had an especially hard time understanding this truth of the indwelling Spirit.� Paul tries hard to get it across to them.� They were very poor Christians, and they were ignorant and immature, and some of them were even immoral, they were still Christians.� Paul begins this chapter by writing, �But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh...�� He goes on to tell them how they are just like ordinary men yet.� They are jealous, envious, and they fight over which man to follow.� They are like children arguing over whose father is the strongest, and how many people their big brother can beat up.� Then he comes to verse 16 and asks this question: �Do you not know you are God�s temple and that God�s Spirit dwells in you?��

�� It is obvious they did not know, or at least never gave it much consideration.� If they had, they would not have been such miserable specimens of the Christian life.� In chapter 6 Paul repeats this question again after pointing out that if they realized the Holy Spirit dwelt within them, they would not continue to be immoral, and they would stop visiting prostitutes.� Our bodies are to be used for the glory of God, for they are temples of the Holy Spirit, says Paul.� Only very ignorant and immature Christians could be doing the things the Corinthians were doing with their bodies.� Paul knew that the key to their being lifted to a higher level was in the truth of the indwelling Spirit.� The more Christians are aware that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the more they will become like Christ.

�� The tragedy is not just that the Corinthians did not emphasize this truth, but that it is still not emphasized today.� It is a revolutionary truth, and yet it is seldom heard or practiced.� Christians do not deny the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit, but they do ignore it.� One of the reasons for this is the fact that it is such a radical truth that even Christians fear to take it literally.� It seems almost presumptuous to claim that you are a temple of God.� It would be construed as pride for me to say that the trinity abides in me.� People would either laugh or be disgusted.� Can we take this truth seriously?� Can the infinite indwell the finite?� It may be hard to believe it, but it is basic to New Testament Christianity.

�� W. T. Davison in his studies on the Holy Spirit writes, �The religion of the New Testament is a religion of the Holy Spirit, and the Christianity of subsequent times that would realize the New Testament type under new conditions must also be a religion of the Spirit.� Most of the declensions which have marked the religious life of Christendom have been due to forgetfulness of this fundamental fact, and all striking revivals of Christian life and power have sprung from its recollection and reinforcement.�

�� It is a fact of history that revivals are always accompanied with a consciousness on the part of Christians of the work of the Holy Spirit.� When Christians neglect this aspect of God�s relation to them, there is cooling off.� This means Christians more often than not are ignorant of this truth.� Sophir wrote, �For how long a period, even after the Reformation, were the doctrines of the Holy Spirit, His work in conversion, and His indwelling in the believer, almost unknown.�� This is the hardest truth to get across to believers, but one of the most important, for it is a truth distinctive to Christianity, and it is the source of the power to live the Christian life.� Sir Monier Williams, a great oriental scholar, asserts that the consciousness of a personal union and fellowship with God is a unique feature of Christianity.� He fails to find it in any of the religions of the East.� Dr. W. L. Walker in The Spirit And The Incarnation says, �The Spirit is the great thing in Christianity.� It is the distinctive doctrine, vital, fundamental and permanent��

�� The power of Pentecost and of the early church was not in creed or ritual, but in the indwelling Spirit.� A whole new relationship between God and man had come into the world.� Peter said to the 3 thousand converts on the day of Pentecost, �You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.�� Then he says in Acts 2:39, �For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Him.�� No longer was the Holy Spirit to be confined to the favored few.� He would indwell every believer.� Paul says He was even indwelling the Corinthians, who such poor Christians.� Of course, they were grieving and resisting the Spirit, but they were still temples of the Spirit.� Power for a victorious life of holiness was available to them, but they were not aware of it.

�� James M. Campbell in his book After Pentecost, what?� Compares the Christian who is ignorant of the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit to a fish who lies gasping in the sunshine only an inch away from the water.� One flip would take him over into his native element, but there he lies in a sad plight as if the water were miles away.� Christians are always near to abundant life, for God with all His resources dwells within, but we are so seldom conscious of this reality, and we do not know how to take advantage of it, even when we become conscious of it.�

�� Our whole way of life, and the total pattern of our culture make it hard for us to develop a consciousness of the inner life.� We seldom meditate and develop an awareness of the world within.� We do not think of preparation on the inside before we read the Bible, and yet men of the Spirit tell us it is the key to Bible study.� George Fox wrote, �A man can understand inspired Scriptures only as he is in the same spirit in which they are given.�� The unique New Testament perspective is to see life from within.� It is to see with the eyes and mind of Christ who dwells within.� We depend almost totally upon externals, but the poet reminds us:

The outward word is good and true,

�� But inward power alone makes new;

Not even Christ can save from sin

�� Until He comes and works within.

�� The inner life is the greatest reality, and yet it is the most ignored aspect of life.� Even Christians feel it is impractical and a waste of time to focus on what seems like self-centered introspection.� There is to much to do, and so we give ourselves to doing rather than to becoming, even though the New Testament makes it clear that God cares more about what we are than what we do.� Paul says in Col. 3:3, �Your life is hide with Christ in God.�� God hides within us, and we are hidden within God.� There is a mysterious hidden life that is the key to effective Christian living, and we must give this truth its rightful place in our lives.� Flowers spring from hidden seed, and the fruits of the Spirit likewise spring from the hidden life of the believer.� Only as we cultivate this deeply personal and private relationship to the indwelling Spirit can we be outwardly productive.�

�� If Paul expected the Corinthians to develop the inner life, how much more should we be expected to do so?� The beginning point is simply in awareness and desire.� Do you not know you are a temple of the Holy Spirit?� To know it, and to keep it in mind will develop in us a new perspective with new desires.� A steady and consistent consciousness of the indwelling Spirit cannot help but make a radical difference in our lives.� It calls for concentration, for the very fact it is a truth so much ignored shows it is a truth hard to grasp.� It is like nerve action in the body.� Muscle action we can understand, but the nerves are so mysterious and hard to figure out.� So the hidden life of the indwelling Spirit is hard to be conscious of.� To deny it or ignore it is as harmful to the spiritual life as a ignoring nerves is to the physical.� Whether you feel it or not, your nerves are in operation for good or ill, and so it is with the Holy Spirit.� We need to ask ourselves constantly this question of Paul: Do you know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells within?�

2.�� THE CHRISTIAN AND SUICIDE Based on I Cor. 3:1‑17

�� Shakespeare said, "Against self‑slaughter there is a prohibition so divine that cravens my weak hand."� He was expressing the attitude of the vast majority towards suicide.� We did not find that prohibition in either the Old Testament or the New Testament.� The whole Bible does oppose the taking of one's life even if there is no explicit prohibition.� Life is sacred; God is its author; we are to present our bodies a living sacrifice; we are to do all that we do to the glory of God.� No one can doubt that self‑destruction is sinful, and opposed to the whole plan of God.�

�� So obvious is this truth that it has been recognized to be evil by the majority of non‑Christians.� Pythagorus and Plato, the ancient Greek philosophers, condemned it "on the ground that we are all soldiers of God, stationed at appointed posts of duty, which it is rebellion against our maker to desert."� Aristotle and Greek legislators condemned it as abandonment of duty to the state.� The ancient poets, like Lucretius the Roman, condemned it as cowardice.� Buddhism and Islam condemn it.� Practically all pagans have recognized it to be a sin.� The rare exception is the Stoics whose goal of life was to avoid trouble and pain.� If all did not go right, they encouraged suicide as a solution.� Zeno the founder hanged himself when he broke his finger, and the famous poet that Paul quotes in Acts 17:28, Cleanthes, starved himself to death because his gums were sore.� Apart from these we have the whole weight of the moral conscience of heathenism again suicide.�

�� That it is a sin we cannot doubt, and that it is a grave sin we cannot question, but what we want to do is to get some answers to some very important questions related to suicide.� These may be only idle speculation for some, but there are Christians in our world who would feel them to be desperately relevant, and the day may come when American Christians will also feel this.� Now is the time to ask the questions, and prepare ourselves for proper attitudes and understanding.� The first question is this:�

I. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR A CHRISTIAN TO TAKE HIS OWN LIFE?

�� If we come to this question with preconceived notions, we will, of course, already have an answer before we examine the evidence.� There is only one preconceived idea we can have, however, and that is that it is sin, and a grave sin at least as bad as murder.� This means that we are seeking to determine if a Christian can do the worse kinds of sin.�

�� Jesus implied it was possible when He gave the Sermon on the Mount.� He said that it was not only murder when you kill, but it was also murder when you are angry without a cause, and so full of hate that you call a brother a fool.� This puts the believer in grave danger.� This becomes meaningless if it is not possible for the believer to do such evil.� The whole New Testament implies by its moral standard and prohibitions that it is possible for a believer to commit any of the sins forbidden by the ten commandments.� There is no basis for saying that the sin of suicide is impossible for the believer.� It is morally impossible, just as stealing, adultery, lying, and covetousness.�

�� What does history tell us.� The question was debated in the early church.� One of the big questions was this:� Could a Christian woman take her own life in times of persecution to escape the dishonor she would suffer by brute soldiers, who would rape her before she was killed?� Eusebius, the church historian, Chrysostom, the golden mouth preacher, and Jerome, the Bible translator, all favored it as the lesser of two evils.� Augustine condemned it, however, and later church councils did also.� They passed a law refusing church burial to anyone who did so.� The debate arose out of life's battles where women did take their lives to escape the awful fate awaiting them.� Even Augustine allowed exceptions, since some were called martyrs and made saints.� The modern Catholic Encyclopedia says this question is still open for debate.

�� What is not debatable is the fact that true Christians did take their own lives.� In more modern times we find that after the Reformation the question arises again.� There was no problem with suicide in the so‑called dark ages.� It became a universal problem only since the Enlightenment.� In Tirospol, Russia in 1897, 28 persons buried themselves alive to escape the census which they felt was evil and against God's will.�� In 1666 Russian Zealots looked for the antichrist to come so soon that they urged Christians to escape him by suicide and entering into heaven.� Whole communities hailed with enthusiasm this gospel of death, and they put it into practice.� Such fanaticism characterized the Anabaptist also.� They claimed they were setting up the kingdom of God, and they brought destruction on themselves when they tried to rebel and make society socialistic.� Luther and his princes went to war and killed over 100,000 because of this fanaticism.�

�� This was not suicide in the same sense as it was with the Russians, but it was close to it in terms of the folly of it all, and in terms of getting Christian people so fired up over fanatical ideas that they were willing to die for some man made scheme.� The purpose of sharing this history is to show that God's children can, and have, been victims of false and fanatical leadership, and have even taken their own lives as a result.� Martyrdom was so prized at one time that Christians fought to be killed.� Some early Christians deliberately threw themselves to their death under the delusion that a violent death gained merit.�

�� Leslie T. Lyall in his book Come Wind Come Weather gives an account of evangelical reactions to the Communist takeover in China.� Christian leaders were disgraced and accused by other Christians of crimes and sins.� He reports that people of evangelical persuasion were driven insane, and a number of them committed� suicide.� These he mentions were leaders and not just new Christians.� They were people like T. H. Sun who was editor of the Christian Farmer.� Some were pastors, and one was archdeacon James Fu who was accused by his own sons.� How are we to look at this?� First we must recognize the differences in cultures.� To be accused by ones own family and friends, and have public demonstrations, and have it put in the paper was, for an oriental mind, a burden beyond us to comprehend.� The saving face attitude is a part of the Christian life in the orient, and this type of thing could crush the heart of even the strongest.� It will not do to say that maybe none of them were true Christians.� That could very well be, but it begs the whole question, and ignores the testimony of their lives.� Since there is no basis for believing that it is impossible for a Christian to take their own life, it is better to give them the benefit of the doubt.

�� The Bible makes it clear that the most godly of men can develop all the symptoms of loneliness and despair that lead to suicide.� Moses who was tired and discouraged cried out to God in Num. 11, "The load is far to heavy!� If you are going to treat me like this, please kill me right now; it will be a kindness.� Let me out of this impossible situation."� Moses spoke with the mind that fits the majority of people who commit suicide.� Then there is Elijah who was emotionally and physically exhausted in his battle with Jezebel.� He cries out to God in I Kings 19, "I've had enough.� Take away my life.� I've got to die sometime, and it might as well be now."� Keep in mind, we are not looking at the words of new believers who could not take the pressure.� These were pros, and the cream of the crop of God's best men.� Job and Jeremiah both cursed the day of their birth they fell so low in depression.

�� What about the prophet Jonah who was so embarrassed because God in His mercy did not destroy Nineveh after He preached that He would.� He cried out to God in despair in Jonah 4, "Please kill me Lord: I'd rather be dead than alive."� Life was unbearable, and that is precisely where the suicide is when he takes his life.� From the time you ate breakfast this morning until the time you eat breakfast tomorrow one thousand people will have killed themselves on this planet.� And not a day goes by but that some of that thousand are born again Christians. Christian doctors, psychiatrists, and those working with suicide prevention centers as well as pastors know this to be true.� I have counseled a number of Christians who were suicidal.

�� Billy Graham has acknowledged that Christians can so fall under the deceptive power of Satan that they can be enticed into suicide. Duane Peterson who headed the Jesus People Organization published many letters from Christians who attempted or succeeded in suicide.� Leslie Weatherhead, the well known preacher and author in England writes, "When Captain Oates‑a valued colleague of Captain Scott in his epic journey to the South Pole‑found that frost‑bite in his feet was holding up his companions, he walked out into the blizzard to lay down his own life and was rightly labeled, "A very gallant gentleman."� No one would criticize a man who, after a shipwreck, leapt to certain death in a stormy sea because a raft containing women and children was already over filled."� What he is pointing out is that there are circumstances in which the taking of one's life is an act of heroism.�

�� You might think it is dangerous to make these facts known, and ask, won't this encourage Christians to take their own life?� Not at all.� The reason the Bible does not hide the deep negative emotions of the best of God's people is because God knows that the key to conquering Satan's temptation to suicide is the freedom to share your burden and be accepted.� No Christian will ever be defeated by the devil or depression who can feel free to share their despair without fear of rejection. Christians need to know they can commit suicide and will if they refuse to use the weapons God has given to outwit the enemy.� If I fell and sprained my back I would not hesitate to share with you about the pain, and get your encouragement and prayer.� But if I fell into depression and life became a dark pit with no light penetrating into my gloom, I may try to hide that from you, and in so doing be playing right into Satan's hands.� If I could treat my mental injuries as I do my physical injuries, and be honest and open about them, I would discover they were often easier to heal than the physical ones.�

�� All of this is to say that we need not fear to talk of suicide and despair.� Nothing is more necessary than to get the gloom out into the light of God's love and understanding.� It is the only way you are going to beat it.� Since most human beings consider suicide at some point or another, it is folly to feel you are some kind of freak or weirdo if the thought ever comes to you.�� Fear it and hide it, and it could ensnare you.� Face it and fight it, and you will certainly win.� Having thoughts of suicide is not a sign you are not a Christian.� Don't let Satan deceive you.� Many of the greatest people God ever used in history had these same thoughts.� If you recognize this you will disarm Satan of one of his most powerful weapons against you.�

�� Christians can and do commit the grave sin of suicide, but they would do it far less if they could only realize it is no different than temptation to any other sin. Christians are tempted to lie, cheat, steal, and every other sin, but because they know it is possible to fall into these sins they fight the temptation.� But when it comes to suicide they feel so depressed over it that they tend to yield to Satan out of sheer despair, and feeling forsaken even by God for such a horrible desire.� Don't let Satan get you into a guilt trip where he can persuade you that you are so unworthy that suicide is all you deserve.� Since all the evidence indicates it is possible for the Christian to commit this sin, the next question is all the more important.

II. IS SUICIDE UNFORGIVABLE?

�� If a Christian does take their own life for any number of reasons such as, to avoid what they think to be a greater evil, or out of devotion to a fanatical leader, or because pressure to the breaking point, do they commit a sin so evil as to forfeit their salvation? We know Judas was not forgiven, but the New Testament nowhere condemns his suicide, but only his betrayal of Jesus. Judas was not lost because of the way he took his life, but because of his betrayal. Nothing he could do after that could add to his condemnation.

