Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Paul: 1 Corinthians 7, Part 3)

Posted on January 12, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

“But to the rest I, not the Lord say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.  And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him” (1 Corinthians 7:12-13).

Paul had received questions from the brethren at Corinth (1 Corinthians 7:1 cf. 7:10; 7:12; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1-2; 16:12).   We have his answers.  We do not have the wording of the original questions.

“What about Christians who are married to non-Christians?  What about those who have become Christians, who now find themselves married to non-Christians?  What about those who have been unable to convert their mates?”  It seems that they asked something like this.

Paul answered: (1) A Christian man is not to divorce his non-Christian wife, of she is willing to live with him (and his Christianity).  (2) A Christian woman is not to divorce her non-Christian husband, if he is willing to live with her (and her Christianity).  The answer is the same for both the Christian man and the Christian woman.

What does Paul mean when he says, ‘I, not the Lord, say…’?  Consider this: Paul earlier said, “I command, yet not I but the Lord…” (1 Corinthians 7:10).  He did not mean that he was not speaking on this subject.  He certainly was speaking on this subject.  He was reminding them of what Jesus had taught while on earth.  Likewise, when he says, “I, not the Lord, say…” he does not mean that the Lord is not also speaking.  Paul is an inspired man.  He later writes, “…the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37).  The meaning is: He is simply not appealing to what Jesus had taught while on earth.  J.W. McGarvey comments, not the Lord “with his own lips” (McGarvey, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans, p. 80).  Adam Clark comments, “The directions which I am now about to give there is no written testimony, and I deliver them now for the first time.  These words do not intimate that the apostle was not now under the influence of the Divine Spirit; but that there was nothing in the sacred writings which bore directly on this point.”  Guy N. Woods comments, “He is not contrasting the Lord’s authority with his own; he is distinguishing between an express declaration of the Lord while he was on earth, touching the matter and another aspect of the subject on which the Lord did not directly speak” (Woods, Questions and Answers, Vol. 1, p. 87).  Robert Dodson comments, “Jesus did not teach these things while in the flesh, probably because it would only confuse people to speak of a situation that did not yet exist.  This does not mean, that what Jesus did teach in the flesh, or the teaching of verse 10-11, does not apply to Christians married to non-Christians.  Paul’s additional teaching here, to the Christians married to non-Christians is not contradictory, but in harmony with all other inspired teaching on the subject” (Dodson, Brown Trail School of Preaching, class notes on 1 Corinthians).

Why did Paul use this wording?  I can think of a couple of possible reasons.  (1) It is possible, though I cannot prove it, that Paul’s wording is based on the wording of their question(s).  They may have asked, “Paul, what did Jesus teach on this?”  (2) The wording of verse 12 is based on the wording of verse 10.  It may be that he words things as he does in verse 10 simply to remind then of what Jesus had taught.  Jesus set forth instructions about marriage in general. Paul moves from the general (verses 10-11), to the specific situation of a Christian married to a non-Christian (verses 12-16).  Kerry Duke comments, “Jesus dealt with this situation generally; Paul addressed the situation specifically” (Duke, The Remarriage of a Divorced Couple, p. 50).

“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean; but now they are holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14).

This explains why a Christian in a religiously mixed marriage should stay married (if the non-Christian is willing to live with the Christian).  The non-Christian is sanctified and the children are holy.

What does this mean?  Here are some theories: (1) Some have thought that this refers to salvation by relationship.  However, this view should be rejected (cf. Ezekiel 18:20; John 3:5).  It does not fit the immediate context (i.e. 1 Corinthians 7:16).  (2) Some have thought that this means that the marriage is legitimate, if at least one of the partners in marriage is a Christian.  However, this view should be rejected (cf. Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6).  Marriage pre-dates Christianity.  Marriage pre-dates Judaism.  It was created in the beginning.  (3) Some have thought that this is referring to the Christian’s sanctifying influence in the home.  This is possible.  Peter writes of how a Christian wife could win her husband to Christ (1 Peter 3:1-6).  Furthermore, A Christian mother can have great influence over her children (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15).  (4) I think that this refers to the fact that the marriage is a legitimate marriage.  Otherwise, the children would be illegitimate (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:14).  Bill Jackson comments, “He is speaking of the sacredness of the marriage relationship” (Jackson, A Commentary on First Corinthians, p. 63). The situation may not be the best situation, but it is a legitimate marriage.

The best thing one can do, when in a marriage to a non-Christian, is to continue to truly live the Christian life. Be serious about it (if you do not take it seriously why should your mate?). Exemplify it. Let your mate see the beauty of true Christianity ( cf. 1 Peter 3:1-6).

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Beatitudes: Those Who Hunger and Thirst

Posted on January 8, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for (after KJV) righteousness, for they shall be filled” (Matthew 5:6).

The longer I live, the more convinced I am that true discipleship starts with attitude and will.  It is an internal desire and drive which determines direction and dedication.  As a preacher, I say – give me one soul with limited knowledge, but filled with a burning fire to know, to grow, and to serve God – over one with much knowledge, but with no fire, nothing but apathy or velleity, and lethargy.  I can accomplish much with the first.  It is less certain I will accomplish something with the second.  The second one has a much more serious and challenging problem.

