Marriage & The Believer's Relationship With God

[Doc]

Read Doc's Blog: http://docburkhart.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... -with.html

The issue that marriage might hinder one’s relationship with God was of concern to Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. Because of this, he stated that it is best for a single person to remain as he was—single. But he understood that the ability to handle a single life without “burning” with passion was not a gift given to everyone (verses 7-9). He states in verses 32-35 that the unmarried people are able to serve the Lord in an “unhindered” fashion because they do not need to focus a part of their lives on pleasing their spouses. But he also stated that whether married or not, we should be focusing on serving Christ (verses 28-31).

But the fact that Jesus did not call just single men—and even selected Peter, a married man (Matthew 8:14), as one of the three closest disciples—indicates that marriage need not hinder one’s intimacy with Christ. Likewise, in the Old Testament there are two individuals (among others) who were intimate with God. One was Daniel; another was Moses. One was single; one was married. Thus, marriage was not a factor in determining intimacy with God. Christian biographies of such men as Hudson Taylor, George Mueller, and Jim Elliot would also indicate that one’s intimacy with Christ need not diminish with marriage.

The key to marriage not putting a damper upon one’s intimacy with Christ is to be sure to marry “in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39) or, to put it another way, not to become unequally yoked (2 Corinthians 6:14) by marrying either an unbeliever or a believer who does not have the same doctrinal foundation or the same desire to serve Christ with a whole heart. Rather, if one marries “in the Lord,” the statements of Scripture concerning the benefits of a good companion become true (Proverbs 27:17; Ecclesiastes 4:9-12), and the spouse becomes an aid and encouragement in one’s walk with Christ.

Read Doc's Blog: http://docburkhart.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... -with.html

 

[steve]

The issue that marriage might hinder one’s relationship with God was of concern to Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. Because of this, he stated that it is best for a single person to remain as he was—single.

i think that we have to be extremely carefull about making assumptions about some of the statements in this chapter. some of what he says seems to run counter to our Creators plan for families in the rest of Scripture. when He decided that it was not good for man to be alone, He chose to make a wife for him, not just a friend . as far as i can tell, the modifier for these non- scriptural sounding statements is found in vs. 26

1Cr 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, [I say], that [it is] good for a man so to be.

untill we define the "distress" any assumptions about applying these statements is more than unsound. if our situation differs from the "distress" that he refers to, the statements may very well be invalid!

p.s. Bill Luck feels that it is highly possible that paul was divorced by an angry wife over his conversion. so, For I would that all men were even as I myself , divorced? maybe, in that particular distress. but highly unlikely in our own distress.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Context is king in interpretation.

Think with me for a moment.

Some like to say because of a soon to be or futute distress. But that is not the tense in this text. It is a PRESENT distress.

What does the whole book of Corinthians deal with? Is it not that the church was terribly immature? There were divisions, immorality, improper use of the gifts, self-centertedness and more.

We know for a matter of fact that they were so immature they had no official elders for many years. Paul had appointed no one yet because there was no mature men yet ready to lead. Clement, one of Paul's disciples, who took over in Rome after Paul wrote a letter back to this local church around the 90's AD to try and help settle a dispute. In his letter he told the peoople who had run the elders of the church ouf town to let them back in the assembly and to be in subjection to them.

This shows us that even many years after the planted fellowship this troubled church did not understand even what it mean to have leaders who led them. Another sign of immaturity in the body.

The evidence seems to then suggest that Paul saw the present distress as the immaturity of the believers.

And if that is so for those of us who counsel marriages we can easily understand Paul's point there. Most of the time in pre-marital counseling we see some major issues that if left alone and not handled up front those issues often become larger issues once united and together living in a covenant union.

If Paul saw no men ready to be elders why would he see any man ready to lead a woman in covenat? A man leading a woman is like a man leading the believers. He actually used the leadership issue as a guide in selecting elders to rule in the church (1 Tim. 3). Thus, this would make sense to see Paul's view of stay as you are as connected to the immaturity of the males in that church.

Look at 1 Cor. 16:13. Paul has to actually tell the male believers to ACT LIKE MEN. Why, because this was a deeply troubled church and the men were not ready for a union and thus this was Paul's pastoral counsel to avoid bad unions.

Therefore, it makes good sense to me that the present distress was the actual background to the whole letter, the problems of the church due to their immaturity.

As for Paul being married and divorced this is an argument that I have heard from some of the best Jewish scholars today. I would agree with Bill that it is likely Paul had indeed lost his wife due to his conversion to Christ. His counsel of to remain as one was, was not a reference to the divorce but a reference to remain single. One professor noted this back in hermeneutics class once to us. Supposedly, though I've not invested much time in this other than one book, there is massive amounts of research on this subject that supports this ideas from the history of that time.

Paul's point was this, if I can paraphrase the idea Paul was making:

"Listen Corinthians. Because of the severe immaturity here it is wise for you to stay as you are. If you are already in a union do not seek to be out of it. If you are not in a union remain as you as I am now."

He was working to use his present circumstance as a case in point to help these believers be content as they were and to urge the people not to look for a union because in Paul's mind they needed to mature more before approaching a union.

 

[steve]

that is very interesting, i had not heard it before.
it fits better than any other explanation. but imagine, getting a letter from the founder of the church telling you that you would best not be thinking about getting married at this point because you are too immature.
do we have the onions to advise a couple that appear headed for disaster..........?
food for thought