�� Jesus made it clear that there is only one sin that is unforgivable both in this world and the next, and that was blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If suicide was also unforgivable, Jesus would have said there are two such sins, but he said there is only one, and suicide is not it. So then the question is, is it possible to be forgiven after one is dead? Catholics have their purgatory, and so they say very definitely the answer is yes. Protestants have no such doctrine, and so they have to wonder how sin can be forgiven after death. If a Christian dies with some sin unconfessed, will he enter heaven with a sinful soul? This is, of course, not possible, and so the common view is that when a Christian dies he is made whole by the blood of Christ. If this be so, then we have no basis for saying the same is true of the suicide who is a Christian. This sin will be cleansed by grace just as all other sins.�

�� In debate on this issue one of the first text to come to the surface is, "Thou shalt not kill."� I do not know of anyone in all of history who does not agree that murder is forbidden by God, and that it is one of the gravest sins.� Self‑murder then is obviously also a grave sin.� But this says nothing about it being unforgivable.� David plotted to murder the innocent Uriah to cover up his adultery with his wife.� It is one of the most despicable sins of history.� Yet I know of no one in all of history that does not recognize that David was forgiven for that grave sin.� What he did makes the suicide victim seem mild in comparison.� The suicide may be laying down his life for the sake of others.� David's sin was pure evil, and yet he was forgiven.�

�� The Bible has been searched from cover to cover to find a shred of evidence that suicide is worse than murder, and after reading dozens of books by those who have done the searching, I know of no Bible verse that support the view that suicide is unforgivable.� Karl Barth, one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century, said, "If there is forgiveness of sin at all, there is surely forgiveness of suicide."� Bonhoffer and Thielicke are two other great theologians who agree.� All you have to ask is the question, did Jesus die for this sin also, or is this one He left out when He took on Himself the sins of the world?� Unless you would risk the wrath of God by adding this sin to the only one Jesus said was unforgivable, you have to leave it where Jesus left it, and that is with all the other forgivable sins.�

�� Joseph Bayly, one of the outstanding evangelical authors, says that he finds nothing in the Bible that alters his conviction that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from the sin of suicide.� John R. Rice, a great fundamentalist leader who has influenced millions, responded to a letter about a Christian girl who committed suicide.� He wrote, "I am so sorry about your sister, but I'm sure you can have sweet confidence that she is with the Lord, and now happy."� This is from a fighting fundamentalist who split hairs over all kinds of issues.� Why?� Because he knew the Bible gives no basis for thinking there is any difference in the destiny of a Christian who dies by the sin of suicide then the Christian who dies with the sin� of lust, envy or pride in his soul.�

�� Where then does the idea come from that so many Christians have in their head that anyone who commits suicide is automatically damned?� It is a tradition that grew out of the middle ages, and has not yet died, but like many old wise tales and superstitions it clings to men's minds.� The motive of the tradition was good.� It was to so frighten people with the fear of hell that they would not dare kill themselves.� It probably saved many lives through the centuries, and still does yet today.� But there is a better way, and that is the way of truth.� If the Bible does not teach it, then it is false doctrine, and it is wrong to use false doctrine even if you do good with it.� It is better to use true doctrine and do more good in the will of God.

�� I have no desire to go and steal, or lie, or murder, because I know it is forgivable.� Nor do I feel less repulse by suicide because it is forgivable.� But I feel more secure knowing that if I should be deceived and fall into the snare of Satan, I am not cut out of the family of God.� I have assurance in Christ, and this makes me stronger to face up to the causes of depression that could lead to suicide.� I do not need to suppress it in fear, but I can openly face it in faith and conquer it.� This is better than going through life scared stiff that I could kill myself and end in hell.� To prevent suicide by fear does not lead to the abundant life, but to prevent it by faith does.�

�� This brings us to our text at last. This is the only New Testament text I am aware of that is used to show the danger of suicide, and to support the view that if one does take his own life he is forever damned. On the surface it appears to be a sound argument, but closer examination reveals it to be another case of taking Scripture out of context to prove something that the passage is not even hinting at.� The whole context makes it clear that Paul is not talking about their bodies as such, but about themselves as the church‑the temple‑the dwelling place of God. The problem is that they are a disgrace to the temple. All their divisions and strife and envy are terrible, and Paul rebukes them and warns them that if they destroy the temple of God, they will be destroyed by God.� Self destruction is not the issue here, but the destruction of the body of Christ‑the church. To read suicide into this passage is called eisegesis, or a reading in of what is not there. It is an abuse of the Bible to use this passage to deal with suicide.

�� It may seem to be a logical implication, however, since they body of a believer is the temple, and even if Paul does not refer to it, self destruction would be destroying the temple of God, and would be worthy of being destroyed by God. The only problem with this deduction is that it proves too much. It proves more than those who use it would want to admit. It proves that one can lose his salvation by doing anything that mars his body. This would lead to damnation for smoking, drinking, getting a tatoo, and many other self inflicted injuries. Nobody wants to take this to its logical conclusion, for it damns millions of believers.

�� The Greek word used here is worth studying. There are ten Greek words translated destroy in the KJV.� The differences are very great. Some mean to kill; some to demolish; others to lay waste or to make of none effect, and still other to mar or corrupt. The word here is phtheiro which means to mar or corrupt. It does not even mean to mar or corrupt thoroughly, for there is another word for that which is diophtheiro.� So the KJV translators had a right to give weaker meaning to the first use of it, and say defile, for envy and strife do not demolish the church but they do defile it, and bring evil into the holy place. The whole point is, if you try to draw teaching about suicide from this text, you end with a view that Christians are in danger of losing their salvation for anything that mars of defiles their body, or the church.

�� Even those theologians who strongly believe that it is possible for a believer to be lost do not take this passage as support, for they recognize with all biblical scholars that this, though a serious matter of judgment, cannot be applied to the loss of salvation. It does teach that the Christian who causes division in the church is in danger of judgment, but even such an unholy Christian as this will not be damned for his hindrance to Christ.� If it could be made to mean this, it would be taken advantage of by those who warn of Christians losing their salvation. Therefore, to use this passage to prove that suicide is unforgivable is foolish, for it does not even prove that about the very sin that it is written about, which is church division. If anything can be inferred from this passage about suicide, it would be that there is more hope for the suicide than for the trouble maker in the church.

�� If suicide cannot be forgiven because the person doing so is dead, then neither can any other sin, and we are caught is the same dilemma that led the early church at one point to baptize people just before they died so they could die without sin.� We need to face the fact that most every Christian will die with some sin in their life. If nothing else, there are the sins of omission.� If one needs to be free of all sin to go to heaven, then all sins are unforgivable is not forgiven before you die. This is theology not found anywhere in God's Word. All sin can be forgiven after death, and must be, and this includes the sin of suicide.� Paul says in Rom. 8 that nothing can separate us from the love of God, and that would include the sin of suicide, or his statement is not true.

�� If all we have said is true, what are the implications?� It means that the Christian must be on guard and recognize they can be victims of Satanic forces; they can be misled by fanatics; they can be crushed by psychological warfare, and circumstances can lead them to lose all interest in life. These dangers are real, and they call for increased devotion and maturity in Christ. It calls for the practice of the Biblical exhortation to bear one another's burdens. It calls for a commitment that goes beyond all that life has to offer, so that we can say at the lowest ebb with Job, "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him." Satan is still going about seeking who he may devour, and not one ought to know better than Peter that Satan is more than a paper lion. He has real teeth, and he who stands must beware lest he should fall.

�� Self‑destruction is just one of the many grave sins that Christians can be ensnared with.� If we had time we could examine many of the forces that compel people to self‑destruction, and we could see that all of us are subject to these forces.� Our defense against these, as well as all forces of evil, is constant commitment and growth in Christ.� All sin is possible for the believer, but it is to be avoided, and we must include more subtle sins as well.� John Howe said, "What a folly it is to dread the thought of throwing away life at once, and yet have no regard to throwing it away by parcels and piecemeal."� All of life is sacred and needs to be used for the glory of God.�

3.�� THE CHRISTIAN AND DIVORCE�� Based on I Cor. 7:8‑16

�� Dave Howell, The World Service Secretary Of The YMCA, was going to give a speech on his experience in Liberia.� There were three speakers before him, and the first mentioned that Howell had come from Libya to be there, instead of Liberia.� Howell whispered to the next speaker that he would appreciate it if he could correct the mistake.

This second man rose to speak, and referred to Mr. Howell, there guest from Nigeria.� Howell nudged the speaker who was to officially introduce him, and reminded him to set the record straight.� The gentleman nodded, and rose to introduce him.� He said, "Now it is my pleasure to present Dave Howell from Siberia."� There are some situations where it is so hard to set the record straight, because you cannot get people to be accurate by focusing on details.�

�� Agassiz, the Swiss Naturalist, was one of the world's best teachers, and many of his students became famous, because his first lesson was on detail.� New students would come to his study, and he would give them a fish in a jar.� He would tell them to observe it, and he would be back.� He would be gone for hours, and the student had nothing to do but watch that fish, and count the bones in the fins, and the number of scales.� They would get disgusted and discouraged, but when the professor returned, he did not relieve them of their task of observing.� For three days they spent hours looking at that fish, and they learned the knack of careful observation of all detail, and the rest of their lives were benefited, and they went on to become the best in their field.

�� If you want to be the best at anything, you have got to be an observer of detail.� This is not the same as being picky, and a person who is devoted to the trivial.� Paul warned about getting all hung up on foolish questions dealing with genealogies.� There is also the folly of dwelling on detail.� Like the man who said, "My wife and I had an interesting fight last night.� She said it was five days since our last fight, and I said it was four."� Detail is only crucial when our understanding of more major issues depends on our grasp of detail.� This is certainly the case with this complex chapter of I Cor. 7.� Paul is making all kinds of distinctions in this chapter, and if you do not give heed to detail, you will miss the essence of his whole approach, which is, a clear recognition of individual differences.

�� One of the first things you learn in counseling is that people who have the same problem are radically different.� You can not deal with people like barrels on an assembly line.� You have to deal with them as persons, and to do this, you have to reject legalism as your guide.� If the church would have followed Paul in rejecting legalism, and have dealt with people as individuals, there would never have been the dark ages of the church, and the folly that has done so much harm to God's people.�

�� Just one illustration out of many dozens reveals the point.� St. Benedict, as a youth of 16, fought off lust for a beautiful maiden.� So determined was he, that he cast off his simply garment, and threw himself into a thicket of brambles and nettles.� He thrashed and rolled until his body was lacerated from head to foot.� This crude, but successful, method of conquering the flesh made him a hero, and he founded a monastery, and gained a great following, and did great things for the kingdom of God.� So far so good, but the church officials said, "What is good for St. Benedict is good for everybody," and they passed a law that said all priests were to abstain from sex.� They were not to marry, or if they were married, they were to stop sleeping with their wives.� All clergy were to be celibate, or lose their office.� Some actually were successful.� One holy man kept his wife at a distance for years, and when she approached him on his death bed to see if he was still breathing, he gathered up his strength and said, "Woman depart!� Take away the straw, for there is yet fire here."�

�� The tragedy, however, is that this legalism forced the non‑gifted to live a life they were not fit for.� The result was centuries of Christian scandal.� By forcing everyone to be celibate, they made a mockery of all the Bible teaches about sex.� Sex starved priests, by the thousands, who could have been happily married, were visiting prostitutes, sleeping with parishioners, making all kinds of arrangements with nuns, and, at one point in the tenth century, the Archbishop of Sens had the entire Abby of St. Peter filled with concubines. Temple prostitution became as common as it was in pagan Corinth.

�� You cannot begin to imagine the mess Christians have made in history by not paying attention to Paul's advice.� He is constantly making distinctions, but legalists make no distinctions.� They just cast everybody into the same mold, and say this is it, there is no other perspective.� Paul says to avoid to being a fool you have got to recognize that people differ.� They differ in their gifts, in their personalities, and in there circumstances.� For example, in verse 8 he says it is well for the unmarried and widow to remain single, but then he immediately says it is better for them to marry than to burn with passion they cannot control.� It is well to stay single, but better to marry if there is this difference in their makeup.� So Paul clearly puts the burden on the individual.� There is no rule here that applies to all.� Which is best for you depends upon you, and only you can know what you are capable of handling.� It is folly to make a rule which applies to all which does not recognize individual differences.� The church has tried it many times, and it always leads to tragedy.� Those who learn nothing from history are condemned to repeat it.

�� Two tired donkey's came to a stream on a� hot day.� One carried a load of salt, and the other a huge pack of sponges.� The one carrying salt went in first, and when he came out the other side he called back and said, "It was easy and delightful," for his burden was lightened as the salt dissolved in the water.�� The second donkey plunged into the stream and the sponges filled with water and he drowned.� The point is, do not assume that what is a blessing for you is a blessing for others in Christ.� It may very well be a burden to them. Celibates who feel all should be celibate, and marrieds who feel all should be married, are dangerous legalists, for if they had the power they would impose their preference on everyone.� History is full of this kind of nonsense.

�� Paul will have no part of it.� He recognizes distinctions, and honors individual differences.� We see him maintaining the same spirit as we come to his dealings with divorce.� He makes a distinction between marriages of two Christians, and marriages of a Christian and a non‑Christian.� His point is, divorce in never good, but it may, in certain cases, be the only alternative that makes sense.� The case he deals with is a non‑Christian mate who refuses to live with his Christian spouse.� If the non‑Christian gets a divorce, Paul says in verse 15, let it be so, for the Christian mate cannot be bound in such a case. It is obvious to all that a non‑Christian can just say, "I refuse to try and save this marriage," and go off and get a divorce.� The divorce Christian, in this case, does not need to have the slightest guilt for being divorced, unless, of course, they were terrible mates.

�� For now, let's focus our attention on verse 10‑11, where Paul deals with two Christians who are married to one another.� He first addresses the wife, and gives a clear word of warning that it is not just his authority, but from the Lord.� The Christian wife is not to get a divorce.� By not paying attention to detail, I always saw this as a warning not to separate, as if the mere act of separation was itself wrong.� Paul is not writing here about separation, but about divorce.� This is clear from the 11th verse, where Paul says, if the wife goes ahead and does what he says not to, she should remain single or unmarried.� Obviously, a mere separation does not make her single or unmarried.� She has gotten a divorce, and so Paul is saying the same thing to the wife as he does in verse 11 to the husband‑don't get a divorce.

�� The one thing that is clear in the Bible is that divorce is never the best way to go. �Divorce is negative.� Nobody ever rejoices that a divorce is a part of their life.� The most liberal Bible interpreters recognize that divorce is a sad ending to a beautiful dream.� The cults even agree, there is no praise for divorce.� Paganism, and even secularism join in the universal agreement that divorce is not success, but failure.� But the fact is, it is a reality. It always has been, and always will be.� It is a growing menace in our culture, and Christians can no longer be smug about it, for it is no longer a problem of the world only, it is a major problem of the church.� The church can never escape the changes in the culture, and the result is, Christian marriages are breaking up at a faster pace than ever in history.�

�� It is not new, however, for Paul dealt with a culture where the same problem existed. He is writing to Christian couples, telling them not to divorce each other.� You may think Paul knew very little about women, but he proved you wrong, right here.� He told the Christian wife she was not to divorce her husband.� Then in the very next sentence, he tells her what to do after she ignores that first command.� Don't let anybody ever tell� you that Paul did not understand women.� Paul knows some of the problems in Christian marriages are so bad that it is superficial to assume there will never be a divorce.� Instead, he assumes there will be, and so he goes on to say what the next step is after a Christian wife does get a divorce.� Paul was a realist.� He would like to see all obey the first rule, but he knew he had to have a back up plan, for those who would ignore it.�

�� For example, let's get back to the Corinthian husband who is still going to the temple prostitute.� Paul knows he will not prevent this sin among all the men.� The result will be, some of the wives will be divorcing their husbands.� They have a right to do so, for Jesus made it clear, this is a valid reason for divorce.� If a mate cannot be faithful, God does not demand that anyone live with such a person.� This explains why Paul does not lay it down as an absolute law, that the Christian wife should never divorce her Christian husband.� To do so would be to rob her of a God‑given right, and Paul knows he cannot do that.� All he can do is go on to urge her to remain single, and try to bring about a reconciliation.� Paul is hoping that Christian wives can be channels of God's grace, and rise above their rights to a divorce, and strive to forgive their husbands, and keep their Christian marriages alive.

�� Paul has as great faith in women.� He believes that they can let the grace of God triumph over sin, and win a victory.� You notice, he does not have any elaboration after telling the husband not to divorce his wife.� It is almost as if he is saying, if a husband disobeys, and does divorce his wife, the game is over.� He does not ask him to stay single, and try to be reconciled to his wife.� I don't know how much we can read between the lines, but it seems as if Paul is saying, he has more hope of a wife seeking reconciliation then a husband.� In the Corinthian context, and in much of history, the wife usually gets a divorce because she is hurt and betrayed.� She can be persuaded to forgive and try again.� The husband usually gets a divorce because he wants another woman.� He is not likely to be forgiving and be reconciled, for he has nothing to forgive, in that he is the guilty party.