The word “blessed” (makarios) is defined to mean “blessed, happy” (Thayer); “blessed, fortunate, happy usually in a sense of divine favor” (BAG).  This is about how to have real lasting happiness.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.  Let us consider three words. (1) The word “hunger” (peinao) is defined “to hunger… to suffer want… to be needy… metaphorically to crave ardently, to seek with eager desire” (Thayer); “hunger… figuratively hunger for something = desire something strongly” (BAG).  This word was used of Jesus after He had fasted forty days and forty nights (Matthew 4:2).  (2) The word “thirst” (dipsao) is defined to mean “to suffer thirst… figuratively, those are said to thirst who painfully feel their want of, and eagerly long for, those things by which the soul is refreshed, supported, strengthened” (Thayer); “be thirsty… figuratively thirst i.e. long for something, have a strong desire for something” (BAG).  This word was used by Jesus on the cross (John 19:28).  (3) The word “righteousness” (dikaiosune) is defined to mean, “the character or quality of being right or just” (Vine’s); “in the broad sense, the state of him who is such as he ought to be… in a closer sense, justice, or the virtue which gives each one his due” (Thayer); “uprightness, justice as a characteristic of a judge… in a moral and religious sense uprightness… in specific Pauline thought… the righteousness bestowed by God… it closely approximates salvation… since d (ikaiosune) constitutes the specific virtue of Christians, the word becomes almost equivalent to Christianity” (BAG).  This word is used in different ways in the Bible.  It is sometimes used of right doing (e.g. Acts 10:34-35).  It is sometimes used of having a right standing before God (e.g. Luke 1:6; Romans 4:3 cf. Genesis 15:6).  It is sometimes used of salvation (Galatians 2:21; Romans 4:1-8), or the plan of salvation (Romans 10:1-3). 

Those who will be blessed have a common trait.  They have a strong desire to be right with God.  Therefore, They value God’s word, and want to properly understand it.  Job said, “I have treasured the words of His mouth more than my necessary food” (Job 23:12).  David declared of God’s judgments, “More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.  Moreover by them Your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward (Psalm 19:10-11 cf. Psalm 119:72).  Solomon said of wisdom, “If you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures; then you will understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God” (Proverbs 2:4-5).  Furthermore, They want fellowship with God. The Psalmist expressed this desire, saying, “As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God.  My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.  When shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalm 42:1-2).  Paul proclaimed, “What things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.  Yet, indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus My Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith” (Philippians 3:7-9).  Those who will be blessed desire righteousness.  It is not only their desire; it is their priority.  Jesus instructed, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matthew 6:33). 

They shall be filled.  Those who receive righteousness, first hungered and thirsted for it.  Dave Miller has written, “Such hunger is rewarded with satiation… salvation is accured” (Editors Garland Elkins and Thomas Warren, The Book of Matthew, p. 198; Spiritual Sword Lectureship).  H. Leo Boles has commented, “The promise is that ‘they shall be filled’; not partly filled, not modified in form, but completely satisfied or filled” (Boles, A Commentary on The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 123).  J.W. McGarvey has commented, “Under a heathen religion, and even under Judaism, such a desire could not be fully satisfied; but under the rich provisions of the kingdom of Christ it may be; and the promise is that it will be.  Compare Romans 8:3-4; Hebrews 7:11, 19, 25” (McGarvey, A Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 49).

Posted in beatitudes, sermon on mount, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Beatitudes: The Meek

Posted on January 5, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).

God’s ways are frequently very different from man’s ways.  For instance: Few people would consider service to others as a measure of true greatness; but, God does [Matthew 20:25-28 (Mark 9:42-45); Luke 22:24-27].  Moreover, consider the Beatitudes: Few people would consider poverty in spirit, mourning, and meekness means and even prerequisites to true (spiritual) happiness; but, God does (Matthew 5:3, 4, 5).  The wise learn to see things, as God sees things.  They renew their minds (Romans 12:2).

The word “blessed” (makarios) is defined to mean, “blessed, happy” (Thayer); “blessed, fortunate, happy usually in a sense of divine favor” (BAG).  Many strongly desire happiness, but they seek it without even considering God.  True lasting happiness is found in a right relationship with God.

Blessed are the meek (gentle NASB, McCord’s).  The word “meek” (praus) is defined to mean “gentle, mild, meek” (Thayer); “gentle, humble, considerate, meek in the older favorable sense” (BAG).  The word is greatly misunderstood.  Vine’s said of the noun form meekness (prautes), that it “is not readily expressed in English, for the terms meekness, mildness, commonly used, suggest weakness and pusillanimity to a greater or less extent, whereas prautes does nothing of the kind.  Nevertheless, it is difficult to find a rendering less open to objection than ‘meekness’; ‘gentleness’ has been suggested, but as prautes describes a condition of mind and heart, and as ‘gentleness’ is appropriate rather to actions, this word is no better than that used in both English versions (KJV, ERV or RV – B.H.).  It must be clearly understood, therefore, that meekness manifested by the Lord, and commended to the believer is the fruit of power.  The common assumption is that when a man is meek it is because he cannot help himself; but the Lord was ‘meek’ because he had the infinite resources of God at His command.  Described negatively, meekness is the opposite of self-assertiveness and self-interest.”  The word meek does not mean weak.  Wayne Jackson comments, “It does not suggest weakness; rather, it denote strength brought under control.  The ancient Greeks employed the term to describe a wild horse tamed to the bridle” (Jackson, Notes From the Margin of My Bible, Vol. 2, p. 4). It is not “stiff-necked” (Exodus 32:9; 33:3; 33:5; 34:9; Deuteronomy 9:6; 9:13; 10:16; 31:27; 2 Chronicles 30:8; Jeremiah 17:23; Acts 7:51).