�� Whatever the case for the divorce, Paul is confident the wife is most likely to still save the marriage by not getting married to another, but remaining single, and seeking reconciliation.� Paul does not add another verse saying what this Christian wife should do

if she ignores his second command, like she did the first.� What if she not only gets divorced, but then, instead of remaining single and seeking reconciliation, she goes off and remarries another Christian?� Paul does not say, here is what you should do if you do what I told you not to do, after you did what you shouldn't.� In other words, Paul is not covering all the possibilities by any means.

�� What he is doing is establishing a pattern for Christian counseling, based on grace rather than law.� If a Christian does not chose the ideal, then you have to deal with them where they are, and shoot for� another goal which is best on that level.� The Christian counselor is not to be concerned so much with punishment for sin and failure in marriage, as with trying to gain victory over them.� Christians are making wrong choices all the time, and in the area of divorce and remarriage they make a lot of mistakes.� They often chose to ignore God's will, and deliberately sin, and get their lives messed up.�

�� Paul's approach to life is the Christlike approach.� It often can be misunderstood as being soft on sin, but in fact, it is the key to victory over sin.� Jesus could have justly had the woman taken in adultery stoned, but instead, he told her, go and sin no more.� That was quite a light sentence for so serious a sin, but Jesus knew you can bless people out of sin more effectively than you can blast them out.� Grace experienced by the guilty in forgiveness and acceptance saves people from more sin than does condemnation.�

�� The goal of Paul is to help the Corinthians get out of the vicious circle, where sin runs their lives, and enter into an orderly and godly pattern of life, where they can experience peace.� He does not once hint at any form of punishment for those Christians who are still trying to live like pagans in the realm of their sex life.� He does not mention excommunicating this Christian wife who goes ahead and gets a divorce.� He does not suggest that the single who struggles with fornication, or goes to the temple prostitute, should be rejected.� Is Paul being too soft on sin?� He is, if the goal of the church is to punish sin, but if the goal of the church is to win people out of a life of sin, and help them live a life pleasing to God, then Paul is doing what has to be done.� Loving the sinner, and accepting the sinner, while condemning the sin.�

�� The legalist, in contrast, is not as concerned about the person as he is about the sin and its punishment.� The goal of the legalist is to see that the law is obeyed, or the penalty is paid.� Churches, like individuals, tend to operate on a value system that is guided either

by legalism or grace.� The result is, you have many churches where this Christian wife that Paul writes to, would be made to feel rejected, and would be forced to leave.� Listen to the testimony of one such contemporary wife.�

"Its been 19 months since I've been a member of church,

and it will probably be 19 years before I am again," said the

young woman angrily.� "I sang in the choir, attended every

worship service and worked in the Sunday School.� When my

husband began to have trouble, we went to the pastor.� He gave

us a lot of advice and tried to help, but it didn't work.� We were

divorced.� Right about that time the pastor was saying from the

pulpit that divorce was the biggest sin in America today.� Well,

I didn't want to mess up his precious little group of saints, so

I just quit going to church.� And no one asked me back.� The

church isn't for the divorced."

�� This is not an isolated case.� There are many thousand who have felt the same way, and many have their testimony in print.� June Carter Cash, the wife of Johnny Cash, wrote about her life, and the fact that they were both previously divorced.� They both became Christians, but they were hurt most by Christians who could forgive thieves and

murders, but who, for some reason, felt divorce was unforgivable.� She wrote, "There are those in the Christian church who will never forgive us for those broken marriages.� But Christ died for people like me.� People who mess up their lives and stand shaking in their boots with guilt, wondering if they're really going straight to hell.� But he tells us to repent, and if we really do this and know in our hearts that He has forgiven us, then the sin is no longer ours.� That's what I did.� And if they cannot forgive me, they must answer for that.

Please remember‑we are justified in Jesus when we believe, but it can take a long time to be sanctified."� Never once does Paul single out the Christian caught in the tragedy of divorce for special punishment.�

�� The plea of Mrs. Cash is the very thing that Paul is responding to in this chapter.� He is dealing with Christians who are justified by faith, but who are not yet sanctified by a life of obedience.� Without the loving spirit of Paul in striving to guide such people, the church tends to become legalistic.� They say that now you have fallen short, you cannot teach any more, or be an officer in the church.� There are times when violating God's will does demand severe discipline.� In chapter 5 Paul does demand that the man living with his fathers wife be excommunicated.� But in this chapter he does not suggest any such thing for those who are divorced.� In fact, he has compassion for those in circumstances beyond their control, such as the Christians married to a non‑Christian who wants to leave.� In verse 15 he says if the non‑Christian spouse divorces the Christian, the Christian is no longer bound.� In other words, Paul does not expect a Christian man or woman to be a slave to a non‑Christian, and their life style.� If they go off and end the marriage the bond is broken, and the Christian is free to remarry a Christian.

�� This merciful treatment of the divorce has been a part of Christian history.� Let me share with you a brief outline of the history of acceptable divorce in the church.� By acceptable I mean, one where there is a right to remarry and be blessed by the church.

1.� Jesus said if adultery enters a marriage, this can be a legitimate reason for divorce.

2.� Paul says, a non‑Christian leaving a Christian is a legitimate reason for divorce, and the Christian mate is not bound, but free to remarry.�

3.� The early church added that abandonment by a mate leaves one free to remarry.

4.� When barbarians raided the Roman Empire, and carried people off to be slaves, if a mate was so taken, after a period of waiting, there was freedom to remarry.

5. When a mate joined a convent or monastery, the other mate was free to remarry.

6. If one, unknowingly, married someone they found to be near of kin, they were free to divorce and remarry.

7. If one discovered they were married illegally, such as being married to a bigamist, the right to divorce and remarriage was granted.

8.� In our day it is common for a Christian wife to discover she has married a homosexual. Even the most conservative churches permit her to divorce and remarry.�

�� There are no doubt others, but these are those I have picked up in reading Christian history.� What they reveal is that the Bible does not give us all the possible problems we may have to face.� It gives us principles that can be applied in all ages and circumstances.

What God has joined together let not man put asunder is true, but all agree that there are many marriages that are not God's doing, and so man is free to put them asunder.�

�� The divorced single is no different than the never married single, or the widowed single. They all either have self‑control, and can remain single, or they burn with passion, and must seek a marriage partner.� Those who put divorce people into another category that Paul does not mention, become very superficial in their dealing with the sex drive.� There are those who say that a divorce person must stay single, even they do burn with passion. Paul says it is better to marry than burn, but they insist it is forbidden that they marry, and so they must burn.� These legalists, because of their stubborn resistance to all remarriage, reverse Paul, and say, it is better to burn than to marry.�

�� Paul wants the burning passion of the Christian wife to drive her back to her husband, and be reconciled.� But for the Christian who is divorce by the non‑Christian, there is no going back.� He, or she, if they do not have self‑control, are free to seek a new mate.� The encouraging thing to see in our day is that more and more churches are developing Paul's attitude.� The goal is no longer to punish, but to help people overcome guilt and grief, and begin again.�

�� The six thousand member South Main Baptist Church is the largest of Houston's 222 Southern Baptist Churches.� They have 700 singles, many of whom are divorced, in their active membership.� They have a program for healing, and helping the divorced to start over.� This is just one of many, and we see that Paul did not write this chapter in vain.� In spite of periods of legalism, the church has been able to catch his spirit of love for the fallen and failing.� Paul's message has gotten through to millions.� Divorce is always a negative thing, but God works in all things, even the negative, for good, and this should be our goal in relating to all who have experienced divorce.

4.�� DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE PART 2� Based on I Cor. 7:10‑16

� I got a kick out of the story I heard the other day.� This man had gone to a psychiatrist, and after a great deal of examination he asked the doctor, "What is wrong with me?"� The doctor replied, "I think you are crazy."� "I demand a second opinion," the man insisted.� "Very well," said the doctor, "I also think you are ugly."� The only relevance of the story to our theme is that we are also looking for a second opinion on this issue of divorce and remarriage.� We have looked at what the Old Testament said, and now we want to look at what the Apostle Paul said.�

�� The Corinthians had just about every problem known to man, and so we have their problems being dealt with in Paul's letter to them.� This becomes our blessing, for because of their problems we have authoritative counsel on how to handle them.� What we get from Paul confirms what we studied before. Divorce is not God's best, and it is never His primary will.� However, sometimes it is inevitable in a world where everyone has a sinful nature.� The principle we are seeking to establish is that whenever divorce is legitimate the right to remarry is assumed.� Moses and Jesus both assumed that divorced people would remarry, and both gave assurance that it was proper and acceptable to do so when the divorce was valid.

�� Paul confirms this in verse 15 by telling the Christian who has been divorced and deserted by a non‑Christian mate that the marriage has been dissolved, and they are no longer bound.� Those who do not like this conclusion go to verse 39 where Paul says, "A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives."� They say this has to apply to the one that Paul says that is not bound in verse 15.� It cannot be both ways.� You can't be bound an unbound to a mate at the same time, and so they say this principle is superior to the words of Paul in verse 15.� The confusion is the result of carelessness with terms.� Everyone agrees that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives.� That is an absolute principle, and I have never heard or read of anyone even trying to find an exception to it.� There are no exceptions.�

�� When you introduce the subject of divorce, however, you are dealing with different terms and relationships.� When a wife is divorced from her husband for adultery, as Jesus said, or for desertion, as Paul says in verse 15, she is no longer his wife, and he is no longer her husband.� If they were still husband and wife, they would still be married in the sight of God, and, therefore, bound to each other.� Paul could only say to the wife in verse 15 that she is not bound, because the divorce from her non‑Christian husband made her no longer his wife.� Everywhere that a true divorce takes place the terms husband and wife no longer apply.�� We saw in part 1 in our study of Deut. 24:1‑4 where divorce changed the husband to a former husband, and set the wife free to remarry.� Paul is not saying in verse 39 that a former wife is bound to her former husband as long as he lives.� That is the very thing we are establishing that is not true to Scripture, and that is why Paul says in verse 15 that a mate properly divorced is not bound.�

�� We want to look now at what appears to be an exception to the principle we are expounding.� In verse 11 Paul tells the Christian wife who has divorced her Christian husband that she is to remain single and not remarry, but rather seek to be reconciled.� Here is a divorce where remarriage is clearly forbidden.� Why?� Because in verse 10 Paul says this kind of divorce is forbidden.� It is not acceptable for two Christians to get divorced.� Paul does not get into the exception of adultery being a valid cause.� He is just dealing with divorce in general.� The kind of divorce he is dealing with here is not valid, and so in God's eyes it does not break the marriage bond.� Neither mate has the right to remarry in such circumstances.� One only has the right when the marriage bond is broken.

�� This is really not an exception then to the principle we are expounding.� Forbidden divorce naturally does not give the right to remarry.� If you are married it cannot be legitimate to remarry, for this would be bigamy.� The point of the principle we are seeking to establish as being consistent with all of Scripture is that God expects all unmarried people to have the right to marry.� If you are not married, there is no reason you should be hindered from getting married.� A legitimate divorce returns a person to the state of being unmarried, and in that state they have the same right to get married as anyone else who is single.� They will have the same desires and needs that lead them to get married in the first place.� There is no Scripture that says God expects them to remain unmarried.� In fact, all of Scripture expects that they will remarry.� If marriage is legitimate for all unmarried people, then all we have to do is establish that divorce makes a person no longer married.

�� Paul does this in verse 11 where he is dealing with the most unacceptable kind of divorce in all of the Bible.� It is the divorce of a Christian wife from her Christian husband.� Note that Paul says that if a Christian wife does this which is forbidden, she is to remain unmarried, or as some versions have it, she is to remain single.� There is no getting around this clear word of Paul.� Even an illegitimate divorce returns a mate to a state of singleness where they are no longer married.� This Christian wife is now single says Paul when she divorces her husband.�� She is not free to remarry, however, because in God's eyes the marriage bond is not broken, and as far as He is concerned the man is still her husband, and they are to strive for reconciliation.� Now you can see that if the divorce is legitimate, and is based on adultery or desertion by a non‑Christian, the Christian is returned to a state of being unmarried with no marriage bond existing.� There is not a hint anywhere in the Bible that this single person is not free, like all other unmarried people to enter� into a relationship that will lead to marriage.

�� We need to study these verses carefully to get as much light as possible on this issue. The first thing Paul does is make clear who he is addressing. In verse 8 he addressed the unmarried and widows. Here he� addresses the married, and in v. 12 he addresses the rest.� Ignoring this simple fact that Paul is addressing different categories of people has led to misuse and abuse of this passage. If you read 20 commentaries, 19 of them will point out to you that the rest that Paul addresses in v. 12 are also married, but they are dealt with separately because they are involved in a mixed marriage with a Christian and a non‑Christian.� This is a totally different category than those in verse 10 and 11 where both are Christians and both are members of the church.�

�� Some commentators who are more determined to defend their own views than they are to listen to the Word pay no attention to Paul's distinction here.� Listen, for example, to how one of them avoids Paul's conclusion by forcing Paul to contradict himself.� Commenting on verse 15 he writes, "There are those who make this verse an argument for a remarriage of divorced people where they point to the statement that a brother of a sister is not in bondage in such cases.� But this argument is negated entirely by the other statement of Paul in which he says, "But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband."�

�� Do you see what he has done?� He has ignored the word of Paul to the Christian divorced by the non‑Christian to whom he says, "You are not bound."� He goes back to the word of Paul to the two Christians to whom he says that they are not to remarry.� He takes the word that applies to the two Christians and applies them to the Christian and non‑Christian, and he just ignores Paul's conclusion that they are not in bondage.� He says they have to be in bondage yet, and not set free to remarry because Paul said they are to remain unmarried, paying no attention to the fact that Paul draws a clear distinction between the two categories of people.

�� This is clearly a stubborn refusal to allow Paul to speak for himself.� It is done in order to avoid a conclusion that Paul comes to that does not fit one's conviction.� It is a deliberate abuse to take Paul's conclusion on the Christian couple and apply it to the couple in the mixed marriage, for Paul comes to two different conclusions.� To ignore this is to reject the Word of God for the tradition of man.� You might differ with Paul when he shares his own conviction, but no one can question him when he states what the Lord of the church himself speaks on the issue, which is the case here with two Christian people.� We need to get this distinction clear in our own minds.� In verse 6 Paul says, "I say by permission not of command."� He knows his own conviction is not of absolute authority, for in verse 7 he says he would prefer all Christians to remain single as himself, but he knows other Christian feel equally strong in their conviction that every Christian should be happily married. Christians have different gifts Paul says, and so he knows they will have different convictions, and he does not expect that his will be acceptable to all.

�� In verse 12 he again says, "I say, not the Lord."� In verse 25 he says, "I have no command of the Lord but I give you my opinion."� It is important that we pay attention to this distinction between what is clearly commanded of the Lord, and what is Paul's conviction.� Allen Redpath, the one time pastor of Moody Memorial Church in Chicago, wrote concerning these statements of Paul, "In other words, he is using his own judgment supported by what he believes to be the authority of the Holy Spirit.� That does not invalidate this teaching in any way.� It does, however, recognize that in matters concerning marriage there is no law so inclusive as to apply to every situation.� Each case will call for the careful exercise of human judgment under the direction and authority of the Holy Spirit."�

�� What Redpath says makes so much sense to pastors who have to wrestle with real life situations where there is no clear word from the Bible.� Paul is doing that in this context, for he is confronted by issues that never before existed.� Paul could not look to Jesus for a word on a Gentile married to a Jew who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.� It did not exist in the day of Christ, and so Jesus never spoke to the issue.� Paul had to deal with it without help from Moses in the Old Testament, or from his Lord.� He had no choice but to seek the leading of the Holy Spirit for wisdom to do what was best.� This is what every leader has to do as he faces situations not covered by Scripture.�

�� In verse 10 Paul says he does not have to wrestle with this issue, for he has the word of Christ on it.� Whether two Christians should get divorced or not is not a question at all.� It is not a matter of majority vote of the Apostles, or of Paul's conviction.� It is a matter of the Lord's command, and Paul says the Lord has said no to such a divorce.� Note that Paul begins in verse 10 with the wife, and then gets to the husband in verse 11.� This is in contrast to all of the rest of the Bible.� Why?� Because Paul faces a world totally different from the world of Moses and Jesus.� Women did not have the right to divorce, and so there was no word to them about not doing it.� Paul, however, faces a world where women had the right to divorce their husbands.� They have equal rights in the New Testament, much as is the case in our own day, and so Paul deals first with the women.

�� The Lord's command in the Gospels applies to wives as well as husbands, and so Paul says a wife should not depart or separate from her husband.� The wife is told not to depart because divorce for her means leaving her husband and going back to mother, or elsewhere. Divorce for the husband means to put away, or send away, and so we see two different words are used to describe the women's perspective and the man's, but they both mean divorce.� Paul says a wife should not depart, but Paul knew that saying you shouldn't do something to a woman does not mean she won't do it.� It didn't stop Eve, and Paul knew that just because it was the Lord's command would not stop all Christian women from doing it.�

�� He goes on then after saying you shouldn't do it to say, but if you do, what you shouldn't do, here is what you should do, when you do what you shouldn't. In other words, Paul had a backup plan.� He was no ivory tower idealist.� He knew that real saints still live like sinners, and so he shows what needs to be done when a Christian wife fails to do what is best.� Paul says here is what is the next best thing after you have missed the best.� Paul's method here is a great lesson.� Like Paul, we must be asking ourselves all the time, what is the next best thing to do when we have missed God's best?� Some Christians are so pessimistic that when they fail to reach the ideal they collapse in despair and feel defeated.� The proper attitude is this:� I have failed to follow the path to the best, but now which direction can I go to still be in God's will, and receive the second best, or the third, or the 99th best?�

�� This is Paul's approach to life, and it is the only realistic approach.� Paul does not go on to look at all the other possible problems that could develop if this wife also rejects his second command like she does the first.� What if she does go ahead and remarry after he says this is not acceptable?� If she remarried, she would be guilty of adultery, and would thereby destroy the marriage bond, and kill the union she had with her Christian husband.� Paul is hopeful that Christian couples will see what a blot this would put on the church, and so avoid this kind of scandal.� If the wife remarries another Christian in the church, and the husband goes on to remarry a Christian in the church, it is not far removed from wife‑swapping, and the church would be disgraced before the world.� Paul says two Christians having serious marital problems may be forced to separate, and that is bad enough, but they are to remain unmarried, and seek by all means to overcome their problems and be reconciled.

�� Christian couples have an obligation to Christ, and to His body the church to make sure they get all of the marriage counseling available to avoid divorce.� If divorce comes, they are to be open to reconciliation.� Even when a Christian couple get involved in a situation where adultery happens, they should labor hard to bring about healing and reconciliation.� Every author you can read agrees that two Christian people should pay any price to save their marriage.

Paul does not deal with every possible exception.� What if a Christian husband goes off to live in adultery with another woman, and this leads to divorce?� I know of a pastors daughter where this was the case.� Her husband is now married to the woman he went off to live with.� The marriage bond was dissolved, and there was no reason based on the Bible or tradition that would make anyone assume that he was still her husband.� She is now a single woman again, and she is free to remarry.�

�� I know of another pastors daughter who was divorced because she discovered her husband was homosexual.� Nothing in the Bible deals with this situation, and so, like Paul, we have to deal with it seeking the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.� She got her divorce and remarried a Christian man, and there was no way to see that this was not a wise thing to do.� The bottom line in all of this study of divorce and remarriage is this:� Every situation has to be considered on its own merits, and decisions need to be made in such a way that the grace of God dominates over any kind of legalism.� This is a difficult subject, and the only way to be right most of the time is to make love the priority.�

5. ��THE IDEAL AND THE REAL� Based on I Cor. 7:12‑16

�� Mary was branded as a backslider when she divorced her husband of 20 years.� Her church asked her to resign from all her roles, and the outrage pastor demanded-how could you?� Mary endured the pain of criticism as long as she could, and then she moved away. The pastor of her new church questioned her about her divorce.� She burst into tears and sobbed, "No one knows what I went through.� He was a homosexual, and we hadn't had sex for 14 years.� I pleaded with him to go for counseling, but he refused, and would stay away for days with his friend.� Finally, I told him you have 18 months to get counseling.� If you don't, I'm going to leave you."�

�� This man was a Sunday School teacher, a board member, and good giver to the church, but 18 months later she left him.� They seemed like an ideal couple, but� no one knew the reality of the situation, and so she was condemned as a wicked Christian wife.� No one could help her until they left the level of the ideal, and began to deal with her on the level of the real.� That, of course, could not happen until she shared the real, but she could not do that with people who refused to listen to the real.� The ideal is for two people to get married, and have a lifetime of sharing the joys and sorrows of life.� Adam and Eve had plenty of heartaches with the fall, loss of Eden, and one son killing the other.� We do not have a record of all they endured, or of all they enjoyed, but it was a lifetime of both together, that is the ideal, even in a fallen world.

�� Unfortunately, the ideal is not always attained.� Even God's people could not maintain the ideal, and so God permitted divorce for His people.� You would think God's people could hold to the ideal, but it was not so.� God is a realist, and He knew there was no point

in expecting His people to reach the ideal when their hearts were hard.� God accommodated Himself to man.� He came down to their level of attainment for their sake.� It was grace and mercy that brought Him down to the level of permitting divorce.� Men were so determined to leave their wives for other women that if the law did not permit it unless their wives were dead, they would be tempted to murder their wives.� It was to prevent this worse evil that God permitted divorce.� Divorce was the lesser of two evils, and God is realistic.� He will not demand the ideal if it leads to intolerable evil, for then the ideal is a sham.� Better to permit the lesser evil than to promote the greater evil.

�� This is the principle that guides Paul as he deals with the issue of the Christian and non-Christian marriage.� The ideal is to keep this marriage alive, and hopefully win the non-Christian to the Christian faith.� Paul makes it clear, if the non-Christian wants the marriage, the Christian is to strive for this ideal, and not get a divorce.� The real ideal is to always have two people married who are Christians.� But the fact is, all through history you have deal with the mixed marriage of the Christian and non-Christian.� This is a lesser level than the ideal, but on this level there are still ideals to reach, and so the Christian is encouraged to live with the non-Christian and make it work.

�� But someone will say Paul wrote to these very Corinthians in II Cor. 6:14-15, and warned them not to marry non-Christians, for what fellowship has light with darkness?� Paul is trying to prevent the problem that leads to so much divorce by warning of the conflict such marriages produce.� The ideal is to avoid the conflict by not falling in love with a non-Christian.� But in our present passage, Paul is dealing with the real, those who have already missed the ideal.� They are already in a marriage with a non-Christian.� Does Paul say it is hopeless?� Not at all.� He says, if the non-Christian is willing to live with the Christian, the marriage can work.� I know of marriages where the mates are happy, and truly love each other, even though one does not trust in Christ as their Savior.� It is a problem, but people can have good marriages in a less than ideal relationship.

�� Is it a sin for the Christian to be one with the non-Christian?� Not at all.� It is a sin not to satisfy the sexual needs of the non-Christian mate.� But if it is wrong to marry a non-Christian, how can it be right to live with them and meet their sexual needs.� We need to see that an act of sin does not mean the same as a life of sin.� If a Christian girl marries a non-Christian, that is an act of sin.� It is the sin of rebellion, disobedience, and ignorance. They are out of God's will in marrying a non-Christian.� Once they have committed this sin,they need to repent, and seek God's forgiveness, but this does not mean they must reject their non-Christian partner.� They do not now live in sin, by remaining faithful and loyal to this one they sinfully married.� On the contrary, they live in sin only if they refuse to be faithful and loyal to their mate.

�� God accepts their marriage as valid, and one they have an obligation to make work. Here is reality, a child of God married to a non-Christian, and the child of God is under obligation to this unbeliever.� God did not want his child in this relationship, but now that it is real, they have an obligation� to strive for an ideal marriage on that level.�

�� Paul says in verse 14 that the non-Christian is sanctified, or consecrated, through the believing mate.� The result is, the children born to such a union are not pagan children, but Christian children.� Paul is saying, on the spiritual level the Christian genes are dominant.� When a black and white marry, the children are always dark, and never totally white, because the black genes are dominant.� So when a Christian and non-Christian marry, the child is always a Christian child, and never a non-Christian.� In other words, God looks upon all children from a mixed marriage as a part of His flock.� They are� not saved by merely having a Christian parent, but they are a part of the Christian community where they will likely become part of the kingdom of God.

�� Timothy was a product of just such a marriage.� In Acts 16:1 we read, "A disciple was there named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek."� This implies he was not a believer.� Here is a non-Christian father who gave birth to a son, and he became a leader in the Christian church.� Many great Christians have had non-Christian father's or mother's.� One parent being a Christian means that the children are not unclean, says Paul.� They are not part of the pagan world in darkness, and cut off from the people of God.� Not at all, they are part of the people of God, and set apart to be in the service of God.�

�� A marriage of a Christian and a non-Christian is not ideal, but it is a tolerable reality that can even produce fruit for the kingdom of God.� Therefore, the Christian is not to use the non-Christian as an excuse for divorce.� The believer is not contaminated by the unbeliever, but just the opposite is the case.� The unbeliever is made acceptable because of the believer.� The non-Christian is not saved by being married to a Christian, but he does gain a unique status before God, as one who is part of the community of God's people. He is lost, but he is still part of the Christian community, and is� having an influence in that community.� If it is positive, and he is growing, then there is a good chance he will come to Christ, and become a full fledged member of the community.� If he rebels, and finds the whole relationship intolerable, he will probably leave the marriage, and find a mate to his liking in the pagan world.

�� What this means is, if one partner is a Christian in a marriage, you have a Christian family.� That family is part of the kingdom of God.� It is not ideal or complete, but, nevertheless, it is included in the kingdom.� God is not offended that the Christian loves, and makes love, to a pagan mate, nor does in consider the offspring of such a union illegitimate.� Again, we see God adapts to reality.� It is not the ideal, but he does not ring his hands in despair and refuse to have anything to do with the mess.� He says, I will deal with the real, and bring good out of it.�

�� Paul does not say, if a marriage is not made in heaven, you can treat it as of no value on earth.� Not so-it is legitimate, and precious to God, and you can count on it, God will even hear the prayers of this non-Christian mate for his children, for God considers them His children.� So we see, there is an ideal even in the less than ideal relationship.� But in verse 15 Paul go on to deal with reality of not being able to maintain this secondary ideal.� What if the non-Christian mate refuses to live with the Christian?� If they refuse to seek the ideal, the Christian has to face this reality.� Paul says the Christian is not bound.� When the Catholic church refused to let Christians be free in such a circumstance, this became a major battle in the reformation.� Listen to these words of Martin Luther:�

� "But shouldn't the Christian mate wait until his non-Christian

spouse comes back or dies, as has been the custom and canon

law until now?� Answer:� If he wants to wait for his mate, that

is up to his good will.� For since the Apostle proclaims his free

and unbound, he is not obliged to wait for his mate but may

change his status in the name of God.� I wish to God that people

had made use of this teaching of St. Paul, or would begin to make

use of it where man and wife run away from each other, or one

leaves the other sitting, for much whoring and sin have resulted

from them.� This has been increased by the senseless laws of the

pope, which, indirect contradiction to this text of St. Paul,

�� compel and force the one mate not to change his status on pain of

�� losing his soul's salvation, but to wait for the run away spouse

�� or the death of the same.� This means that the brother or sister

�� in such cases is truly bound in irons, because of the wantonness

�� and wickedness of another, and for no cause is driven into the

�� danger of unchastity."�

�� The reformers were angry at the Catholic church because they were indifferent to the hardships they created for people because of their legalism.� They would not make provision for people who were back in verse 2 of this chapter, where they were full of temptation.� Paul said such should get a wife or husband.� The Catholic church said no, not even if you have been divorced, or if your non-Christian mate has left you.� The Catholic church clung to its ideal, even when it had already been shattered.� They refused to come down from the ideal to the level of the real.� The reformers said this is sheer folly.� God knows better than that, and the church ought to follow His lead.� You need to come out of the ivory tower, and meet people where they are.� Luther said, any Christian who is divorced and finds himself in the position of verse 2, should remarry.� Remarriage is always right, rather than living in immorality.

�� There is a great deal of guilt over this issue.� Many people struggle with whether they have a right to remarry.� Typical of many is the letter to Dr. C.S. Lovett.� "Dr. Lovett, my husband divorced me 6 years ago to marry another lady.� He is still living.� Would I be living in a state of adultery if I married again?"� Dr. Lovett replied that there is no such thing as living in a state of adultery.� Adultery is an act of sin, and not a state.� Of course, if you are committing adultery over and over again, you could be said to be living in a state of adultery.� But is sex by any legally married couple, adultery?

�� Most agree that once adultery has been committed, and a marriage bond is severed, and a new marriage is entered into, even if the sin of adultery was the cause of the divorce, the new marriage is not a living in adultery.� If two people sin by divorcing without a Biblical reason, and remarry, they do commit adultery, but they do not live in adultery, for once the former marriage is dead, sex in the new marriage is not adultery, but an obligation.� The point is, once you are married to a pagan, or to an adulterer, or adulteress, you have all the same obligations as any couple who marry wisely.� You may be guilty of sin for getting into such a marriage, but once you are in you are not living in sin.� You cannot live in sin with someone who is truly your mate.

�� The woman, whose husband divorced her, and then she remarried, cannot commit adultery by remarrying, for she is no longer a married woman.� Her husband, by remarrying, has shattered their marriage bond, and however guilty of sin he was in doing so, his present marriage is a real marriage, and he is not living in adultery.� He committed adultery by getting married, but he is not living in adultery, for his new wife is his only wife. His former wife does not have a husband, and so if she finds herself, as a single, in great need of love, and cannot be happy single, there is no reason in the world she should not remarry if she finds the right partner.� She would not be living in adultery, or even committing adultery, for she is not married, and if her partner is not married, there are perfectly free to marry with no sin whatever.

�� This is what Paul means in verse 15 when he says, the brother or sister is not bound. Not bound means free.� There is no marriage bond binding once the unbeliever has deserted.� The Christian is free to remarry because the union is dead.� This is the key to all valid exceptions.� If a marriage is dead, and cannot function to fulfill the purpose of marriage, and it cannot be restored, it is no longer a marriage, and people are free to remarry.�

�� Paul prefers everyone to stay single.� It is the perfect solution to divorce.� Marriage is the primary cause of divorce, and so you prevent it by never getting married.� But Paul is a realist and he knows people will burn with passion they cannot control if they don't get married.� The divorce single is in this same boat.� Paul's logic must be seen here also.� It is best not to remarry, but if you are going to burn and be tempted, then get yourself a mate. Those who reject remarriage, and demand that divorced singles remain unmarried are idealists who refuse to deal with the real as Paul did.� Nobody ever wanted people to stay single more than Paul, but Paul recognized this is not possible for a great many.

�� Those who force Christians to remain single when they could be happily remarried, often drive these Christians into an immoral lifestyle.� They are actually forced to live in sin to avoid an act of sin, and this is folly.� Paul would have all giving singleness a try, but if the sexual frustration is intolerable, his principle is simple, better to marry than to burn. That goes for never married, widows, and the divorced.� To say the divorce single does not have this option is to say, it is better for them to become prostitutes, or live with somebody than to remarry, for remarriage is absolutely forbidden.

�� The facts of life make it clear, the divorced person is often in greater temptation than anyone, for they have enjoyed marital sex, and there need is usually greater than that of the never married.� Men tend to see the divorced woman as a likely partner, because of being deprived, and she too is open to greater temptation because of this attitude of men. The philosophy of life that Paul teaches is, aim for the ideal; strive to reach the highest; stretch for the best, but when that goal is not attainable, make the best of the real level you are living on, for in those cases, the real lived at its best is the ideal.�

6.�� THE PAULINE PRIVILEGE� Based on I Cor. 7:12‑16

�� Thousands of young boys walked past the Bathwell Castle in England, and none ever dreamed of climbing up the chimney to carve his name at the top.� There was one exception, however.� One boy did the unusual, and his name was David Livingstone.� That boy went on to become one of histories most famous missionaries to Africa.� Browning wrote,

You see lads walk the street.

Sixty the minute, what's to note in that?�

You see the one lad astride the chimney stack.

Him you must watch.�

Browning is saying, keep your eyes on the exception, for the exception may be more significant than the rule.� The age old saying that the exception proves the rule is nonsense.� What it proves is that the rule is not all there is.� It proves the rule does not cover all cases, and to say it does, in the face of an exception, is to say that a black sheep proves that all sheep are white.� The exception does not prove the rule, it breaks it, and shows that reality is more complex than the rule.� Science must constantly reckon with exceptions.� It cannot say, light is always a wave, for there are conditions under which light behaves like a particle.� This exceptional behavior cannot be dismissed as irrelevant, but must be incorporated into the total picture.� Darwin had to postpone the publishing of his book for 29 years, because he had to be honest about exceptions.� Often he would exclaim,

"This little beast is doing just what I did not want him to do."�

�� Ignore exceptions, and you become, not a seeker for truth, but a manipulator of facts to get� your own way, and a narrow minded legalist, whose only concern is getting your own way.� The Bible demands that you be open to the power of exceptions, for only those who are, are open to the spirit of grace.� Even under Old Testament law we see examples of exceptions that allow grace to dominate.� The law forbids the Jews to marry Caananites or Moabites, but Rahab the Caananite and Ruth the Moabite are in the blood line of Jesus. They became exceptions by their faith, and played a major role in God's plan.