Meekness is needed in two relationships.  (1) Meekness is needed toward God.  Roland Leavell comments, “Meekness connotes being disciplined to follow the direction of God” (Leavell, p. 37).  Wayne Jackson comments, “In the biblical sense, it describes one who has channeled his strength into service of God” (Jackson, p. 4).  The meek seek God (Zephaniah 2:3).  They realized, “It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).  The Psalmist said, “The humble (the meek KJV) He (the LORD – B.H.) guides in justice, and the humble (the meek KJV) He teaches His way” (Psalm 25:9 cf. 73:24).  (2) Meekness is needed toward others.  The ESV Study Bible comments, “The meek are the ‘gentle’ (cf. 11:29), those who do not assert themselves over others…”  Moses was very humble (very meek KJV) before others (Numbers 12:1-3).  Jesus described Himself as “gentle (meek KJV) and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29).

Which of these two relationships is contextually in view? the teaching of Matthew 5:5 are also taught in Psalm 37:10-11, where the wicked are contrasted with the meek.  Therefore, I infer that “the meek,” in Matthew 5:5, are those who are meek towards God (though, one who is meek towards God will be one who seeks to live humbly and gently with others).  Those who will be blessed humbly submit to God’s guidance.

They shall inherit the earth.  Our inheritance is in heaven (1 Peter 1:3-4).  The blessed in the Beatitudes will “see God” (Matthew 5:8) and have great “reward in heaven” (Matthew 5:12).  Why is this language (inherit the earth) used?  (1) It may refer to the new heaven and new earth to come (Revelation 21:1).  That is: A new realm of existence.  (2) It may refer to Canaan land.  Albert Barns comments, “It is probable that here is a reference to the manner in which the Jews commonly expressed themselves to denote any great blessing.  It was promised to them that they should inherit the land of Canaan.  For a long time the patriarchs looked forward to this (Genesis 15:7-8; Exodus 32:13).  They regarded it as a great blessing.  It was so spoken of in the journey in the wilderness, and their hopes were crowned when they took possession of the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 1:28; 16:20).  In the time of our Saviour they were in constant habit of using the Old Testament, where this promise perpetually occurs and they used it as a proverbial expression to denote any great blessing, perhaps as the sum of all blessings… The Jews also considered the land of Canaan as a type of heaven, and of the blessings under the Messiah.”  Adam Clark comments, “Canaan was a type of the kingdom of God.”  (3) It speaks to justice, and the wicked being removed from the meek (Psalm 37:9-15).  Whatever is intended, it is the meek who will be blessed.

However, let us not over-look the fact that there are benefits in being meek, even in this life (1 Timothy 4:8).  It keeps one from many self-inflicted wounds (1 Peter 3:10-11).  It opens up rich fellowship (Mark 10:30).  J.W. McGarvey comments on Mark 10:30, “It is often the case, however, that a person who loses one friend for Christ actually gains a hundred, and that he who loses his home actually gains a hundred in the welcomes he finds in the homes of his brethren” (McGarvey, A Commentary on Matthew and Mark).

Posted in beatitudes, Humility, sermon on mount, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Paul: 1 Corinthians 7, Part 2)

Posted on January 1, 2016 by Bryan Hodge

“Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.  But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.  And a husband is not to divorce his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).

Paul had received questions from the brethren at Corinth (1 Corinthians 7:1 cf. 7:10; 7:12; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1-2; 16:12).  We have his answers.  We do not have the wording of the original questions.

“Paul, should those who have married  separate or divorce?”  I seems that they asked something like this.  Why would they ask this?  Was it due to the influence of early gnostic type beliefs?  Was it due to some misunderstanding of something said by Paul (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:29-35).

Paul answered: (1) “A wife is not to depart from her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:10).  It is not God’s ideal for marriage for such to occur.  What does the word “depart” (chorizo, or choridzo) mean?  Here is what lexicons say: “‘to put apart, separate,’ means in the middle voice, ‘to separate oneself, to depart from'” (Vine’s); “to separate… to leave a husband or wife: of divorce, 1 Corinthians 7:11, 15” (Thayer); “Separate (oneself), be separated of divorce” (BAG).  It may be that this word can be  used for both separation (without divorce) and divorce (Editor, Jim Laws, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, page 385, Spiritual Sword Lectureship).   However, Jesus used this term when responding to a question about divorce [He said, “What God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6, “separate” – a form of chorizo)].  Moreover, it seems that Paul is referencing what the Lord personally taught (consider the words: “I command, yet not I but the Lord”).  Therefore, we conclude that this refers to divorce.  (2) “But… if she does depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:11).  God’s ideal is for there to be no divorce.  However, if divorce does occur, two options exist: (a) “remain unmarried.”  Kerry Duke comments, “The fact that the wife after her departure was ‘unmarried’ (agamos, v. 11) is evidence that a divorce has occurred.  But this divorce could not have been for fornication (Matthew 19:9), since the woman in verse 11 is not given the right to marry another man” (Duke, The Remarriage of A Divorced Couple, p. 52).  (b) “be reconciled to her husband.”  Again, Kerry Duke comments, “Since the two are ‘unmarried’ from a civil viewpoint, their scriptural reconciliation would involve meeting legal requirements (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-14); they would have to be ‘remarried’ according to civil law” (Duke, 56).  (3) “And a husband is not to divorce (put away, KJV) his wife” (1 Corinthians 7:11).  It works both ways (cf. Mark 10:11-12).  The word “divorce” (aphiemi) means, “to send away” (Thayer); “let go, send away… in a legal sense divorce” (BAG).  It may be that this word can be used for both separation (without divorce) and divorce (Editor Jim Laws, p. 385).  However, we believe that the context concerns divorce.  Why the charge of words [from “depart” (chorizo) to “divorce” or “put away” (aphiemi)]?  Gary Workman writes, “As to why Paul used two different words here, Robertson and Plummer makes this comment “…The home is his: she can leave it, but he sends her away from it” (Editor Jim Laws, p. 384).  However, let it be pointed out that a husband may “depart” (chorizo), see 1 Corinthians 7:15.  Perhaps, the two different words are used to cover both scenarios, leaving and sending away.