�� The Jews recognized the need to be flexible, and open to exceptions.� It was the law that all male babies be circumcised on the eighth day.� It was a sign of the covenant between God and Israel.� But there were conditions that could alter this law, and allow for an exception.� A Rabbi wrote, "If a mother has lost 2 sons by the fever following circumcision, the operation on the third should be deferred until he is grown and strong." Here was a circumstance where holding to the letter of the law would be cruel.� You destroy the whole spirit of the law if you cannot adjust to exceptions.� This was the whole point of Jesus breaking the Sabbath laws to heal people.� He was making it clear man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man, and, therefore, it is always right to do good on the Sabbath.� The rule is for man's good, but if the exception is even� better, then the rule can be broken.� The exception is more important than the rule, if it accomplishes the purpose that made the rule good in the first place.�

�� Exceptions are so vital to the whole plan of God that there would be no New Testament without the power of the exception.� All have sinned and come short of the glory of God,� is the blanket of condemnation that falls over the whole of humanity.� All, that is, except one.� There is one glorious exception to this rule, and that one exception‑the Lord Jesus Christ, by not falling short of God's glory, made it possible for there to be a perfect sacrifice to take away the sin of the world.� In other words, through this one exception the door is opened for grace to triumph over law, and allow all men to escape the condemnation of the law.� God's entire plan of salvation is based on the power of the exception.

�� Jesus stressed the motivating power of the exception in His own ministry.� The 99 followed the rule, and they stayed in the fold, but the one exception wandered away.� Jesus says the exception is what dominates the shepherd's mind, for he leaves the 99 and goes after the one to seek and to save it, and when he does, all heaven rejoices over that one exception being found.� The point is, sometimes it is the exception that matters most. Those Christians who refused to deal with exception tend to become legalists, like the Pharisees, and depart from the spirit of Christ.� Much of the conflict of Catholic and Protestants was over this very issue.�

�� Jesus made it clear in Matt. 5:32, and 19:9 that there was an exception which made divorce legitimate.� That exception was adultery.� The word actually covers all forbidden

sexual relationships, including sex with animals.� Jesus is saying there are some things no mate needs to tolerate.� He does not say they have to divorce for this behavior, but they are free to do so, if they cannot forgive and be reconciled.�

�� The Catholic church had to reject this exception.� Their legalistic system did not permit them to be open to the Lord's exception.� They had developed the concept that marriage was a sacrament.� A sacrament is a means of grace, and once you have experienced a sacrament, you have received something from God that can never be undone.� Baptism is another of the sacraments, and so once you have been baptized, they say, you have received the grace of God, and this can never be undone.� Applied to marriage, the Catholic church said, there can be no such thing as divorce, for once married it is like being baptized, and you can't undo it.� Only death can end a marriage.

�� Now, of course, they had to deal with intolerable situations, and so they called marriages like Jesus and Paul deal with, not true marriages, and, therefore, able to be annulled.� The history of this is a terrible scandal, for people married for many years, with large families, could get their marriage annulled, if they knew the right people, and had the power.� The Catholic church had to deal with exception, but they did it by pretending there were no exceptions.�

�� Then came the Protestant reformers, and they began to question the Biblical right of the church to impose on people what God did not.� The first thing the reformers did was to reject the idea that marriage was a sacrament.� This was clearly a man made idea, for marriage is universal.� All men, even pagans and atheists, get married, and they do not receive grace in doing so, and so the whole idea comes from the Catholic desire to get power in people's lives.� The reformers discovered that Jesus not only allowed divorce for the exception of adultery, but that Paul allowed another exception here in I Cor. 7.� Desertion by a non‑Christian became the second exception the reformers allowed.� The Catholic church at the Council of Trent in 1563 blasted the Protestants for heresy.� The two sides became locked into their positions.� The Catholics became more legalistic than ever,

and the Protestants became more soft hearted than ever.�

�� Luther felt that the exception Paul allowed was based on the recognition that the marriage was dead.� You cannot keep alive that which is dead.� This lead to their being still more exceptions.� Once you depart from the absolute of the Catholic church, you open the door to more and more exceptions, and this is what the Protestants did.� Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, and Zwingli, all agreed that divorce was permissible for other reasons that destroyed the whole purpose of marriage.� They added such things as:

1.� Impotence:� If sex is not possible, and is yet vital to ones partner, they said there is no marriage, and divorce and remarriage is legitimate.� If a mate refused to meet the sexual need of the other, as Paul stresses in the first part of this chapter, they forfeit their right to be married.� We are getting into touchy territory here, for the reformers are now going beyond Jesus or Paul, and we are in the area where the Bible does not speak, and it did not end here.�

2.� Leprosy became another cause for divorce, for this made marriage impossible.� Other sicknesses were soon added, such as mental illness.�

3.� John Calvin added extreme religious incompatibility.� And Italian leader in Naples became a Protestant and fled to Geneva where Calvin's authority was strong.� His wife remained a Catholic and refused to come with him, even after he settled down and invited her to join him.� Calvin said the marriage was dead.� He dissolved it, and the man was allowed to remarry.�

�� The Protestant view seems to open up more and more reasons for valid divorce and remarriage, for life� seems to get more and more complicated.� What if a man's wife became a witch?� What if she tried to poison him?� Were these not just as serious as adultery and desertion?� The Puritans tried to limited divorce to the two exceptions of Jesus and Paul, but these other issues forced them to consider more exceptions.� In the late sixty's, the Baptist Convention of Canada called upon the government to recognize divorce for incurable insanity, chronic alcoholism, and repeated prison sentences.�

�� There is much more of the history of this battle, but we have seen enough to get the picture. �The Catholic position of absolutely no divorce led to all kinds of cruelty and� hypocrisy.� But the Protestant view of divorce for anything that destroyed the purpose of marriage led to more and more exceptions.� One refused to let the water of liberty flow at all, and the other produced a flood.� The conflict goes on to this day, and Christians still tend to fall into one category or the other.� They are either so anti‑divorce they refuse to accept the exceptions, even of Christ and Paul.� Or they are so open to divorce they accept it as inevitable for numerous reasons.� It is hard to stay in the middle, but it is important to try and strive for balance.� Which way you lean depends largely on how you interpret Paul in this paragraph which deals with what have come to be called, The Pauline Privilege.

�� Having studied the history of the interpretation of this passage, I have to take my stand with the Protestant Reformers, and recognize that Paul has added an exception that Jesus never dealt with.� There were no Christian and non‑Christian marriages when Jesus spoke, but Paul had to deal with this issue, for when the Gospel came to Corinth, and all of the Gentile world, many families were divided.� On top of this, Christians were in the minority, and non‑Christians were the majority.� Where that is the case there are always Christians who fall in love and marry non‑Christians.� Paul would not have had to warn Christians not to do it, unless they were doing it.� Paul was dealing with a major social and spiritual problem that did not exist in the time of Christ.�

�� That is why Paul begins this paragraph in verse 12 by saying, "I say, not the Lord."� He has no word of Christ on this issue, and he has not received any special revelation.� It is a complex subject the Corinthians have asked him about, and Paul is saying, here is my best judgment on the issue.� Notice, Paul did not say the Bible has the answer to everything, and then quote a couple of proof texts to settle the matter.� He says just the opposite, and says that we have no word of God on this problem, because it never before existed.� Paul is, therefore, setting a precedent for the entire history of the church.� He is saying that there are all kinds of new problems that can arise that are not dealt with in Scripture.� The Bible is not an exhaustive rule book to cover all of the issues that life can bring.� There is no law for everything under the sun.� Instead, there are principles that the believer must apply to make the best judgments as new issues arise.

�� Paul said that his best judgment in the case of a non‑Christian deserting a Christian mate, was that the Christian had no marriage, and was not bound.� All of the reformers said, by being not bound Paul meant they were free to �divorce and remarry.� The assumption is that the non‑Christian has left to remarry another non‑Christian more to his liking.� If this is not what Paul meant, then there is no sense in saying they are not bound. If they had to remain married to that mate, even when they were gone, and had remarried another, there is no way to say they were not bound.� They would be nothing but bound, and they would actually be slaves to the non‑Christian deserter, who was free to do as he or she pleased, while the Christian had no freedom at all.

�� Believe it or not, some Protestants took this view that Paul meant by not being bound,

that they were merely not bound to try and win their mate to Christ any longer.� Some comfort, after they� have taken off and remarried.� The cruelty of this view has hurt many Christian lives, and made them slaves when Paul's whole purpose was to set them free. The majority of Protestants, however, recognized that Paul had already established desertion as a legitimate basis for divorce and remarriage.� This Pauline Privilege has been a guide to the church through the centuries in dealing with new situations.� There are circumstances that make a marriage no marriage, and when these circumstances are that severe, the marriage is dead, and grace and mercy demand that the victims be given a chance for a new beginning.�

�� I have read of many pastors who solved the problem of how to deal with divorce people by saying, they just don't deal with them at all.� There are to many uncertainties as to who is to blame, and who is lying, and so they just wash their hands of the whole mess.� This is the no risk legalistic approach.� It solves everything for the pastor, and solves nothing for those who are suffering.� In contrast, we have the Pauline approach.� The Corinthians have messed up their lives.� Their sin and ignorance has taken them into complex relationships that have created suffering and sorrow.� They need help to find a way to get their lives straightened out so that they can live meaningful lives for Christ.

�� Paul says, I don't have all the answers, but I'll do my best to give you the guidance you need to get back on track.� God took this attitude and Paul's advice, and made it a part of His Word, and by so doing He says to the whole church, this is the way to go to be Christlike, and to build my kingdom.� Deal with people where they are.� Whatever their mess, there is always a way to go that leads to life, for sin can be forgiven, and there can be a new beginning that leads to happiness.�

�� Look at how Jesus dealt with the woman at the well.� Hollywood cannot produce a more messed up person than her.� She was married five times, and was living with a man who was not her husband.� It is likely she was divorced from several of her five husbands, for there is no hint that they all died, or were poisoned by her.� She was a person that most counselors would be happy to avoid.� Jesus accepted her as a person of value, and by so doing He won her, and she became the best evangelist we have any record of in the Gospels.� She was not the type of woman you go looking for to be a leader.� She had done everything all wrong, and had gone down every path God had forbidden.� Yet, Jesus saw her as a precious person worth saving, restoring, and using for His kingdom.

�� The point is, Jesus did not treat this often divorced woman as one guilty of unforgivable sin.� On the contrary, He so forgave her that He allowed her to become His disciple and witness.� This kind of grace is scandalous to many Christians.� They refused to believe a person can make so many mistakes, and still have the right to be happy in Christ. There legalistic minds demand that she pay for her folly, and they refuse her the right to remarry and be happy with another mate.� They demand that she remain single for the rest of her life, regardless of her misery and temptation.� You can go this route if you chose, for many good Christians do, but I have made my choice to go with the reformers, and chose the way of Christ and Paul, which is the way of grace that allows exceptions, and permits the victims of a dead marriage to remarry in the Lord.� If I err, let me err on the side of love, and not on the side of legalism.�

�� Does this view of the reformers encourage divorce?� Not at all, the reformers hated divorce and fought against it on all levels.� They just faced up to the fact that you have to reckon with exceptions.� To ignore them, in order to be an absolutist, is to put law above love, and precepts above persons.� God did not do it in the Old Testament; Jesus refused to do it in the New Testament, and Christians must refuse to do it as long as history lasts. Exceptions that fit the Bible principles do not open the door to sin, but they open the door of mercy to those who otherwise may be dominated by sin.� The exceptions permit us to make people our priority.� This is the goal of the Pauline Privilege.

7.� �THE THIRD CHOICE�� Based on I Cor. 7:17‑24

�� Hubert Humphry's father was a druggist in a small town in South Dakota.� He had to come up with a way to increase profits at his soda fountain.� He began to push the idea of putting an egg in his malts to enrich them.� Nobody was ordering the new malt, so told his clerks to ask people if they wanted an egg in their malt, but nothing happened.� Then he got the idea to have the clerk face the customer with an egg in each hand, and they would ask, "Would you like one or two eggs in your malt?"� Profits began to rise at last, for this clever approach caused people to forget they had a third choice, which was, no egg at all.

�� Life is constantly playing this trick on all of us.� We are always being forced into either‑

or choices, when in fact, the best may be neither‑nor, but a third choice.� Edward Whymper

was the first man to conquer the Matterhorn in 1865.� Every climber before him tried the two approaches on the Southwest side.� He tried those two approaches 7 times himself, because all the experts said these were the only two ways to make it.� He decided to defy the wisdom of all the guides, and make a third choice.� He went up the Eastern side, and he made it to the top.� Everyone thought there were only two choices, but Whymper showed them there was a third and better choice.

�� The Pharisees were forever trying to get Jesus trapped by their either‑or questions.

They asked, "Should we pay taxes to Caesar or not?"� They were saying, take� your stand Jesus, either you stand with those who give their loyalty to the state, or you stand with those who give their loyalty to God.� Which of the two is your choice?� Jesus is too clever for their trap, and He says, you are forgetting the third choice, where you can be loyal to Caesar with what is his, and loyal to God with what is His.� It is not a matter of either‑or at all.� It is a matter of both‑and.� May God spare us from the folly of thinking life is always a matter of either‑or, and that there are only two choices.�

�� Of course, this is often true, and it is definitely true in life's most crucial choices.� Either you receive Christ as your Savior, or you reject Him.� Either you are saved, or lost.� There is not third choice here.� But this is not the issue that is confusing the Corinthians, and has confused Christians through the centuries.� The Corinthians had made the right choice for Christ, but now as Christians they thought there were only two choices open to them.� Either remain just as they were and change nothing, or reject all of their past and change everything.� The first would indicate nothing had happened, and would make conversion meaningless, so they decided choice two was their only alternative, and so everything must change and be different.

�� This radical commitment sounds very noble and highly spiritual, but in real life it proves,

all to often, to be unwise, for it produces enormous instability and insecurity.� Paul sees this in the Corinthians, and he is concerned about them.� Therefore, he writes this paragraph to somewhat dampen their spirits, by showing them there is a third choice.� If� you have ever cooked on a grill, you have had the experience where the fat drippings begin to burn out of control, and you have to sprinkle water over the coals to bring the flames under control. It is not Holy Spirit fire that is burning when people are getting hurt and becoming unstable by their enthusiasm.� Not everything Christians do is wise, just because it is done with such burning enthusiasm.

�� The Corinthians were caught up in the‑change is everything syndrome.� If its new its better, and so change to what is new.� Gentiles who became Christians heard of the Jewish covenant in circumcision, and they were enthused about that, and wanted to be circumcised. Jewish Christians were enthused about the freedom of the Gentiles to be God's children without circumcision, and they sought, by means of surgery, to remove the effects of circumcision, in order to be like the Gentiles.� Of course, this was a ridiculous idolizing of change for change sake, and not only added nothing to the church, but detracted from it by implying that Christianity promoted the uprooting of everyone's heritage.� Christians were changing all kinds of things that did not need changing, but needed preserving.� They got carried away with change to the point that they became unstable.� When Christians become unstable, they do not appeal to the world, and they stir up division among themselves.

�� Paul, therefore, was writing to these Corinthians Christians, and making stability one of his main themes.� It is the motive behind all that he says in this chapter.� He is telling these fanatics for change that change is not necessary in everything.� If your marital status is that you are single, and can handle it, you don't have to marry.� If you are married and become widowed or divorced, you don't have to remarry.� If� you are married to a non‑Christian, you don't have to get a divorce and marry a Christian.� There are all kinds of things you don't have to change.� There are exceptions that Paul recognizes, but his main point is that you can remain just as you are in so many ways, and be a� healthy and stable Christian.� Even the slave who accepts Christ can learn to be a happy stable Christian as a slave.� Paul has learned to be content in any state, and he is convinced this is a key to Christian stability, and that is why he urges this on the Corinthians.