We can think of situations where separation or even a legal divorce may be necessary to protect self and/or one’s children.  One could be in a situation where alcohol and/or drugs has turned the home into an unsafe place.  One could be in a situation which alcohol, and/or drugs, and/or pornography, and/or criminal activity threatens to have a morally corrupting influence on self and/or one’s children.  One could be in a situation where there is sexual abuse of one’s children, which stops short of sexual intercourse.  [One has a duty to “provide for his own” (1 Timothy 5:8); and to seek to remove corrupting influence (Matthew 5:29-30; Romans 13:14).  Abigail refused to sit by and allow her husband to lead all into destruction (1 Samuel 25:14-35)].  If one separates or divorces (for reasons other than fornication) there are two options.  Remarriage to different mate is not one of the two options.

Additional Information

Who is addressed in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11?  Paul addressed three groups in 1 Corinthians 7:8-16.  First, he addressed the unmarried and widows (7:8-9).  Second, he addressed the married (7:10-11).  These are likely married Christians (cf. 7:12).  Gary Workman has commented, “the married of 7:10 are married Christians.  This is also the conclusion of virtually every commentator consulted, as well as most brethren.  This does not mean that what Paul has to say to Christians on this subject would not be equally applicable to non-Christians.  It is, as we have already noticed.  It is just that Paul does not address himself to unbelievers (cf. 5:12)” (Editor Jim Laws, p. 381).  Remember, God’s ideal for marriage is grounded in creation (Matthew 19:3-9).  Third, he addressed those married to non-Christians (7:12-16).

What does Paul mean when he says, “I command, yet not I but the Lord…”?  This is an ellipsis, “yet not I (alone) but the Lord (also)…”  J.W. McGarvey comments, the Lord “by his own lips – Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-12; Mark 10:12” (McGarvey, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans , p. 80).  Kerry Duke comments, “Verse 10 is evidently a reference to Jesus’ general teachings on marriage and divorce… the similarities between Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees about divorce (Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12) indicates that 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is a reference to the discussion… The imperative expression ‘let not…’ is used in each account (1 Corinthians 7:10-11 KJV; Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9).  The terminology is also similar: ‘put asunder’ (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9) and ‘depart’ (1 Corinthians 7:10-11) are both from choridzo” (Duke, p. 50).

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Beatitudes: Those Who Mourn

Posted on December 26, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:4).

Compare Moses and the Ten Commandments with Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount.  Moses spent forty days and forty nights alone on Mount Sinai, before he presented the Ten Commandments to Israel (Exodus 34:1-35:3).  Jesus spent forty days and forty nights alone in the wilderness, before He presented the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 4:1-7 cf. Matthew 5-7).  The Ten Commandments were received on a mountain (Exodus 20:1-21 cf. Deuteronomy 5:1-22; Exodus 34:28).  The Sermon on the Mount was delivered on a mountain (Matthew 5:1-ff).  The Ten Commandments set the tone and tenor of the rest of the Old Testament (Exodus 34:27).  It is a list of rules.  The Sermon on the Mount sets the tone and tenor of the rest of the New Testament.  It starts with attitude and will.  It starts with the inner man.

The word “blessed” (makarios) is defined to mean, “blessed, happy” (Thayer); “blessed, fortunate, happy usually in a sense of divine favor” (BAG).  Roland Leavell writes, “Worldly people seek happiness from without – by getting things, going places, accumulating wealth, gaining fame, enjoying popularity, having thrills… These Beatitudes give the secret to inner, spiritual happiness that is superior to circumstances”  (Leavell, Studies In Matthew: The King and the Kingdom, p. 36).  Eternal blessedness is found in a right relationship with God.  Every other type of happiness will not last.

Blessed are those who mourn.  The word “mourn” (pentheo) is defined to mean “be sad, grieve, mourn” (BAG).  It is used in the New Testament for unspecified mourning or mourning in general (e.g. Matthew 9:15), mourning over the death of a loved one (e.g. Mark 16:9-10), and mourning over sin (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:2; 2 Corinthians 12:21; James 4:9).  It is neither general mourning nor mourning over the physical death of a loved one which is in view here (Though, comfort for such is available in this life cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 5:14.  Moreover, there is comfort to come for the faithful cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:3-8; Revelation 21:4).  It is those who mourn over sin who are in view.  Consider the context: (1) It is not those who are poor for physical or material things who are in view; but, those who are poor in spirit (Matthew 5:3).  (2) It is not those who hunger and thirst for physical or material things who are in view; but, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matthew 5:6).  Therefore, we infer that it is not mourning over physical or material things; but mourning over spiritual matters that is in view.

Some people approve of those who practice sin.  They even laugh and joke about sin.  Consider: “The wicked boasts of his heart’s desire; he blesses the greedy and renounces the LORD” (Psalm 10:3).  “When you saw a thief, you consented with him, and have been a partaker with adulterers” (Psalm 50:18).  They “rejoice in doing evil, and delight in the perversity of the wicked” (Proverbs 2:14).  They not only sin, but also “approve of those” who practice sin (Romans 1:32).  They “rejoice in iniquity” (1 Corinthians 13:6).  They are “puffed up” in their toleration of such ( 1 Corinthians 5:1-2).  They do not blush at sin (Jeremiah 6:16; 8:12).  “To do evil is like a sport” to some (Proverbs 10:23).  They coarsely jest about such (Ephesians 5:4).

Those who will be blessed genuinely sorrow over sin.  First, they sorrow over their own sins.  It pains their hearts when they realize their wrong and guilt (cf. Acts 2:37).  This sorrow caused those on Pentecost to cry out, “What shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).  This sorrow causes one to produce repentance leading to salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10).  Second, they also sorrow over the sin of others.  The Psalmist said, “Rivers of water run down my eyes, because men do not keep Your law” (Psalm 119:136).  Jeremiah said, “Hear and give ear: Do not be proud, for the LORD has spoken… But if you will not hear it, my soul will weep in secret for your pride; my eyes will weep bitterly and run down with tears because the LORD’s flock has been taken captive” (Jeremiah 13:17).  Jesus wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41).  Paul wrote, “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Philippians 3:18).  Sin is no laughing matter.  The blessed are tender-hearted enough to sorrow and weep over sin.

They shall be comforted.  Dave Miller comments, “For those who will mourn over their sins, they will be comforted by the forgiveness that is available through Christ” (Editors Garland Elkins and Thomas Warren, The Book of Matthew, p.196, Spiritual Sword Lectureship).  The forgiven can rejoice in their forgiveness (cf. Acts 8:36-39; 16:32-34).

Consider the words of the following song: “Not a shadow can rise, Not a cloud in the skies, But His smile quickly drives it away/ Not a doubt nor a fear, Not a sigh, nor a tear, Can abide while we trust and obey / Trust and obey, for there is no other way to be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey” (Trust and Obey by J.H. Sammis).

Posted in beatitudes, sermon on mount, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Beatitudes: The Poor in Spirit

Posted on December 24, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).

The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) form the first part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).  “Beatitude” is derived from the Latin “beatus” meaning “blessed.”

The word “blessed” (makarios) is defined to mean, “blessed, happy” (Thayer); “blessed, fortunate, happy usually in the sense of privileged recipient of divine favor” (BAG).  Some suggest that there is a distinction to be made between “blessed” and “happy.”  Franklin Camp remarks “while the blessed are happy, I do not believe that this is the Bible use of the word.  The word means God-approved” (Editors Garland Elkins and Thomas Warren, The Sermon on the Mount, p. 88, Spiritual Sword Lectureship).  Guy Woods says that the word “describes one who is in a state of blessing, sometimes declared to be a happy one.  However, our English word ‘happy’ is an inadequate term to denote the state of blessedness which the original word describes. Blessedness is a condition resulting from a state of inner peace; whereas happiness (derived from hap, chance) is dependent on external circumstances” (Woods, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, p. 52).  However, the word does seem at times to be referring to happiness (Acts 26:2; 1 Corinthians 7:40).  I have no difficulty in using the word “happy” for “blessed,” as long as it is understood that such does not in this context depend upon external circumstances.  One can “rejoice and be exceedingly glad” despite persecution (Matthew 5:10-12). 

Blessed are the poor in spirit. The word “poor” (ptochos) was actually used of the poorest of the poor.  Thayer says of the original word, “In classical Greek from Homer down, reduced to beggary, begging, mendicant, asking alms…. Poor, needy… lacking in anything” (p. 557).  Thayer distinguishes between two Greek words for the poor saying,  “the penes may be so poor that he earns his bread by daily labor; the ptochos that he only obtains his living by begging” (Thayer, p. 500).  This word is used of Lazarus (translated “beggar,” Luke 16:20, 22).  V.P. Black points out, “Poverty does not consist altogether in having few possessions.  A man does not feel poor until he realizes his need, or even his desire for the things he cannot (does not, B.H.) have… The indian, who roamed the country in the long ago, had very little and yet he was not poor.  He had all he wanted or needed” (Editors Garland Elkins and Thomas Warren, p. 17). It is not the physically or materially poor who are in view here (though, those physically or materially poor may be spiritually blessed cf. Luke 16:19-31; James 2:1-5; Revelation 2:8-9).  It is the poor “in spirit,” who are in view. V.P. Black suggests “To be really poor in spirit is to be destitute of the things the spirit needs and to realize that need” (Editors Garland Elkins and Thomas Warren, p. 17). 

Those who will be blessed not only need salvation, they realize that need.  Some do not realize their true spiritual condition.  Jesus said to some Pharisees, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say ‘we see.’  Therefore, your sin remains” (John 9:41).  Jesus said of the church at Laodicea, “You say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’ – and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” (Revelation 3:17).  Oliver Greene, commented, “The ‘poor in spirit’ speaks of those who discover their own utter poverty, spiritually speaking, and take their places as paupers before God.  Then, when they receive the gift of God, they become rich!” (Greene, The Gospel According to Matthew, Vol. 1, p. 299).  Roland Leavell commented “The poor in spirit are those who feel their abject poverty of spiritual resources, so that their utter dependence is upon God. The reign of the heavenly King begins in the heart when one acknowledges his own helplessness and his complete dependence is upon the power from above” (Leavell, Studies in Matthew: The King and The Kingdom, p. 37). The blessed depend upon God.  They realize that without His mercy they are nothing.