�� The choice is not, either is nothing is changed, or everything is changed.� There is a third choice he spells out, and it is the choice of balance, where you change some things and leave others unchanged for the sake of stability.� Between nothing and everything is something, and this third choice is the best.� A lot has changed since Paul's day, but the amazing thing is, that with all of the changes, everything is still so much the same.� It's like this letter and response:� "Dear Abby, Six years ago, when I first married, every evening our dog would bark at me, and my wife would bring me my slippers.� Now my wife barks at me and the dog brings me my slippers.� What shall I do?� Troubled.�� Dear Troubled, What's your problem?� You're still getting the same service."�

�� Radical changes can leave everything pretty much the same.� The centuries since Paul wrote have brought many changes, and the issues of circumcision and slavery are not relevant to us today.� But there are new issues that put people into the same conflict the Corinthians had.� Today there are many who are becoming Christians who are in prisons. They are very much in the same boat as the slaves Paul wrote to.� There are many who become Christians who belong to liberal churches, and who go through the same battle the Corinthians had.� To what degree do I change my external affiliations?� What rituals should I change, or what should I cling to?� Christians in every age have to wrestle with the issue of change.�

�� The principle we need to see is that change must begin as internal, rather than external.

The external is the most conspicuous choice, however, and so people tend to put it first.

The Corinthians were caught up in a fervor for external change.� Change your external relationships; change your external environment; change your physical appearance, and status.� Paul throws a wet blanket on this fire, and says, this is zeal without knowledge.� It is much ado about nothing, for external change, in itself, may be completely worthless and without meaning.� The Gentile who gets circumcised has chosen a change that equals nothing, and the Jew who gets surgery to eliminate the marks of circumcision, has gone to a lot of bother, equally for nothing.� Paul rejects the idea that change is good in itself.� Paul is saying, don't waste your energy on changing the external, it is the internal change that is most needed.�

�� Paul says his rule in all the churches is the same‑stay where you start.� The Christians first responsibility is to be a Christian where they are.� That is why Jesus told the Gaderene demoniac he could not follow him, but was to go home to his own people.� They were the people who would be the most impressed by his radical healing, and his new found faith.� His greatest impact would be on those who could see the change.� So brighten the corner where you are was the message of Jesus.� Paul is saying the same thing to the slaves who have come to Christ.� You have got to learn to be a Christian where you are, and show that it makes a difference to be a Christian in any situation.� If you can't be a Christian where you are, how do you expect to be a Christian where you have never been?

Now, let's be aware, Paul was a ware of exceptions.� He would not say to a converted prostitute, just stay where you are and be a good Christian prostitute.� Some externals demand immediate change.

�� Paul recognized that enthusiasm for external change can be a form of escapism.� The Christian wife who is married to a non‑Christian is saying, if only I could get out of this relationship, I could be a good Christian.� The fact is, only� when she learns to be the wife God meant her to be to this non‑Christian, will she be a good Christian.� The strong desire for external change is often a desire to escape obligations and responsibilities.� Paul's point is, do not try to become a better Christian by external change.� Instead, take your state, whatever it is, and, however short of the ideal, and learn to grow where you are planted. Do not hold up escape as your only hope.� Look at change in your attitudes, and internal life, as the way to deal with dissatisfaction.� This holds good for singles who long to be married; for marrieds who long for divorce; for the divorced and widowed who long for remarriage; for Jews who long to be like Gentiles, and for Gentiles who long to be like Jews, and for slaves who long to be free, and for the many dozens of other states of life people find themselves in, which they long to change.

�� The only way you can be adequately ready for external change is to come to the point where you no longer need it to be a good Christian.� In other words, when you learn to be content in whatever state you are, and can find meaning in that state, you are ready to be a mature Christian in other states.� The first goal of the Christian than, is not to change, but to find meaning in your present status, whatever that might be.

�� A doctor came to the famous psychiatrist Viktor Frankel, and told him he just could not be reconciled to the death of his wife.� He was full of stress and grief.� Dr. Frankel asked him how his wife would have taken it had he died first.� "Oh," he said, "It would have been terrible for her."� And he described how intolerable the situation would have been.� Dr. Frankel pointed out to him, that by his surviving, he spared her all of that suffering.� The mans attitude changed immediately, and he was able to come out of his pit of depression, for his present awful state now took on meaning.� He thought the only hope for meaning was in an external change of circumstances.� He was trying to escape, but it wouldn't work. The key he found was not in external change, but in internal change, and by that means he was able to find meaning in his present state.

�� This is Paul's message to all who are in states they do not care for.� Your priority should not be escapism, but stability, which begins with the inner man, and its adjustment to the present state.� Reject this approach to life, and go the way of escapism, and you end with nightmares more often then a dream come true.�

�� I can never forget the wife who felt she could never be happy until she was divorced.

Her husband wanted her to stay with him, and I joined him in pleading with her to remain,

but it was all in vain.� Her mind was filled with the fantasy that she would be gloriously free,

and could really enjoy life as never before.� She got� her divorce.� A few months later she called me aside in the hospital where she was a nurse.� She said, if only I had listened to you.� She had tried to find happiness in a couple of affairs, and soon learned that such freedom was not the gold she thought it would be.� She did not feel enriched at all, but poorer than ever.� She said she was lonely, and longed for the security of her home and husband.� Now it was to late.� She had been duped and deceived by seeing what seemed to be the glory of change, and when she got it, she had to live with the curse of change.

�� It is not an absolute law, but it is a basic principle of life:� Change the inner man and� you can be content in any state.� The Jew does not need to be a Gentile to be a happy Christian.� The Gentile does not have to conform to Judaism to be a happy Christian.� The single does not have to be married to be a happy Christian.� A married person does not need a Christian mate to be a happy Christian.� The slave does not need to be free to be a� happy Christian.� You can be a happy Christian right where you are in almost any state,� so stay where you are, and develop stability, is the message of Paul.� Don't worry about changing where you are, until you change who you are.

�� In a world where change is worshipped, Paul's message is simply, beware, change can be dangerous.� We live in a culture where progress, advancement, and speed,� are key ingredients.� All of these mean change is a basic part of life.� The idea of staying put anywhere rubs against the grain of our culture.� We thrive on the very thing that Paul warns us about.� We encourage change as rapidly as possible.� It a new convert can be sharing his testimony to the nation a week after he becomes a Christian, we are thrilled. The faster people can be propelled to the top, in any area of life, the better we like it.� Paul knew the dangers of emphasizing change over stability.� He wrote to Timothy about selecting leadership in the church, and wrote in I Tim. 3:6‑7, "He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."�

�� Paul was a realist.� He knew that good Christian people pushed into too much change to rapidly could become better servants of the devil than servants of Christ.� They are not allowed to stay put and develop stability where they are, but are thrust into places and positions where they are not able to cope with the temptation to abuse their power.� History is filled with the collapsed lives due to man's compulsion to change everything on the outside, regardless of inner changes.� Paul says, don't go the route that leads to disaster. Instead, let internal change take precedence over external change.� The Christian faith is both firm and elastic.� It can change everything, but it can also establish everything, and, thus, preserve and conserve.� Christianity is meant to be both conservative and liberal. Conservative in that it does not change anything just for the sake of change.� It holds fast to what is good, and strives to sanctify all that it touches.� It is liberal in that by sanctifying all that it touches, it changes it, and changes it for the better.� It is not either conservative,

or liberal, for there is a third choice, and that is a balance combination of the other two that preserves the old, as it creates the new.

�� Francis Bacon was one of the most brilliant minds England ever produced.� His essays are still classics in the literature of ethics.� His wisdom has no doubt helped many to stay on the right track.� He would have died with the highest respect had it not been for an external change he was not prepared to handle.� He was made Lord Chancellor of England, which made him, not only the most learned man in the empire, but one of the most powerful.� He was an authority on ethics, but he became unethical, and was convicted of bribery and financial corruption.� He lived the last five years of his life a disgraced man.His inner man was not prepared to handle the pressure of the external change.� It happens everyday, and it happens to Christians.� That is why Paul says, stay where you are, until who you are, can handle a change in where you are.�

�� Stability comes before change, for the stable person can make change beneficial.� The unstable tend to make change a curse.� Jesus said the wise life is the life built on the rock. Those who build on unstable sand will fall, and there building is all in vain.� Paul says the same thing to the Corinthians.� Stay put and lay the foundation for stability, before you get caught up in the spirit of change.� Everyone needs change, but everyone also needs the lack of change.� The choice is never, either change, or don't change, but rather, regulate change based on what your inner stability can handle well.� For the good life, and the life that will honor Christ, we must all make this third choice.�

8. ��SINS AND MISTAKES�� Based on I Cor. 7:25‑31

�� Bruce Larson in Dare To Live Now, tells of his experience as a new recruit during World War II.� He sat down to his first breakfast in the mess hall, at Fort Benning, Georgia.� He saw something in a large bowl that looked like cream of wheat.� He scooped out a lot of it into his bowl, and poured milk and sugar on it.� A tall mountain boy sitting across the table from him was bug-eyed, and he asked, "Is that the way you eat grits?" Larson says, as a Chicago boy he heard of grits, but never had seen any.� He did not want to admit his ignorance, so he said, "Yes, this is how we eat them in Chicago."� It was awful tasting, but he manage to down the whole bowl.� He learned that they were meant to be eaten with butter, salt, and pepper.� Some days later the same soldier sat at his table, and he ate another bowl of grits with milk and sugar, rather than admit he had made a mistake.

�� Had he admitted his mistake, he would not have needed to sin, by telling a lie.� Human nature hates to admit to mistakes.� We all freely admit that nobody is perfect, but we hesitate to exhibit ourselves as proof of the rule.� But the fact is, mistakes are distinct from sin.� This means, not everything that we do that may be unwise, is a sin.� It is not necessarily a violation of God's commands or will.� Paul makes it clear in verse 28 that if the Corinthians do not give heed to his advice, they do not sin.� If you don't sin by ignoring Paul, what is it?� It all depends on how it turns out.� If you find you are in all the trouble he tried to spare you, then you have made a mistake.� He warned you, but you did not listen. Now you must suffer the consequences, but the fact remains, you have not sinned.� If you find you overcome all of the problems, and are very happy, and your marriage does not hinder, but even helps, your service to God, then� you have not sinned, nor even made a mistake, but have, as we say today, lucked out.� You took a risk, and you won.�

�� We are in a very unique portion of Scripture in this seventh chapter of I Cor.� We are not dealing here with absolute issues of right and wrong.� We are dealing with issues that are very complex, and where the question is not, what is right or wrong, but what is the best under the circumstances.� The result is, the choice will not be for sin or righteousness, but for what is wise, or for what is a potential mistake.� Let's not minimize mistakes, for though they are less than sins, they do violate wisdom.� They are not necessarily less costly than sins, however.� If I steal a thirty cent candy bar, I have sinned, and I need to confess it and be forgiven, and make restitution by repaying the thirty cents.� This is not a costly sin, even though Christ had to die for that one too.� But if I make a mistake, and get married to the wrong person at the wrong time, I have not sinned at all, but that mistake may be extremely costly.�

�� It was no sin that someone left off a mere hyphen in the instructions fed into the guidance system of Mariner I, but that mistake caused it to go off course into oblivion, and cost the nation two millions dollars.� Mistakes can be costly, but they can also be trivial.� Like the pastor who preached on gossip, and then closed the service with the hymn, I Love To Tell The Story.� Many mistakes are harmless, and even humorous, but they can also be horrendous.� Paul takes mistakes seriously, and that is why he offers his opinion on the matters the Corinthians struggle with.� Paul is not laying down a set of laws to guide the church for all time.� He is not even telling the Corinthians they are laws for their time. He is simply giving them his advice as to how they should conduct themselves in the circumstances they find themselves in.�

�� One of the biggest mistakes Christians make is that of ignoring Paul's attitude, as he gives this advice. Most are not as wise and humble as Paul. Most tend to become legalistic, and they demand that their advice is absolute. Paul refuses to take this attitude. He says if you ignore my advice, which I feel is the best Spirit led decision I can come to, you do not sin. Ignoring even the best advice is not a sin, even though it may be a great mistake. How many counselors can openly admit that their advice is not equivalent to the Word of God? It is Paul's honesty and humility that keeps this passage from being meaningless. If it was given as a command for all Christians, for all time, it would be disastrous advice, preventing 2000 years of the history of Christian marriage and families, which have been for the glory of God.

�� The value of this passage is in its emphasis on circumstances.� Paul is saying, circumstances do make a difference.� What is wise for a Christian to do will vary with the circumstances.� Changing times demand changing approaches to life.� If the times are calm and peaceful, Paul is all for marriage and families, and living peaceably with all men.� But if the times are full of danger and tribulation, he is for detachment from the things of this life.� Paul is saying, when the things of earth are insecure, and all in a flux, and radical change rob you of all the values of this life, this is no time to try and sink roots into the earthly.� It is time to be radically non-involved with earthly values, and totally devoted to those values which last forever.�

�� Circumstances make a difference in the advice you give.� If a young girl comes to you saying she just met a young man two months ago, and he asked her to marry him, and she comes asking if she should say yes, and you inquire, and learn that he is returning to Iraq to fight as a mercenary soldier to make a quick buck, what would your answer be?� I hope you would consider the circumstances, and not treat that couple just the same as two from the same community who are going to settle down there, where they have roots.� Circumstances make a world of difference in what is wise.� But if that girl goes ahead and marries the vagabond adventurer, who goes off to make his fortune, she does not sin, if he is a Christian.� If he leaves her and gets killed, and she goes through great grief, she will have made a painful mistake, but she will not have sinned.�

�� Her pastor may have warned her of her risk, and the sorrow she would face, but her rejection of that advice is not the same as rebelling against God.� It may be, but it is not necessarily so, and Paul recognizes that.� Paul makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt, that no human advice is on the same level as God's commands.� The pope, councils, church leaders, professors, and pastors, make many pronouncements, and give much advice on how we ought to live.� Most of it is good and wise advice, just like Paul's advice to the Corinthians, and it is aimed at preventing problems.� However, the Christian has a right to evaluate this advice; look at the risk of ignoring it, and then choose to take that risk.� If it turns out bad, and he suffers, he is not a sinner to be condemned, but a saint who has made a costly mistake.�

�� The point is not that it is okay to make mistakes, in contrast to sin.� We have already shown that mistakes may be worse than a sin in terms of consequences and cost.� The point is, in the realm of Christian advice, and the risk of mistakes, the Christian has to give careful consideration to the circumstances.� Is it best to be married or single?� Paul does not give an absolute answer, for this would be absurd.� The answer is, it all depends on the circumstances.� Is it best to remain a slave, or gain ones freedom?� It all depends on the circumstances.� Later, in chapter 8, Paul deals with eating meat offered to idols.� Should a Christian do it or not?� It is not an absolute matter of right or wrong.� It all depends on the circumstances.

�� We do not necessarily like this approach.� We like things wrapped up with no loose ends.� We want all the rules of life, like the Ten Commandments, clear and absolute.�� But when you try and apply all of man's wisdom and experience, like you do the Word of God, you end up with the spirit of the Pharisees, rather than the spirit of Christ.� Edna was a Christian writer who prayed for two weeks before she sent her first manuscript to a publisher.� She got her book published, and she was convinced she had the formula for success.� She began to tell other Christian writers why they failed.� Her pride was a pain to endure, but she soon got her chance to be humble.� Her next book, in spite of her formula, was rejected by six publishers, and it took two years to get it published.� She was so depressed, she almost gave up writing.� She had to learn the hard way that her convictions, and even her experiences, were not the guide for all writers.� She was saying by her pride,follow my advice, or you sin.

�� This is what the Pharisees were saying to Jesus.� You follow our authority, and conform to our image of the Messiah, or you sin, and are worthy of death.� Paul was a Pharisee, and he put many Christians to death, because they did not obey the laws of the Pharisees. Paul knew what it was to put human opinion on the same level with the commands of God. But here, we see the redeemed Paul with a totally different attitude.� Only God's commands are absolute.� Man's wisdom and advice is to be evaluated relative to the circumstances of life.� Disobeying God is always sin, but disobeying man may be only a mistake.� You never have a right to sin, but you do have the right to risk a mistake.� Paul says do not seek marriage in the circumstances� you face, but if you do marry, you do not sin.� I want to spare you the troubles you will endure, but if you chose to suffer, you are not out of the will of God.