The poor in Spirit are certainly not self-righteous.  Jesus told this parable, “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself… ‘I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:10-14).  The tax collector is an example of the poor in spirit.

Theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  The phrase “kingdom of heaven” in context seems to refer to reward in heaven.  Consider: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven… Rejoice and be exceedingly glad for great is your reward in heaven…” (Matthew 5:10, 12).  It has been said that the only ones who will get to heaven are those who realize that they do not deserve it.

Consider the words of the following song: “Not the labor of my hands Can fulfill the law’s demands; Could my zeal no respite know, Could my tears for ever flow, All  for sin could not atone, Thou must save and Thou alone/ Nothing in my hand I bring: Simply to Thy cross I cling; Naked, come to Thee for dress; Helpless look to Thee for grace; Vile, I to the fountain fly; Wash me, Savior, or I die” (Rock of Ages by A.M. Toplady).

Posted in beatitudes, Humility, sermon on mount, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Paul: 1 Corinthians 7, Part 1)

Posted on December 21, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband… I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.  For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:1-9).

Paul had received questions from the brethren at Corinth.  The words “now concerning” may highlight some of these questions (1 Corinthians 7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1-2; 16:12,  see also – 1 Thessalonians 4:9; 5:1).

“Paul, is celibacy the best course?  Should marriage be avoided?”  It seems that they asked something like this.  Why would they ask this?  Was it due to the influence of early gnostic type beliefs?  Was it due to some misunderstanding of something Paul had said (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:26)?

Paul answered: (1) It is good to remain celibate and unmarried.  “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1).  The word “touch” is referring to sexual contact (cf. Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29).  It is here used for marrying ( 1 Corinthians 7:1 cf. 7:8, 26-27), since the sexual relationship is a natural consequence of the marriage. “It is good for them to remain even as I am” (1 Corinthian 9:5).  (2) This advice was given due to the present distress (1 Corinthians 7:26).  They were facing an unusual wave of persecution.  The Bible does not frown on marriage.  It teaches, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18).  “Marriage is honorable” (Hebrews 13:4).  Paul, himself, later wrote, “I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house” (1 Timothy 5:14).  (3) There is no sin in marrying.  “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality (fornication KJV), let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:12).  “It is good for them to remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.  For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9.  Note: The words “with passion” are supplied by the NKJV.  They are not in the original language.  However, such does seem to accurately express the thought).  “He does not sin; let them marry” (1 Corinthians 7:36 cf. 7:38).  It is better to marry than to be sexually immoral (commit fornication).  It is better to marry than to be consumed with lust.  (4) Those who are married should not cease from sexual intimacy (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).  They owed such to each other. Moreover, the effect of withholding of this part of the marriage relationship could be temptation. Let it be pointed out – Noah begot children even though he lived in violent and wicked times (Genesis 7:6 cf. 6:3 cf. 5:32).

Some have suggested that – since it says, “Nevertheless, because of sexuality immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2), and “It is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9) – all marriages are permitted.  However, this cannot be true.  Jesus said that some marriages result in adultery (Matthew 19:9).  Paul said that there are some who need to “remain unmarried or be reconciled” (1 Corinthians 7:11).

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Paul: Romans 7)

Posted on December 17, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?” (Romans 7:1).

Paul wrote to people who knew about law (the definite article, “the,” is not present in the original language before the first occurrence of “law”).  He was speaking about law in general.  How long does a law (any law) have dominion over a man?  The answer is: only so long as that law is “on the books” and only so long as the person is alive.

The law (the definite article, “the,” is present before the second occurrence of “law”), the law of Moses was binding on a man only as long as he (or it) lived.  Roy Deaver commented, “‘He liveth’ is the translation of the Greek dze, present, active, indicative, third person singular, of dzao.  Note especially, third singular.  ‘Third person singular’ with reference to the Greek verb may be translated ‘he, she or it’ as the context demands.  If, in this present situation, we translate ‘it liveth’ instead of ‘he liveth,’ everything falls in place… Paul is talking about the fact the Law of Moses died” (Deaver, Romans: God’s Plan for Man’s Righteousness, p. 218).

“For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives, but if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.  So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man”  Romans 7:2-3.

Paul used marriage as an illustration.  How long is a woman bound by the law of her husband?  The answer is so long as he lives.

The general rule is this: If she marries another while her husband lives she will be called an adulteress (Romans 7:3 cf. Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18).  The exception for fornication is not mentioned (Matthew 19:9).

However, she is free to remarry if her husband dies (Romans 7:3).  “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39).

“Therefore, my brethren, you have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another – to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God” (Romans 7:4).

Jesus’ death on the cross “abolished… the law of commandments” (Ephesians 2:15 cf. Colossians 2:14).  Roy Deaver commented, “The point made is clear: when the husband dies, the wife dies to the law of her husband (her responsibilities to her husband); when the Law of Moses ‘died,’ the Jews died to their responsibilities to that law.” (ibid, p. 219).

This section is not primarily about marriage, divorce, and remarriage.  However, it does provide us with another look at God’s plan for marriage.

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Old Testament/New Testament, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Our Purpose

Posted on December 14, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

Why are we here?  What is our purpose?

Some view life as a meaningless series of routines.  “We go to bed late, we get up early, we go to work, we drive home, eat and go to bed, to get up early, to go to work, to come home, ad nausea.  And, as if that were not enough, we are plagued with making ends meet financially, fighting off the latest virus, hoping to avoid some dreaded disease, mistreated at home, and then we die.  Every aspect of life seems vain.  It is like striving after the wind” (Steven Lloyd, Coping: A Biblical Approach, p. 2).

Some live their life with purpose, but the wrong purpose.  There are those who make their chief aim in life amassing wealth and acquiring possessions.  The Bible says: “We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out” (1 Timothy 6:7 cf. Luke 12:20).  There are those who make it their chief aim to enjoy life.  The Bible says: “Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward” (Hebrews 11:24-26).  There are those who make their chief aim in life physical fitness.  The Bible says: “Bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come” (1 Timothy 4:8).

Man was created with purpose.  God told the Israelites, “Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him” (Isaiah 43:7).  Jesus instructed, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).  Christians are taught, “You were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are God’s” (1 Corinthians 6:20);  “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).  The church is to bring glory to God (Ephesians 3:21).  

The word “glorify” means “to praise, extol, magnify… to honor, do honor to, hold in honor… to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged” (Thayer).

Sometimes even Christians fail to understand, or stay focused on, their purpose.  Our ultimate purpose is not: (1) Numbers.  We should be interested in gaining souls for Christ.  However, numbers can be gained by things other than the truth.  (2) Unity.  We should be interested in maintaining Christian unity.  However, some ignore truth to maintain church unity.  (3) Knowledge.  Tim Nichols, “Gaining knowledge is not the goal.  It is an essential step on the greater path to the greater goal, but not the goal any more than putting on one’s shoes is the goal of one who begins a long journey (Ephesians 6:15).  Many things could be the motivation for gaining knowledge (even of the Scriptures), which could make it an unworthy goal… Those who seek knowledge in order to gain the admiration of men, to merely enjoy wining arguments and wielding intellectual power of others, or even because they love the academic challenge of working with ideas and making the pieces fit – have not yet properly aimed their knowledge quest” (Nichols, Article – The Goal: Glorifying God).

Our purpose is to glorify God.  T. Pierce Brown has written, “The Christian life is not merely the sum of isolated acts of work and service where one offers part of his life and abilities to God, spending the rest on himself and his own interests.  All you are and have and do is God’s and should reflect honor and glory on Him… Many of us who have been intensely involved in personal evangelism have often taught, or at least implied, that the only way you can glorify God is by winning souls to Christ.  That is not so.  There is no question in my mind that it is one of the best, most important and rewarding way to glorify God, but I take the position that you can eat, drink or play golf to the glory of God.  Does not the housewife need to know that the monotonous rounds of trivial deeds that are boringly repeated day after day do not need to be mere trivial deeds, but can be to the glory of God?  Do you know that if a woman cleans her house to impress her neighbor with the fact that she is a good housekeeper, it may be for her glory rather that God’s?  But if she does it to prepare the house more suitably to function for (1) fellowship of Christian brothers and sisters that they may be better strengthened for love and service to God and man or, (2) to provide a more fitting place to have a friend or neighbor in for Bible study, free from the distractions of a cluttered world, she thus glorifies God… The results of this awareness and purpose in one’s life are staggering!  … Life is no longer a boring monotonous round of duties, but rather a joyous, purposeful, meaningful course of action.  Now there is a cohesive, unifying force which gives purpose, meaning and value to all that you do.  That force is to strive to consciously do whatever you do for the glory of God!” (Brown, Article – What Are You Doing Here?).

Posted in christian growth, Christian Influence, life, Man, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Jesus: Tested, Part 2)

Posted on December 8, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

Jesus made clear that God’s ideal for marriage did not include divorce.  His plan was for husband and wife to become one flesh: “Two individuals they are, two personalities; but they are one in love, in aim, in purpose” (Roy Deaver, A Study of Matthew 19:9, p. 5).

What about divorce?  Let’s continue –

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (fornication KJV), and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).

The language sounds universal (cf. “whoever” John 3:16).  Remember that God’s ideal for marriage goes back to creation.  It predates the Law of Moses.  It predates the distinction between Jew and Gentile. 

General Rule

“Whoever divorces his wife… and marries another, commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).

I have removed the exception clause.  This allows us to clearly see the general rule.  The general rule is that divorce plus remarriage results in adultery (cf. “and” Mark 16:16).  It is not divorce alone which results in adultery (Though, we should be cautious even with this cf. Matthew 5:32).

The general rule works both ways.  Mark 10:11-12 reads “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.  And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” 

What is adultery?  Thayer: “To have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife.”  Associate Professor William L. Peterson (Religious Studies Program; Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies), Pennsylvania State University: “Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his/her spouse” (Personal letter to me, 1995).  Professor Ed. L. Miller (Philosophy/Religious Studies; Director Theology Forum), University of Colorado at Boulder: “That the verb mokeuo, ‘to commit adultery,’ and the noun moikeia, ‘adultery,’ involves sexual activity is apparent from too many passages (both Biblical and non-Biblical alike) to list” (personal letter to me, 1995).  Even when the word “adultery” is being used figuratively, it is still based upon the literal meaning.  Consider: “Thou… hast opened thy feet to everyone that passed by… as a wife that committed adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband” (Ezekiel 16:25, 32 KJV). 