�� Paul recognizes that some Christians will prefer to take their chances, and risk the sorrows of marriage in tough times.� But he goes on to warn them not to put all of their eggs in one basket.� Don't devote your life to the good, and miss the best.� Romeo and Juliet so gave themselves to romantic love, that it became a form of idolatry.� When one died, all meaning to life was gone for the other.� Paul says, the wise Christian will not put anyone on that level.� In verse 29 he says something that is easily abused and misunderstood.� He says, let those who have wives live as though they had none.� There are many wives who can testify that this is one part of the Bible their husbands obey.�

�� Paul did not mean what some practice in ignoring their wives.� He is simply saying to the married Christian, you cannot devote your life to the values of marriage and family, for all of these will soon pass away.� In the urgency of the times, you must give yourself to the values that will not pass away.� The emergency of circumstances demand that all secondary priorities be kept secondary, and the focus of life be on the first priority, the kingdom of God.� To the best of our knowledge we do not live in the same circumstances as the Corinthians did.� Nevertheless, our focus too must be on the things of God, and not on the things of earth, even when they are precious values that we want to preserve.�

�� If we are so devoted to life's values and joys that their loss robs us of meaning, we are not prepared for the end of history, and the coming of Christ.� We are building on an inadequate foundation.� Only the cross and Christ crucified give us values that nothing in history can take from us.� Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. So much is relative, but here is your absolute, and loyalty to Him is to be your primary concern as� you struggle with many issues of life.� You come to Christ to receive forgiveness, and to get� your priorities straight. The ideal is to avoid both sins and mistakes, but they are not the same, and we ought not to accuse ourselves or others for sin when mistakes are made by making wrong choices that are unwise in the circumstances.

9. ��DEVOTION TO THE LORD� Based on I Cor. 7:32‑40

�� Few groups of people in history have fought a more bitter battle than the Pilgrims� who came to Plymouth on the Mayflower.� So many of them died from sickness, that at one point only four of the original couples still had each other.� Edward Winslow and Susanna White had each lost their mates.� They were both convinced that God did not intend for them to remain single.� So, in spite of the short time their mates had been dead, they asked Governor Bradford to unite them in marriage.� It was the first wedding of the Pilgrims in their new land.� The feasting, gaiety, and laughter, of the wedding was a healing gift from God to these people oppressed by so much sadness.� It boasted their spirits and gave them a renewed sense of hope.

�� These godly people were thankful for marriage, as godly people have been ever since Adam saw Eve, and said, now this is more like it.� Marriage is God's idea, and He proclaimed it good.� It is honorable in all says the book of Hebrews.� We do not have to labor the point, for it is universally accepted that marriage is both beautiful and essential. Yet, in this 7th chapter of I Cor., the Apostle Paul seems to have it in for marriage.� The nicest thing he can say for it seems to be that it is not a sin, which is hardly an exalting compliment.� The one thing we can say for Paul is that he is consistent.� He tells the never married to stay single, and he tells the divorced to stay single, and he tells the widow to stay single.� As far as Paul is concerned, the number one choice is to stay single.�

�� Paul is saying it is not wrong for any Christian to get married, but there are circumstances that make it better if they are not married.� Paul said he did not baptize many people, but you get the distinct impression that he married even fewer people.� He sounds a great deal like the man who defined a bachelor as one who never made the same mistake once.� Maybe Paul, in his travels, stayed with some families that left him with a very negative impression, and he went away thanking God for the blessing of escaping all that hassle.� We don't know all of the reasons for Paul's negative attitude, but when it comes to marriage, he seems to be a confirmed believer in Murphy's Law, which says, if anything can go wrong, invariably it will.� He assumes that marriage and trouble are synonymous.� In verse 28 he does not say troubles are possible, or even likely, he says they are a certainty.� "Those who marry will have worldly troubles and I would spare you that."� Paul knew that marital bliss can turn to marital blisters.� I read of one bitter wife who said she would gladly get a divorce if she could figure out how to do it without making him so happy.�

�� The value of this passage for us is that it counteracts the dreamy idealism of the romantic.� People who think holding hands, and gazing into each others eyes, solves all of life's problems are not ready for the realities of marriage.� Paul's purpose is not to spread pessimism, for he is a positive thinker.� He knows the Christian can do all things through Christ who strengthens them.� He knows that God will work in all things for good with those who love Him.� He just wants Christians to be realistic about the obligations that go along with marriage.� We do not live under the same circumstances as the Corinthians, but Paul's point it still valid for all generations.� Marriage is not the promised land, but is still part of the wilderness journey.� Life in general is full of problems, and getting married does not shelter you from them, but often compounds them.

�� One of the reasons divorce is so high is because of unrealistic expectations.� They jump into marriage thinking it will be the solution to all of their troubles, and when they discover it isn't, they figure they must have married the wrong person, and so they divorce and try again.� They are always looking for that marriage that will bring utopia.� The whole process is a subtle form of idolatry, where people expect to find in marriage what only God can supply.� Gordon and Dorthea Joeck in I Take Thee write, "Marriage, as life itself, is made up of many and varied ingredients:� Struggle and achievement, success and failure, joy and pain.� Marriage does not remove us from vulnerability to life's difficulties and bring us only its joys.� To expect this is unrealistic preparation for married life."� This is what Paul is conveying to the Corinthians.

�� Paul's attitude gives a needed realistic perspective to counteract the myths of marriage. It is a myth that happy married people do not have problems and stress.� This myth does a great deal of harm, for people who marry soon discover they do have problems, so they assume something went wrong, and maybe they were not meant for each other.� Nobody in the Corinthian church could ever get married, and be so deceived, for Paul makes it clear, even if two Christians, who are madly in love, get married, they will have troubles and conflicts of interest that demand painful adjustments.�

�� This sounds very negative, but the fact is this attitude can save people from the worst problem of marriage, which is to enter it with the illusion that all their problems are over. The best marriages of the most godly and loving people have problems, and Paul refuses to white wash it, and pretend that Christian people escape what is inevitable in a fallen world. Kenneth Chafin, dean of Billy Graham's school of evangelism, and pastor of a seven thousand member Baptist church of Houston, tells of his experience as a newlywed.� On their first morning in their new apartment, his wife Barbara made her father's favorite breakfast.� It was a biscuit split open and toasted with a slice of cheese on each half.�� It wasn't bad he thought, but neither was it the thrill of his life.� The second morning she made the same thing.� When the biscuit came out the third morning, he exploded, and wanted to know if that was the only thing she knew how to make.� She was hurt, of course,but fortunately they talked about what was happening.� As far as she could remember, her father never varied his breakfast menu.� She thought she had found the perfect breakfast, and was planning to make this for the rest of their lives.� He made it clear that he loved variety, and was not like her father at all.�

�� One of the hardest areas of adjustment in marriage is you suddenly start living 24 hours a day with someone who is different than the people you have been living with all of your life.� That is one of the reasons troubles are inevitable.� Maybe the family you lived with enjoyed being messy, and it didn't bother them at all.� Now you suddenly realize the person you married is someone who is picky neat.� Maybe� your family always squeezed the toothpaste, but now you discover there are people who roll it up, and you don't understand why anyone would do it that way.� You might be a night owl, and suddenly discover you are united to an early bird.� There are endless trivialities that mean trouble in adjusting to your mate.�

�� Life is never static so that you can finally adjust to each other, and be done with the struggle.� Each age of marriage brings new problems.� The child bearing period is not easy. Children are such a blessing, and bring so many pleasures to life, yet there is an enormous price to pay.� Many marriages are destroyed by all of the hassle of raising children, keeping them well, and getting them educated.

�� Then comes the empty nest period.� The children are gone and the hassle is over, but still there is no utopia.� If the children are all a couple has lived for, their marriage is now empty without the kids.� The mother has loving labored for 20 some years, and now what she has learned to do best does not even need doing at all.� This can be a time of great depression and loneliness.� Her husband may not even understand, for he is at the peak of his career, and is happy and fulfilled.� He is a success, and she feels like a failure, and it is a prime time for both to be tempted to some sort of an affair.� Then comes retirement and all is reversed.� The wife has adjusted, and has found ways to make her life meaningful,� but now he is lost.� What he has done well still needs doing, but not by him, and he now feels useless.�

�� The whole point of this overview of marriage is to show us that Paul was not just being a killjoy.� He was looking at life as it really is, and trying to get Christians to see that marriage calls for deep commitment, for better, or for worse, for both will be inevitable.

What I hear Paul saying is, if you are willing to pay the price don't take the merchandise. If you are not willing to struggle and adjust, and sacrifice, so your marriage can be a channel of God's love in the world, then don't do it.� Stay single, and be more effective for God's kingdom.� Paul does not buy the philosophy that says, troubles will always make you a better Christian.� We know that they can, but anybody who goes looking for them is stretching the truth.� In verse 32 Paul says I want you to be free of anxieties.� There is no virtue in suffering what can be avoided and prevented.� Paul is a strong believer in an ounce of prevention being worth more than a pound of cure.

�� Paul is actually trying to prevent marriages that will lead to all of the troubles he warns of, and end in divorce.� I have to confess that I have never tried to prevent a marriage. I am a product of our culture where romantic love is an idol.� Anyone who is in love, I have felt, are legitimate candidates for marriage.� I still feel that way, but I realize that Paul's attitude must modify my own.� He writes in a different context, and times do differ, but the fact remains, it is too easy in any age to treat marriage lightly, and not examine the seriousness of what it means to get married.

�� Someone said, the proof that Paul was never married is that he writes as if all mates do, is try to please each other.� This whole passage can be very superficial if you take it out of context, and try to impose it on all of history.� We know history is filled with married people who have been devoted servants of God, and who have changed the course of history for His glory.� Married people are not just worldly minded and spending their whole life devoted to earthly things.� Most of the churches of the world are founded on the family.

�� On the other hand, the singles whom Paul so exalts, who give themselves to Christian service, have also been great servants all through history.� Singles have been dominate in the thrust of world wide missions.� But the fact remains, there are many singles who do not devote themselves to Christian service, any more than uncommitted married people.� We dare not take this passage out of the context of Corinth, and make it a reflection on all of history.� Paul is telling us what he has observed in the life of the Corinthians, and what he saw was that the married people tended to devote their lives to one another, and the singles tended to devote their lives to Christian service.� This is often true in our culture as well, but in no way can it be seen as a rule of life, it is only a tendency that is common in all ages.

�� When you are married you can't be home pleasing your wife, and out somewhere else in Christian service at the same time.� You can't be home cooking your husbands favorite meal, and still be engaged in Christian service all afternoon.� Marriage brings limitations,

and if Christians are going to be fighting over these limitations, and feeling guilty, and making others feel guilty, they are going to make a mess of their marriage.� Paul says if this be the case, you are better off to stay single.� One lodge member asked another why the lodge meeting was canceled.� He responded, "The Grand-All-Powerful-Invincible-Supreme-Potentate's wife wouldn't let him come."� Such are the limitations of marriage.

�� Christian history is full of examples of Christian leaders who had very unhappy marriages.� John and Charles Wesley, the founders of Methodism changed the course of history, and influenced millions of people for Christ, but they had unhappy marriages.� William Carey, the father of modern missions, had a miserable marriage.� It would be easy to say, they would have been better off single.� Possibly it is so, but Paul who recommends it highly also recognizes the dangers.� If these men, by not being married, could not control their passions, they may have become immoral, and ruined their chances of doing great things for God.� Many have also traveled this path.� So Paul could say to them, it is no sin that you are married, even though you are not the most qualified people to make a marriage happy.� It is good that you married, but would have been better had you not needed to be married.�

�� There can be no question about it, Paul preferred the single life for himself, and considered it the best choice for just about everybody else.� What is important for us to see is, Paul is sharing his perspective and not laying down a law.� He is not anti-marriage as many Christians have been in their legalistic fight to exalt celibacy.� Many groups have prohibited marriage as a unworthy state, but Paul would have no part of such nonsense. He is simply saying, just as a soldier does not take his wife onto a battlefield, so the Christian in time of great conflict ought not to marry, unless compelled by the strongest passions.� Devote yourself to the battle, and do not get sidetracked with lesser battles, which are inevitable part of marriage.

�� The key verse that helps us apply all this is verse 35.� Paul tells us clearly, his motive for being so negative.� "I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."� Paul's motive is very positive, but he uses negatives to get there, for married people need to see the dangers in order to avoid them.� Paul is not against marriage after all, but just opposed to the blind entering into it, unaware of the problems inherent in it.� The immaturity of Corinthians, and the instability of the times, made marriage a high risk, and that is why Paul was so negative, and promoted singleness.�

�� What all this means for us today is, we must see marriage as for adults only, and not just in years, but in maturity.� Christians must be mature enough to recognize the reality of negatives in marriage, and be willing to commit themselves to work through the adjustments needed to make it work.� They need to be people who recognize the danger of idolatry.� They need to be willing to encourage each other in Christian service, so that their marriage does not make them less devoted to God, but more so.� Mature love can lift people out of the realm where the Corinthians are struggling.� There will still be problems,but there can also be a life dominated by joy and Christian service.

�� Paul becomes an optimist when he gets to chapter 13, and writes about the power of love.� He says in verse 7 that love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things.� If they have a mature love, they are ready for marriage.� F. Alexander

Magoun points out in his definition of love, the other side of marriage:� "Love is a passionate and abiding desire on the part of two people to produce together an emotional climate in which each can flourish, far superior to what either could achieve alone."� Paul would agree that this optimism is legitimate if love is mature, and ready to make sacrifices.

�� The complex issues of marriage, divorce, remarriage, and singleness, are not matters of cut and dried rules.� You are dealing with people and their relationships to other people. The complexity can be enormous, and so there is no single rule to fit all.� The one question for the Christian in all his relationships needs to be, what will contribute to my being a better Christian?� Because Christians have different personalities and circumstances, there answers will vary, but their goal can be the same whether they chose to marry or stay single.� That goal is, as Paul says, devotion to the Lord.� If any choice you make in life hinders that, you are making a mistake.� If any discussion or relationship you chose is an aid to this goal, you are on the right track.� The measuring rod is not marriage or singleness, but your devotion to the Lord.

10.�� LOVE MAKES THE SIMPLE COMPLEX�� I COR. 8

�� Dr. James H. Robinson, a great black preacher in New York, tells of how he

use to sit on the steps of the public library in Knoxville.� He would watch the

white people go in, and he would be filled with resentment because he wanted to

read and learn, but the doors were closed to blacks.� He came to hate white

people, and he would look up at the high water tower and wish he could poison it

and kill all the white people in Knoxville.� There were 3 reasons he never did it.�

1.He didn't have the poison.� 2.� He was afraid of high places.� 3.� He could never

figure out how he could keep from the drinking the same water.� The complexity

of his evil scheme is what prevented it from becoming a reality.� Thank God for

complexity.� If evil was always easy there would be even more of it, and a man

like Dr. Robinson may never have become a child of God and a servant of the

kingdom.�

�� Complexity is a comfort.� Much of our security in this life is based on

complexity.� Man has devised locks and alarms to protect his possessions.� Vaults

and guards protect his banks, and numerous methods are devised to make it too

complex for robbery.� But complexity is also a challenge.� People love to go into

politics and wrestle with the complex issues of society.� They strive to come up

with a plan that benefits the majority.� Scientists love to labor with the near

infinite complexity of diseases to figure out a way to conquer them.� Most of the

challenges of our world that motivate people to dedicate their lives to a cause are

based on the reality of complexity.�

�� Complexity is a comfort and a challenge, but it can also be a curse.� If every

Christian had the same background, the same culture and the same personality,

life would be so much simpler.� It may be boring, but it would be simple.�

Needless to say, this is not the way life really is.� Christians have all different

backgrounds, and they come out of radically different cultures.� Their

personalities are like fingerprints, and no two are exactly alike.� This can be a

comfort and a challenge, but history forces us to face up to the fact that this

complexity can also be a curse.� It is a curse because people don't life other

people to be different.� They like it when all Christians see everything from the

same perspective.� If the viewpoints get too diverse there is suspicion that

somebody is on the wrong track.

�� This was the problem in the church of Corinth.� Some of the Christians there

felt it was no problem whatever to eat meat offered idols.� After all, the idols did

not really exist, and so it is a meaningless ritual that does nothing to the meat by

being offered to an idol, and so why be uptight about it?� Giving it up was almost

like becoming a vegetarian, for practically all meat was offered to some idol.� If

your pagan family, which you came out of to become a Christian, invited you to

a wedding, a funeral, or just a family picnic or social, you would be served meat

that had been offered to an idol.� It was a part of the pagan culture.� Many

Christians had no problem with relating to their pagan family and friends by

eating this meat offered to idols.� Life would have been so simple if other

Christians had not taken an opposite view.

�� These Christians said that the idols are real, and that they represent real evil

spirits and demons.� Therefore, the Christian cannot be loyal to Christ and still

eat meat that has been offered to his opponents in the spirit world.� They had an

conscience that was sensitive to this issue, and they were offended by Christians

who had the audacity to profess the name of Christ and then indulge in eating

such desecrated meat.� This is where the curse of complexity comes in and which

explains why people love westerns so much.� In a western the good guys and the

bad guys are so obvious.� You always know whose side to be on.� It is such

satisfying simplicity, and it helps us escape from the real world where things are

not so simple.�

�� The Corinthians Christians were on two different sides of this issue, as

Christians often are on most controversial issues.� Each group thought the other

group must be a pack of mutations and misfits in the body of Christ.� It was no

minor matter limited to a handful of Christians.� This was a major conflict in the

church.� At the first church council described in Acts 15 the leaders of the

church, with Paul present, came to the conclusion that this was one of the things

Gentile Christians would have to do, and that is to abstain from meat offered to

idols.� The problem was that this was the Jewish leader's telling the Gentiles

what was good for them.� It was the Jewish conscience trying to impose itself on

the Gentile conscience.� Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and he did not go

along with this decision.�

�� Had Paul agreed with the decision he would have just told the Christians

who were eating meat offered to idols to stop doing it immediately.� Paul did not

do this, however, but in fact, he defended the wisdom of those who recognized it

ought not to even be an issue because strong Christians can eat it with no less

loyalty to Christ because he knows the idols do not exist.� Paul does not say that

these Gentiles need to conform to Jewish convictions, but he does say that love

demands that they be sensitive to other Gentiles who have a weak conscience on

this issue.� If it is a matter of legalism, Paul was on the side of those who chose

liberty.� But if it was a matter of love, Paul was on the side of those who chose to

limit their liberty for the sake of the weak.

�� So is it right to eat meat offered to idols?� Paul says, "Yes and no."� We don't

like this answer, for we like a simple black and white decision.� But the

complexity of life will not allow Paul to be superficially simple.� It all depends on

whether the issue is one of legalism or love.� This is a crucial distinction in

knowing the will of God in areas where Christians disagree and see from

opposite perspectives.� Whether I am obligated to surrender my conviction or

fight for it all depends on this distinction.� Those who do not bother to make this

distinction use this passage in a way that makes it a denial of all Paul fought for

in the early church.�

�� Paul clearly tells the strong‑minded Christians that love demands that they

limit their liberty in Christ in order to protect their weaker brothers who are

supersensitive and need support.� The Christian who will not make a sacrifice

for the sake of another Christian's security is a poor specimen of a Christian.�

Those who take this out of a context of love and put it into a context of legalism

are obscuring Paul's message, and they are using it for blackmail to get their

own way.� Paul is not giving every legalistic fanatic the right to force the church

to conform to his convictions.� If this is what Paul is saying, it is a direct

contradiction to all he fought for, and all that Jesus fought against with the

Pharisees.��

�� Many sermons have been preached on how the strong are to give way to the

weak, but few have practiced it, for it would lead to the absurd conclusion that

the church is to be guided by its most ignorant, weak and incompetent members.�

Those least set free by Christ, and most in bondage to the old life would be the

pace setters.� This would mean that if you had one sensitive saint in your

fellowship who was brought up to believe you should never eat out on Sunday,

and never go for a drive on Sunday, and never watch TV on Sunday, you would

all have to conform to this legalistic conviction less they be offended.�

�� Paul would say to this, "O you foolish Christians.� You are not under the

law, but you are free in Christ.� Do not submit again to a yoke of slavery and

turn Christianity into a form of Phariseeism."� Paul opposed Peter to his face

because Peter had a sensitive conscience, and he was backing away from eating

with Gentiles.� Paul did not say, "I don't want to offend your sensitive conscience

Peter."� On the contrary, he condemned Peter for letting the Jewish sensitivity

weaken his stand for Gentile equality.� Paul would not tolerate a legalistic

conscience trying to regulate the liberty we have in Christ.

�� Paul followed in the steps of Jesus who shattered the legalism of the

Pharisees.� He broke all of their ceremonial laws, and he ignored their Sabbath

laws that hindered his ministry of healing and doing good.� They were so

offended that they crucified them, but Jesus did not back off from the battle for

religious liberty.� The New Testament nowhere supports the idea that Christians

are to conform to the minds of legalistic people.� History shows that every step of

progress in the church has been opposed by the sensitive conscience of legalistic

people.

�� Musical instruments were fought by those who said it is immoral to praise

God with a mere thing when the Bible says, "Let all that has breath praise the

Lord."� Christians fought back and not only used all things to praise God, but

even adapted secular tunes with which to do it.� Battles have been fought over

almost everything including colored glass, heat in the church and communion

cups.� If strong Christians would have feared to offend the sensitivities of

legalistic Christians the church would still be in the dark ages, or never even

gotten that far. �It would still be nothing more than an exclusive Jewish church.�

�� Many Christians who are truly godly feel it is evil to vote.� Are we to give up

our support for the best leaders we can vote for because we do not want to

offend these brothers?� Many Christians feel it is a lack of faith to buy insurance.�

Are we to leave our loved ones unprotected because of their conviction?� We

could go on endlessly with all the areas of life where Christians have different

convictions, but the point should already be clear.� When it comes to issues of

legalism, the Christian is not only not under obligation to conform to the

conscience of another, he is obligated to fight in order to change and overcome

that conscience.� He is to pursue the liberty we have in Christ in order to

promote it and preserve it for the good of others.�

�� Eating meat offered to idols is a legalistic issue between Jews and Gentiles,

and so Paul takes his stand with the Gentiles.� As a matter of right Paul would

say the Gentile Christians have freedom to eat that meat without feeling guilty.�

Paul was opposed to any law demanding that Gentile Christians conform to

Judaism, but because life is complex this issue is more than just a matter of

legalism.� It has personal ramifications that go beyond the battle of legalism, and

make it a matter of love.� In this chapter Paul is not concerned about Peter's

feelings, or how the council of leaders in Jerusalem feels.� They are mature

Christians, and Paul will deal with them on the level of debate and argument as

to what is legitimate in Christian liberty.� But here Paul is concerned about the

pagan believers who have just recently come out of their idolatry to faith in

Christ.�

�� In verse 7 he refers to those who are the center of his concern, and they are

those who do not have a clear grasp of the unreality of other gods.� They have for

all their lives believed in these gods, and for them to eat the meat dedicated to

these gods is to feel guilty of disloyalty to Christ.� Their conscience has been

programmed, and for them to eat this meat is like stealing from their neighbor.

They feel guilty and their conscience bothers them, for they sense they have

sinned.� If this sensitive person sees other more mature Christians eating this

meat he is encouraged to go ahead also, even though he feels it is wrong.� This

violation of his conscience will damage his spiritual life.�� He is by this act

rejecting the Lordship of Christ, for to him it is claiming another god over Jesus.�

�� This could very easily lead to new Christians returning to their pagan ways

and be lost to the church permanently.� It happens all the time all over the world

in the lives of those who come out of a pagan culture and then slip back into it.�

This is an altogether issue than someone who is trying to force you to conform to

their legalistic conviction.� Here are people who do not have roots.� They are in

an unstable transition, and they can be easily led astray.� Paul is saying that

Christian love demands that the strong Christian be sensitive to these people.�

Love demands that strong Christians be willing to sacrifice some of their liberty

for the sake of these weaker believers until they too become strong.� This is how

love makes the simple complex.

11.�� FROM START TO FINISH Based on I Cor. 9:24 to 10:12

� You don�t have to be an expert on racing to know that you don�t get a prize just for signing up, but many feel that is all that is needed to be a winner in the Christian life.� They think that you do not have to budge from the starting line as long as your name is on the list of contestants.� Paul, however, made it clear that the Christian life is a struggle and a challenge, and it calls for suffering, sacrifice and service.� Before he died he said, �I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, henceforth there is laid up for me a crown.�� You see there is a cross before the crown.� There has always been a tendency to bypass the cross and gain the crown.� The flesh desires comfort and not challenge; ease and not effort.� Now I lay me down to sleep is our favorite theme.� We want to receive the reward without running the race.

�� A sign in the window of a sporting goods shop said, �See us for camping supplies so you can rough it smoothly.�� We want all the blessings and none of the burdens.� There is a church in Florida that has put in rocking chairs in place of the pews.� They are perfectly balanced so as to give the maximum amount of rocking for the least amount of effort.� There is nothing wrong with rocking chairs, but there presence in the sanctuary is a symbol of how we seek to avoid the cross for the sake of comfort.� This is nothing new, for Paul found the same tendency in the Corinthian church.� They had the idea that now that they were Christians they could take life easy.� The flesh began to dominate their lives and they became immoderate in eating, drinking and sexual practices.� Paul seeks to correct their foolish thinking by comparing the Christian life with the life of the contestants at the Isthmian games held every two years just 8 miles from Corinth.� He refers specifically to the runners, and in so doing he teaches that there are 3 qualification necessary to be successful in the Christian race.�

I.� COMMITMENT�� v. 24-25

�� The men who wanted to enter the contest in the arena had to commit themselves to a rigorous ten months of training.� They gave up all sensual pleasures, and they had to be in bed early.� They had to eat special food and have no alcoholic beverages.� This was not just a suggestion, but it was demanded before they could even enlist in the races.�

�� Paul, like his Lord, used the examples of the world to teach Christians.� He is saying that they need to stop and consider what your favorite runner goes through in terms of self-denial in order to win a perishable crown.� It was a wreath of parsley, ivory or pine.� They do it for a bit of self-glory, and will you offer less to gain the crown of eternal glory?� What is eternal life worth to you?� If a man will gladly live a life of committed self-control and constant exercise to get a piece of pine on his head and a crowd cheering him, how much more ought you to be committed to gain the crown that is incorruptible.� Paul is not criticizing the athletes.� He is just using them as examples of commitment.�

�� Even the philosopher Seneca saw the folly of men who devote more energy than sports than they do for developing a good life.� He wrote, �What blows do athletes receive in the face, what blows all over the body, yet they bare all the torture from thirst of glory.� Let us also overcome all things, for our reward is not a crown or a palm branch or the trumpeter proclaiming silence for the announcement of our name, but virtue and strength of mind and peace acquired ever after.�� Even a thinking pagan wonders at the mixed up values of men who will commit themselves to the trivial, but who will not lift a finger for the essential.�

�� We have lost the biblical concept of the Christian life as a race.� We make conversion represent crossing the goal, when it really is just stepping up to the starting line.� We are in the race between of the grace of God.� He paid our entrance fee on the cross to get us in, but then we have to do the running, and to run well we need to prepare ourselves.� We need to practice self-denial, and we need to exercise our soul in prayer, and strengthen our minds by wrestling with the Word of God.� Failing to do so results in a superficial Christian.�

�� The problem is not that we do not have a glorious and thrilling Gospel.� The problem is that we do not have enough trained and committed instruments to communicate it.� The instrument makes all the difference in the world as to the quality of music it produces.� Two men in Old London met on the street and began to talk.� Just then a street organ struck up a tune.�� It was a rickety old instrument that wheezed and groaned.� One of the men wanted to move on and get away from that awful tune.� The other said, �It is not the tune, for that was written by the great Handel, and it is �See The Conquering Hero Comes.�� The other responded, �Well then Handel wrote a poor thing.�� A month later the man who knew Handel�s music invited his friend to go with him to the Handel�s festival.� As they listened to symphony the friend went into rapture in his praise of it, and he asked what that was called.� When his friend told him it was the same music they heard a month earlier on the street he was amazed.� The instrument made all the difference.��

�� In order to be the best possible instrument for communicating the good news of God, we need to be trained and committed.� We need to examine our lives to see if we are a race course type Christian, or a rocking chair type Christian, and if we find ourselves sitting at the starting line, we know we lack the commitment necessary.

II.� CERTAINTY.� v. 26-27

�� This is an age of anxiety and uncertainty, and the masses of the world do not know where they are going.� There is no fixed star and nothing steady to hold on to.� A French aviator in his book Night Flight tells of being lost in the sky at night.� He caught a faint whisper from the radio control operator, and he frantically asked him to flash the signal at the air field.� When the operator replied he had already flashed them and he saw nothing, he knew he had not found a light to guide him home.� So many have no light to guide them, but the Christian does, and he is to look to Christ to keep him on course.�

�� Paul says he does not run like a man running aimlessly.� Paul had a clear aim and goal.� He had many setbacks, but he always knew where he was going.� He was always pressing on toward the mark.� His eyes were always focused on Jesus.� As Calvin said, �In him alone is the whole stuff of our salvation.�� Nothing is more dangerous than uncertainty as to one�s goal.� If you are not sure what you are running for, you will not be very zealous, and more than likely you will choose a lesser goal than the crown of righteousness and joy in Christ.� Paul says to know your goal and keep pressing toward it.� You may be fast and full of energy, but if you are running all over the landscape, no one will thank you, and especially the judge who awards the crown.� It is not just action that is important, but your aim.� Religious activity is not enough, for it must be Christ centered to be an adequate goal.�

�� Paul changes his metaphor from runner to boxer, and he says I am not wasting my energy by hitting wildly, but I take careful aim and make every blow count.� The Christian is no part time amateur, but a professional, and it calls for our very best.�� His certainty as to his goal causes him to use every means possible to attain it.� Here is where men fail, for they think it is enough to want and wish for great values without working for them.� Every young couple wants a happy marriage, and they all want it to work out for the best.� They desire a good end, but they are not willing to use the means to attain it.� You can�t arrive at your goal if you do not use the necessary means to get there.� Every parent wants their child to grow up to be a wonderful person, but so often they think that loving them and desiring that goal for them takes care of it, but it is not so.� Love does not train a child.� That takes sacrificial effort, and all the wishing in the world will not accomplish that goal without the proper means.

�� Paul says in verse 27 that he finds one of the greatest obstacles in his way is his own body.� The Bible does not teach that the body is evil, for Jesus took on the form of human flesh and gave it dignity.� It does teach that the body is an instrument of either good or evil.� It is a bad master, but a good servant.� Paul says that he keeps his body under.� The Greek word for keeping under refers to a solid blow right under the eye.� He says that he is no air beater, but that he beats his body black and blue to bring it into bondage.� He does not destroy it, but he makes his body his slave by keeping his soul on top and his body under it.� Because he is certain of his goal he disciplines his body to make sure it does not slow him down.�� The Christian who allows his body to dominate him will be beaten to the canvass by crushing blows of self-indulgence.�

III.� CONSISTENCY.�� v. 27

�� Even with a committed attitude and a certain aim you are not assured of success without consistent action.� You not only have to start and keep on going, but you have to finish.� You must persevere to the end.� If a Greek runner obeyed all rules and had his ten months of training, but the night before the race had his fling by staying out late and eating and drinking to excess, all of his preparation would in be vain.� Paul says that he never lets up, but is constantly running and fighting lest after telling others the rules he ends up disqualified.� Paul is saying to the self-indulgent Christians that you are babes in Christ who are relaxing in your running.� You spurt ahead now and then, but spend most of your time on the bench when you should be consistently striving for the goal.�

�� Just being in the race is not enough, for you have to keep running to gain the crown.� In chapter 10 he illustrates by saying that all our fathers were in the race as well.� They were all baptized and had their name on the roll.� They drank the spiritual drink, but many were not pleasing to God, and they fell before they reached the promised land.� He goes on to say that this is an example for us.� You can be baptized and partake of the Lord�s Supper, but this will not carry you across the goal line.� You must be obedient and give yourself to concentrated and consistent effort to pursue the will of God.� Even the best of men like Moses fell before the finish line.�

�� Ike Skelton Jr. was stricken with polio as a boy.� A doctor in Kansas City told his parents that nothing could be done.� Ike had such a will to win, however, that through months and years of painful recovery he never gave up.� He became a student at Wentworth Military Academy and joined the track team.� When the big meet of year came Ike entered the two miles race.� His legs had recovered, but his arms were still useless, and so his teammates taped his helpless arms to his side.� He went all the way, and it made no difference that his opponents had already finished two laps before him.� He gritted his teeth and tore across the line into the arms of his teammates.� One of them said, �The rest of them came in first, but they didn�t beat this boy.�� It is he who endures to the end that shall be saved.� We must run with the determination until we die.� It is not enough to tell others the way, for you must go the way yourself.�

�� Paul says that he is no signpost Christian.� A sign points to a place, but it never goes there itself.� Paul says that he practices what he preaches, and he goes where he points.� We need to take the words of Paul seriously.� Just as a magnifying glass can concentrate the rays of the sun and start a fire while it remains cold itself, so a Christian can be an instrument through which others can receive the Son of Righteousness, and yet remain as cold as ice themselves.� Paul had perfect assurance of his salvation, and that nothing could separate him from the love of God, but he didn�t give up persistently pursuing the path to perfection.� It is not enough to start, but we must run all the way to the finish line.� An unknown poet wrote,

Its prizes call for fighting,

�� For endurance and for grit,

For a rugged disposition,

�� And a don�t know when to quit.

12.�� AN ACT OF OBEDIENCE Based on I Cor. 10:1‑5

�� The whole duty of man is to love God and keep His commandments.