Brother Tyler Young has suggested that the word “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is being used as a synecdoche.  He has written, “When Christ spoke of divorce and remarriage resulting in a state of adultery, he did so because the sex act is a natural consequence of the marriage union… But simply because he focused on the sinfulness of that aspect of a marriage does not mean the only problem with divorcing and remarrying is unlawful sexual relations.  In this writer’s view, Jesus was using a figure of speech known as a synecdoche, in which a part of something is used to stand for the whole… Jesus chooses one aspect of the marriage relationship, one that is supposed to be peculiar to it – sexual intimacy – to condemn the entire relationship.  There is more to marriage than sex, and two people who do not have a right to be married to each other do not have a right to any aspect of the marriage relationship” (Young, Article: Living in Sin).  This is similar to how the Bible “Child bearing” is used of the role of women (1 Timothy 2:15).

The tense of the words seem significant.  The words “divorces” and “marries” are aorist tense; while “commits adultery” is present tense.  Professor Ed. L. Miller (Philosophy/Religious Studies), University of Colorado at Boulder: “The verb in question, moichatai, ‘commits adultery,’ is a present-tense verb and indicates an ongoing action.  It may in fact be contrasted with two previous verb-forms in the verse which are aorist – or simple past-tense and indicate a past one time action: apoluse, ‘divorce’ and gamese, ‘marry.’  I would say that the rendering ‘keeps on committing adultery, ‘preserves the force of the original” (personal letter to me, 1995).  Professor Craig Kallendorf (Department of International Studies), Texas A&M University: “Your letter of 4 October eventually made its way to me, since I am now teaching the New Testament Greek course.  I am trained as a Greek language specialist and not a theologian… the present tense here does not indicate a one-time action, but a continuous state of affairs (Personal letter to me, 1995). 

However, the present-tense in the indicative mood may be used for linear and punctiliar action (A.T. Roberson; Dana and Mantley).  Roy Deaver has written, “Though we recognize that there are certain instances of the ‘Aoristic present’ (pointed action in present time) the fact remains that the general, regular, normal, force of the present tense is continuous action in the present tie.  This cannot be successfully denied.  Therefore, if and when a person decides that a present tense verb is pointed action he will have to have good and sufficient and compelling reason or reasons for this conclusion… However, let me hasten to emphasize that my case does not depend upon whether or not moichatai in Matthew 19:9 indicates continuous action, that it does, in fact, have this meaning I have not the slightest doubt.  But, the point we make is this: repentance (among other things) demand one getting out of sinful situations!  All persons who sin by entering into a sinful relationship continue to sin by staying in that relationship.  For example, all persons who sin by entering the Baptist church continue to sin by staying in it” (Deaver, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, pp. 6-7).

The Exception

“…except it be for sexual immorality (fornication KJV)…” (Matthew 19:9).

The exception phrase appears in Matthew (5:32; 19:9), but not in Mark (10:11-12), and not in Luke (16:18).  This has led some to deny that the exception phrase is genuine, and thus – to deny divorce and remarriage for any reason including, fornication.  However, the textual evidence does not support this denial.  Mark and Luke are simply setting forth the general rule without the exception being stated.  Consider: Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed…”  This is the general rule.  However, clearly there are exceptions.  This very verse authorizes capital punishment.  Consider: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).  This is the general rule.  Yet, “whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death…” (Numbers 35:30).  The words, “put to death” is from the same original term.

One exception is stated, fornication.  What is fornication?  Vine’s: “illicit sexual intercourse.”  Thayer: “illicit sexual intercourse in general.”  Arndt-Gingrich: “of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.”  Earl Edwards (Lecturer in Bible), Freed-Hardeman University: “It includes sexual intercourse with any person (of either sex) other than one’s spouse as well as intercourse with beasts (Ed. Jim Laws, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage – Spiritual Sword Lectureship book, p. 345).  All adultery is fornication (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6), but not all fornication is adultery (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Galatians 5:19).  The N.A.S.B. falls short in translating the word porneia, “immorality.” 

Second Whoever

“…and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).

Earl Edwards commented, “These words appear at the end of verse nine in the King James Version but many ancient manuscripts do not contain them… At any rate, approximately the same words do appear in Matthew 5:32, and in that passage the authenticity is recognized by everyone” (Ed. Jim Laws, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 351).

The exception phrase does not appear in the clause.  Kerry Duke has written, “Matthew 19:9 is made up of two clauses, each which stands by itself as a sentence.  The first clause has the exceptive phrase.  The second clause does not.  Injecting the propositional phrase of Matthew 19:9a into Matthew 19:9b is a grammatically unwarranted procedure” (Duke, The Remarriage of A Divorced Couple, p. 35).  Again, “Epi porneia (on or for fornication – B.H.) cannot justifiably be injected into Matthew 19:9b any more than me epi porneia (not on or for fornication – B.H.).” (ibid, p. 40).

Further, James O. Baird remarked, “Since the definite article is omitted in the Geek, no specific woman is referred to, so the meaning must be any put away woman” (Baird, And I Say Unto You…, p.38)

Some seem to think that marriage is always right, if the two love each other. This passage does not agree.

This is Difficult

The disciples of Jesus thought this to be a very difficult teaching.  They said, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10).  This may have been said later in private (Mark 10:10).

Jesus pointed out that not all men could accept what they had said (Matthew 19:11-12).  Some men were born eunuchs (without such passion for the opposite sex).  Some men were made eunuchs by men.  Some lived as eunuchs for the Kingdom’s sake [This would include those who chose not to be burdened with a family (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:32-34).  This includes those who do not remarry, but live single (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39-40)]. The norm is to marry.

Let us teach our children, and those not yet married that marriage is for life.

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments