1 Corinthians 7;1-14, Marital Sexual Obligation; Satan Can Tempt Christians; Burning With Lust; Forbidding Marriage; Can Divorced Men Be Pastors?; Is Marriage About Love?; Living In Sin And Common Law Marriage; Fornication Or Married; Divorce?

1. 1 Corinthians 7
Marital Sexual Obligation; Satan Can Tempt
Christians; Burning With Lust; Forbidding Marriage;
Can Divorced Men Be Pastors?; Is Marriage About
Love?; Living In Sin And Common Law Marriage;
Fornication Or Married; Divorce?

2. BIBLE IN FIVE
Pastor Dave Kooyers
Valley Bible Fellowship
Box 433
Boonville CA 95415
http://www.slideshare.net/dkooyers
www.ValleyBibleFellowship.org
(707) 895-2325
God bless you as you examine His Word,
Your servant in Christ, 2Cor. 4:5
These Microsoft PowerPoint presentations are provided "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ"
(Ephesians 4:12-15). To help Christians to "to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ." So that "we are no longer...tossed here and
there...by every wind of doctrine." They may be downloaded and modified free of charge.
Matthew 10:8 …Freely you received, freely give.

3. Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgenderism
And Pro-Abortion Arguments
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkONHN
XGfaM
3

4. 1 Corinthians 7:1, “concerning”
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the
things about which you wrote…
• Paul uses “concerning” as a Divinely inspired
outline in Corinthians.
• 1 Cor. 7:1 “…you wrote… 1 Cor. 1:11 …I have
been informed…” it is not easy to number the
Corinthian letters
4

5. 1 Corinthians 7:1,“concerning”
5

6. 1 Corinthians 7:1, Marriage War
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the
things about which you wrote, it is good for a
man not to touch a woman.
• I had my grandson memorize this verse before
he went off to college.
• He was married there.
• NAU Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your
wives, just as Christ also loved the church and
gave Himself up for her,
• Do that not this; 6

7. 1 Corinthians 7:1, Marriage War
7

8. 1 Corinthians 7:1
Don’t Touch A Woman?
• 1 Corinthians 7:1 …it is good for a man not to touch a
woman.
• A Jewish Rabbi and a Catholic Priest met at the
town’s annual 4th of July picnic. Old friends, they
began their usual banter. "This baked ham is really
delicious, the priest teased the rabbi. “You really
ought to try it. I know it’s against your religion, but I
can`t understand why such a wonderful food should
be forbidden! You don`t know what you’re missing.
You just haven’t lived until you’ve tried Mrs. Hall`s
prized Virginia Baked Ham. Tell me, Rabbi, when are
you going to break down and try it?"
• The rabbi looked at the priest with a big grin, and
said, "At your wedding." 8

9. 1 Corinthians 7:2-4
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of
immoralities, each man is to have his own
wife, and each woman is to have her own
husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty
to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her
husband. 4 The wife does not have authority
over her own body, but the husband does; and
likewise also the husband does not have
authority over his own body, but the wife
does.
9

10. 1 Corinthians 7:5
Marital Obligation
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:5 Stop depriving one
another, except by agreement for a time, so
that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and
come together again so that Satan will not
tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
• NET Hebrews 13:4 Marriage must be honored
among all and the marriage bed kept
undefiled, for God will judge sexually immoral
people and adulterers.
10

11. 1 Corinthians 7:5
Satan Can Tempt Christians
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:5 Stop depriving one
another…so that Satan will not tempt you
because of your lack of self-control.
• “Satan watcheth for those vessels that sail
without a convoy.” George Swinnock
• Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking our own
assembling together…
• 1 Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan stood up against
Israel and moved David to number Israel.
11

12. 1 Corinthians 7:6-8
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:6 But this I say by way of
concession, not of command. 7 Yet I wish that
all men were even as I myself am. However,
each man has his own gift from God, one in
this manner, and another in that. 8 But I say to
the unmarried and to widows that it is good
for them if they remain even as I.
• “not of command” not previously commanded
by the Lord. (singleness)
12

13. 1 Corinthians 7:9
Better To Marry Than To Burn
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they do not have
self-control, let them marry; for it is better to
marry than to burn with passion.
• NAU 1 Timothy 5:14 Therefore, I want
younger widows to get married, bear children,
keep house, and give the enemy no occasion
for reproach;
13

14. 1 Corinthians 7:9, “continence”
• continent 2 |ˈkänt(ə)nənt|
• adjective
• 1 able to control movements of the bowels
and bladder.
• 2 exercising self-restraint, especially sexually.
• DERIVATIVES
• continence |ˈkänt(ə)nəns| noun.
14

15. 1 Corinthians 7:9
Better To Marry Than To Burn
• gracethrufaith.com “Q. “…Does this mean anyone who has
had sex before marriage is going to hell?”
• A. “The Bible is clear that sex outside of marriage is a sin. But
like all other sins it can be forgiven. Therefore it doesn’t
automatically condemn a person to hell.
• In 1 Cor. 7 Paul was talking about marriage. He said since
people have a difficult time controlling their sexual urges they
should marry, so their spouse could help them keep these
urges under control. He explained how the body of each
partner in the marriage belongs to the other, and neither
should deprive the other of sexual release except by mutual
consent. Then he said it’s better to marry than to burn.
• From the context we can see he wasn’t talking about sex
outside of marriage or about burning in the literal sense, as in
the fires of judgment. He was talking about burning with lust
with no opportunity for release.”

16. 1 Corinthians 7:9
“unrighteous will not inherit"
• gracethrufaith.com “Q. “…anyone who has had sex before
marriage is going to hell?”
• A. …Therefore it doesn’t automatically condemn a person to
hell…”
• Seldom do I disagree with them, but I would
not have worded this answer like that. All sex
outside of marriage condemns automatically
to hell, just like any other sin. (1 Corinthians
6:9 …the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? …neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals…). We must receive the gift of
eternal life, John 1:12.
16

17. 1 Corinthians 7:9, RCC?
“men who forbid marriage"
• NAU 1 Timothy 4:1 But the Spirit explicitly
says that in later times some will fall away
from the faith, paying attention to deceitful
spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means
of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own
conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who
forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from
foods which God has created to be gratefully
shared in by those who believe and know the
truth. 17

18. Celibacy Vs. Chastity
• celibacy |ˈseləbəsē|, noun
• the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual
relations: his brother's priestly vow of celibacy.
• chastity |ˈCHastədē, noun
• the state or practice of refraining from extramarital,
or especially from all, sexual intercourse: vows of
chastity.
• ORIGIN, Middle English: from Old French chastete,
from Latin castitas, from castus ‘morally pure’ (see
chaste) . 18

19. 1 Cor. 7:9, Does God forbid divorced
men from being in pastoral roles?
• Bible Questions Answered,
• QUESTION: "Does God forbid divorced men from being in pastoral roles? Does not 1st Timothy 3:2 say divorced men
may not serve as pastors?"
• ANSWER: “I write this answer with full disclosure that I have no ax to grind with anyone. I have never been through a
wedding much less ever petitioned a court for divorce or been through a court for any divorce. Nonetheless, this topic
causes me so much grief. No, to directly answer your question that is not what the Bible ever says. The text you ask
about never once uses the term divorce. I'll give a detailed analysis below. But for the short and simple answer here it is
easy to see that Paul did not say that. Had Paul wanted to say the episcopas could not be divorced he could have very
easily used those exact terms and said: "a man who has not been divorced." Had Paul said that the debate would be
over, at least for honest men and women who revere Scripture. But Paul never said that. And for those who interpret
that verse in that way they do so without having a single word in Scripture to support that view. It is a clear addition to
Scripture out of an effort that is often done to try and maintain some high standard for the office of pastor and to
uphold the sacredness of marriage. Though noble efforts, which is commendable, such a stance exudes hypocrisy and
insurmountable inconsistencies with the doctrines of grace, justification, and God's own covenant standards.
• Additionally, this misunderstanding has caused a lot of extra biblical traditions to be set upon the body of Christ that God
never intended. Many people have been taught they should not sit under any divorced teacher or pastor or minister.
Many are taught they should oppose divorced people from entering into the ministry. Just last week I heard two major
leaders in two of the largest seminaries in the nation state that no divorced man would ever be promoted for pastoral
ministry from their seminaries. That was so sad to hear. What a tragedy for overall godly ministers to adopt such a weak,
unsubstantiated, and ungracious view. Such a view shows people that sin is more powerful than grace and robs the
people of God from being led by people who understand the real pains and struggles of life. It adds a human tradition to
Scripture. Furthermore, it means that a strong theology is built from one or two verses of Scripture that do not even
directly use the term divorce. In other words, it builds a theology from inference and establishes that inference as a
standard for all of God's people.
19
Don't squint! The complete article
follows after the THE END slide.

20. 1 Cor. 7:9, , Does God forbid divorced
men from being in pastoral roles?
• “… The main views are:
• 1. Necessarily married/joined.
• 2. Faithful to his current woman.
• 3. Married/joined to only one woman at a
time.
• 4. Never divorced from a woman.
• 5. Married/joined to a woman only once.
• 6. Married/joined to only one church body
(metaphorical view). …” 20

21. 1 Cor. 7:9, , Does God forbid divorced
men from being in pastoral roles?
• William F Luck “I hold that the qualifications texts relating to “the husband of one wife” in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 were
intended by Paul to exclude those men active in fornication from being leaders in the Church.
• Such texts imply prior teaching, and that teaching would seem to be found in 1 Cor. 7:2: “To avoid fornication, let every
man have his own wife and every wife her own husband.” That teaching is in the context of Paul’s strong advice to remain
single if possible, but to marry if that will net more time serving the Lord. The context of 1 Cor. 7:2 is chapter 6, where
attendance upon the many prostitutes in Corinth is strongly opposed. In that earlier chapter, Paul teaches that having sex
with prostitutes involves establishing, though temporarily, a one body relationship with them, in which the whore is the
head and the “john” the body. In that sense, the man is owned by the whore. In chapter 7, Paul states that the divine
alternative to that is for the man to own a wife and be owned by that wife. Please note this last phrase…“owned by that
wife,” where the contrast is being “owned” by the many prostitutes of Corinth. Now, go back to I Tim. The Greek states
that the bishop or deacon should be a man “of” one woman. I take that to be a simple possessive genitive. In other words
the woman in question possesses or owns him, and the contrast is with many women who might “possess” him. Same
teaching as in 1 Cor. 6-7: rather than the man being a fornicator, the “john” owned by multiple women with whom he has
no covenant, he should be owned by a covenant partner.
• In a monogamous society such as Corinth, polygyny, where a man is owned by more than one woman (as in Judean
polygamy) is out of sight and mind. It hadn’t been practiced in Corinth for hundreds of years if ever, and you don’t waste
your time prohibiting behavior that isn’t being practiced. The issue is covenanted vs uncovenanted ownership. Thus it
would not refer to divorced men, since they have no wife, or remarried men, since they have a covenanted partner (rather
than attending prostitutes).
• As a final word, I would add that Paul is highly unlikely to be saying that a bishop or elder must be married. First, that
would make his statement contrary to the teaching of 1 Cor. 7, where singleness is advised. Why would Paul advise young
men to remain in a condition which would exclude them from leadership, if that is what the qualifications imply? Second,
Paul, Timothy, and Titus were all single, yet they functioned like bishops. Would Paul tell a single bishop to exclude single
men from being a bishop? Unlikely. Single men seeking leadership should also avoid being “owned” by the many female
prostitutes of Ephesus or Crete. 21
Don't squint! The complete article
follows after the THE END slide.

22. 1 Corinthians 7:10, “married”
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:10 But to the married I give
instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should
not leave her husband
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of immoralities,
each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is
to have her own husband.
• NAU 1 Timothy 5:11 But refuse to put younger
widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires
in disregard of Christ, they want to get married,
• Ezra 10 has the most in NAU uses of “married”, 1
Corinthians 7 is second. 22

23. 1 Corinthians 7:10, “married”
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:10 But to the married I
give instructions…
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the
unmarried and to widows that it is good for
them if they remain even as I.
• David Hocking refers to these two verses to
show that Paul was unmarried. He says
“unmarried” does not mean never married,
“virgin” covers that.
23

24. 1 Corinthians 7:10, “married”
• NAU Romans
7:2 …the
married
woman is
bound by law
to her
husband…
24

25. 1 Corinthians 7:10
Is Marriage About Love?
• NKJ 1 Corinthians 7:10 Now to the married I
command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not
to depart from her husband.
• KJG NIVO NIV GNV NET KJV NKJ 1 Corinthians 7:10
…command…
• No, you cannot command someone to have
any emotion (love), this is more about keeping
covenants.
25

26. 1 Corinthians 7:10
Is Marriage About Love?
• “You may “love” a car (apartment, house) and
decide to buy it, is the contract about love?
• When you go and get the marriage license, is there
a box to check whether you love each other?
• Marriage is about commitment, not an emotion. A
vow before God, and humans.
• It’s more than just you and your emotion, lusts, or
feelings. This covenant is for the best long term for
you, your spouse, children. It affects families,
friends, co-workers and many others. Many other
people have made decisions, commitments based
on your vows.”
• http://www.str.org/videos/is-marriage-about-love#.VBIgafldWSo
26

27. 1 Corinthians 7:10, gracethrufaith.com
Living In Sin, Common Law Marriage
• Q. “…how do we mesh OSAS with what Paul says in
Galatians 5:19-21? I have 3 adult children who all
profess to be saved but all are committing fornication I
guess. They all seem dedicated to their mate but there
is no marriage for any of them. Paul seems pretty
definite when he says here that none of them who are
involved in sexual immorality will ever see the kingdom
of God.
• A. “In our culture, it’s commonly believed that people
who live together without being legally married are
“living in sin.” But it has not been that way for most of
human history, nor is it that way in many countries
today. And even in the US, 15 states still have
“common law”
27

28. 1 Corinthians 7:10,
Living In Sin, Common Law Marriage
• marriage provisions. While the Bible only authorizes
sexual relations within a marriage, it doesn’t specify the
conditions necessary to constitute a marriage. It only
says that a married couple cannot divorce except under
conditions of marital unfaithfulness.
• Therefore it’s reasonable to assume that the term
“legally married” is man made and not a Biblical
requirement. If your adult children consider
themselves to be married, are acting like married
couples act (being exclusive to each other, etc.), and
are holding themselves out to the world as such, then
in the eyes of the Lord they are married, and are not
being sexually immoral.”
28

29. 1 Corinthians 7:10,
Living In Sin, Common Law Marriage
• ESV Galatians 5:19-21…sexual immorality, impurity,
sensuality, …will not inherit the kingdom of God.
• NAU 1 Corinthians 6:16 Or do you not know that the one who
joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He
says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.“
• NAU 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 …the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals, 10 …will inherit the kingdom of God.
• NAU Revelation 21:8…immoral persons …will be in the lake
that burns with fire and brimstone…
• NAU Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is to be held in honor among all,
and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and
adulterers God will judge.
29

30. 1 Corinthians 7:10,
“fornication” “married”
• merriam-webster.com: “fornication”
“consensual (see consensual 2) sexual
intercourse between two persons not married
to each other — compare adultery”
• merriam-webster.com: “married”
• a : being in the state of matrimony : wedded
• b : of or relating to marriage : connubial
30

31. 1 Corinthians 7:10,
“fornication” “married”
• There were at least 7 levels of marriage/
cohabitation in Roman culture in the first
century;
• Selective breeding of slaves, tent sharing of
slaves (family), prostitution, concubines,
marriage for family, marriage for political
purposes, paramour
31

32. 1 Corinthians 7:11, marriage or living together,
Married Fornication, Living In Sin, Common Law
Marriage
• TODAY'S CREATION MOMENT, “…trying to fashion
a family by simply living together would result in
less happiness than when properly married.
Numerous studies have shown the results of
couples living together without the benefit of
marriage. One 1992 study, conducted by a group
based at Rutgers University, showed that even
cohabitors who eventually got married had a 46
percent greater chance of divorce than those who
had begun in a proper marriage relationship. A
more recent study by a Bowling Green University
researcher measured and compared the
depression scores between
32

33. 1 Corinthians 7:11, marriage or living together,
Married Fornication, Living In Sin, Common Law
Marriage
• married couples and cohabitors. Married people
had an average depression score of 13.3, while
cohabitors showed a higher depression score of
17.2. Cohabiting is even worse for the children.
Thirty six percent of the children born to
cohabitors who later married will see their
parents divorce. … It is clear that in His love for us,
God designed marriage for our happiness and
blessing.
• Notes: Mona Charen, "Before you decide on moving in," Washington Times, March 26, 1999, Third Age News Service; "Marriage gets the nod for
satisfaction," Brainerd Daily Dispatch (Minn.), September 6, 1998. Photo: Courtesy of Jeff Belmonte. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
2.0 Generic license.
33

34. 1 Corinthians 7:11-20, Divorce
• Matthew 5:31 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS
HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A
CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’;
• For a more complete coverage of divorce
please go to my Matt 19 PowerPoint on;
slideshare.net/dkooyers
34
http://www.slideshare.net/dkooyers/matthew-19-jesus-is-tested-concerning-divorce-jesus-is-asked-about-heaven-
judea-beyond-the-jordan-divorce-for-any-reason-become-one-flesh-what-about-remarriage-eye-of-a-needle-count-
the-cost

35. 1 Corinthians 7:11-20, Divorce
35
http://www.slideshare.net/dkooyers/matthew-19-jesus-is-tested-
concerning-divorce-jesus-is-asked-about-heaven-judea-beyond-the-
jordan-divorce-for-any-reason-become-one-flesh-what-about-
remarriage-eye-of-a-needle-count-the-cost

36. 1 Corinthians 7:11
No To Divorce, Make it Last!
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:11 (but if she does leave, she
must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her
husband), and that the husband should not divorce
his wife.
• Matthew 19:6 “…What therefore God has joined
together, let no man separate.”
• Robert Anderson said, “In every marriage more than
a week old, there are grounds for divorce. The trick is
to find, and continue to find, grounds for marriage.”
• I would add, probably grounds for justifiable
homicide too. 36

37. 1 Corinthians 7:14 Your Children
• NAU 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified through his wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified through her
believing husband; for otherwise your children
are unclean, but now they are holy.
• In the OT unbelieving Gentiles we're blessed to
live in Israel when she was blessed, as Job’s
family and servants were blessed with a hedge
about them, so the family of a believer is
blessed with Christian testimony, prayer, and
protection.
37

38. In closing
38

39. THE END
39

40. 1 Corinthians 7:9 Song of Songs 2:4,
• YES, GOD MADE HORMONES - (Print) Sex, Marriage, Abstinence, Hormones, Romantic Relationships
• "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:" -
Genesis 1:27-28
• It's Valentine's Season again, and romance is throbbing the air. A selection of males may admit to cringing at the chocolate-and-flowers or dinner requirements they are forced to perform each year. A selection of women may
grumble at the neglect they face from those who fail to go through the motions. Cynics may declare their freedom from romantic relationships. And yet, a multitude of sweet little babies will arrive on the scene in November
because of this holiday - all because St. Valentine helped Roman soldiers defy Emperor Claudius II and marry their sweethearts in the Third Century.
In the beginning, God made creatures, male and female, to reproduce after their kind. After God made man, he said, "Be fruitful and multiply." Then Adam knew his wife Eve, and they began producing children - both sons and
daughters, according to Genesis 5:4.
God invented sex. It was His idea. It was not the original sin. It was not the cause (or the result) of the Curse.
"It's all a trick," one young lady said to us recently. "We have hormones, and we have desires, and it makes us want to hook up with guys. But, it's all a trick to get us trapped, because otherwise we'd never bother with them."
Could be.
Women have the same trouble with children. Women know that children smush peanut butter sandwiches into the couch cushions and rub bananas on the windows. They know that children scream and cry and broadcast their
parents' darkest secrets at top volume in the grocery store: "Mommy! Why are you wearing Daddy's panties today! Why are you wearing Daddy's panties!" "Shhh! Because I need to do laundry!" Women know that children
wreck your car and date people who are unseemly and cause endless worry and frustration. And yet, when they see an infant swaddled in its stroller at the park, women still grab their mate's arm and say, "Oh honey. I want a
baby." (Honestly, some men do it too.)
Hormones do the strangest things to us.
Men are not immune to the problem. Men could be free to work hard, make money, and spend it all on Superbowl tickets and golf and hunting trips to Alaska. They could have time to read good books or watch violent movies
without anybody hounding them about it, and they would never have to eat a salad if they didn't want to. Yet, hormones cause men to seek out the gentler sex, with their honey-do lists and redirection of the men's hard-earned
funds, with their diet and relationship requirements.
Hormones are Good:
Yet, in all His goodness and love and wisdom, God invented hormones. He invented hormones on purpose. The pairing up of the first human couple was the finale of His "very good" (Gen 1:31) creation.
The Bible treats marriage not merely as a convenient social structure that makes it easier to have sex and pay the rent. God sees marriage as an honorable institution (Hebrews 13:4 ), one in which a man and woman
become one (Matthew 19:6). God set it up as a partnership, in which both marriage partners aid and support and complement each other. Even more than that, marriage represents the relationship between Jesus Christ and
the Church (Eph 5:21-33).
Sex In Today's World:
Nowadays, however, our cultural view of sex and marriage has been massively skewed. At one end, sex is viewed as "dirty" or unholy, which it isn't. At the other end, people behave like animals, seeing sexual activity as
merely one of a number of physical needs (like food) that should be satisfied on a regular basis, regardless of what restaurant or person happens to be nearby.
Handling Hormones Well:
For those who are happily married, sexual desire generally has a ready outlet. In fact, it's sought after. Married couples want to foster more of it. God designed sex to be pleasurable and fun for both mates.
For single, God fearing folks, though, sexual desire can be quite a problem. The hormones don't know that their single, God-fearing host is not united in holy matrimony. They do what they want regardless.
God made the hormones. He started it in the first place. He didn't do it to trap us or force us to eat salads. He did it to make us able to mature and grow and to bond with our mates. Yet, even when we are not in a marriage
relationship, those same hormones can still offer the impetus for growing and maturity - both physically and spiritually.
The single adult who is in the difficult position of having to remain abstinent gets to learn the very things that will help him or her be a good spouse later on. The abstinent adult learns to be patient and self-controlled. The
abstinent adult learns to truly put his or herself in God's hands and wait for His timing. During our times of abstinence we get to learn to make God our best friend in life and our source of joy and fulfillment, without as much
temptation to put all our dependence suffocatingly on another human being.
For those of you who have spouses, go celebrate the hormones God gave you. Woo your spouses and enjoy them. For those of you still waiting, trust that this is a good time for you, a time to learn how to make God your first
and always love and companion. It's a time to focus on becoming the person that your future spouse will want to not justmarry, but stay married to for the next eighty years.
• "He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love." - Song of Songs 2:4
• Related Links:
• What is God's Love Really?
- Koinonia House
• The Way Of Agape Articles
- Koinonia House
•
40

41. 1 Corinthians 7:9. Divorce Leading
Cause of Godlessness
• “Two widely recognized trends in American society might have something to do with each other.
• Divorce rates climbed to the highest levels ever in the 1980s, when about half of all marriages ended in divorce.
• And in the present day, Americans are rapidly becoming less religious. Since 1972, the share of Americans who say
they do not adhere to any particular religion has increased from 5 percent of the population to 25 percent.
• Could those two trends be related? A new study from the Public Religion Research Institute says yes. The children of
divorced parents have grown up to be adults of no religion.
• People whose parents divorced when they were children are significantly more likely to grow up not to be religious as
adults, the study found. Thirty-five percent of the children of divorced parents told pollsters they are now nonreligious,
compared with 23 percent of people whose parents were married when they were children.
• Andrew Root, a professor at Luther Seminary who has written a book about the spiritual consequences of divorce for
children, was not surprised to hear about the study’s findings.
• “Everything in a divorce gets divided. Literally everything. Parents’ friends get divided. Relatives get divided. Everyone
takes sides,” Root said. “Even religion takes sides. The church gets divided. Dad leaves Mom’s faith, or vice versa.
Negotiating those worlds becomes difficult.”
• -www.washingtonpost.com, 27 September 2016
• Arno Froese <info@midnightcall.com Commentary: “The tragedy of divorce is self-evident; the children often pay a
horrible price. Many lose faith in what they have been taught by their parents and the church. So, what is the future for
marriage? The true definition of marriage has already been erased somewhat, since in many countries same-sex
marriage has become legal. An ever-increasing number of children are growing up being literally indoctrinated by
confusion. Thus the question: where will it lead? First Timothy 4:3 gives the answer: “Forbidding to marry, and
commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and
know the truth.”
• (For more on this subject, read What Does the Bible Say About Marriage?, Item 1076.) 41

42. 1 Cor. 7:9, Does God forbid divorced
men from being in pastoral roles?
• Bible Questions Answered,
• QUESTION: "Does God forbid divorced men from being in pastoral roles? Does not 1st Timothy 3:2 say divorced men
may not serve as pastors?"
• ANSWER: I write this answer with full disclosure that I have no ax to grind with anyone. I have never been through a
wedding much less ever petitioned a court for divorce or been through a court for any divorce. Nonetheless, this topic
causes me so much grief. No, to directly answer your question that is not what the Bible ever says. The text you ask
about never once uses the term divorce. I'll give a detailed analysis below. But for the short and simple answer here it is
easy to see that Paul did not say that. Had Paul wanted to say the episcopas could not be divorced he could have very
easily used those exact terms and said: "a man who has not been divorced." Had Paul said that the debate would be
over, at least for honest men and women who revere Scripture. But Paul never said that. And for those who interpret
that verse in that way they do so without having a single word in Scripture to support that view. It is a clear addition to
Scripture out of an effort that is often done to try and maintain some high standard for the office of pastor and to
uphold the sacredness of marriage. Though noble efforts, which is commendable, such a stance exudes hypocrisy and
insurmountable inconsistencies with the doctrines of grace, justification, and God's own covenant standards.
• Additionally, this misunderstanding has caused a lot of extra biblical traditions to be set upon the body of Christ that God
never intended. Many people have been taught they should not sit under any divorced teacher or pastor or minister.
Many are taught they should oppose divorced people from entering into the ministry. Just last week I heard two major
leaders in two of the largest seminaries in the nation state that no divorced man would ever be promoted for pastoral
ministry from their seminaries. That was so sad to hear. What a tragedy for overall godly ministers to adopt such a weak,
unsubstantiated, and ungracious view. Such a view shows people that sin is more powerful than grace and robs the
people of God from being led by people who understand the real pains and struggles of life. It adds a human tradition to
Scripture. Furthermore, it means that a strong theology is built from one or two verses of Scripture that do not even
directly use the term divorce. In other words, it builds a theology from inference and establishes that inference as a
standard for all of God's people.
42

43. 1 Cor. 7:9, , Does God forbid divorced
men from being in pastoral roles?
• William F Luck I hold that the qualifications texts relating to “the husband of one wife” in 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 were
intended by Paul to exclude those men active in fornication from being leaders in the Church.
• Such texts imply prior teaching, and that teaching would seem to be found in 1 Cor. 7:2: “To avoid fornication, let every
man have his own wife and every wife her own husband.” That teaching is in the context of Paul’s strong advice to
remain single if possible, but to marry if that will net more time serving the Lord. The context of 1 Cor. 7:2 is chapter 6,
where attendance upon the many prostitutes in Corinth is strongly opposed. In that earlier chapter, Paul teaches that
having sex with prostitutes involves establishing, though temporarily, a one body relationship with them, in which the
whore is the head and the “john” the body. In that sense, the man is owned by the whore. In chapter 7, Paul states that
the divine alternative to that is for the man to own a wife and be owned by that wife. Please note this last
phrase…“owned by that wife,” where the contrast is being “owned” by the many prostitutes of Corinth.
• Now, go back to I Tim. The Greek states that the bishop or deacon should be a man “of” one woman. I take that to be a
simple possessive genitive. In other words the woman in question possesses or owns him, and the contrast is with many
women who might “possess” him. Same teaching as in 1 Cor. 6-7: rather than the man being a fornicator, the “john”
owned by multiple women with whom he has no covenant, he should be owned by a covenant partner.
• In a monogamous society such as Corinth, polygyny, where a man is owned by more than one woman (as in Judean
polygamy) is out of sight and mind. It hadn’t been practiced in Corinth for hundreds of years if ever, and you don’t waste
your time prohibiting behavior that isn’t being practiced. The issue is covenanted vs uncovenanted ownership.
• Thus it would not refer to divorced men, since they have no wife, or remarried men, since they have a covenanted
partner (rather than attending prostitutes).
• As a final word, I would add that Paul is highly unlikely to be saying that a bishop or elder must be married. First, that
would make his statement contrary to the teaching of 1 Cor. 7, where singleness is advised. Why would Paul advise
young men to remain in a condition which would exclude them from leadership, if that is what the qualifications imply?
Second, Paul, Timothy, and Titus were all single, yet they functioned like bishops. Would Paul tell a single bishop to
exclude single men from being a bishop? Unlikely. Single men seeking leadership should also avoid being “owned” by the
many female prostitutes of Ephesus or Crete. 43

44. THE FORGOTTEN RULE OF PAUL
by Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg
• “When asked, almost no one in the Christian world can answer this simple question. What very
important rule did the Apostle Paul set in all his congregations?
• Paul writes: “Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him
and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the congregations. Was a man
already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man
uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.” (1 Corinthians 7:17-18)
• When people “converted,” they did not convert from one religion to another; but from one
people group to another. Members from both Israel and the Nations were sometimes willing to
fully cut their ties with their communities and switch communal alliances. Some Jews went
through surgery that hid the signs of circumcision; while some non-Jews adopted Jewish ancestral
ways of life (the code word for which was “circumcision”).
• The great apostle believed that Israel and the Nations, while retaining their distinct identities,
must offer joint worship to God. In the New Covenant community, discrimination between Jews
and Gentiles was now forbidden; while functional distinction between them was rightfully upheld.
• Paul’s reasoning was simple: If Gentile Christ-followers become Jews, then the God they worship
would be too small. He would be the God of the Jews only. If, however, Gentile Christ-followers,
as the Nations, would worship Israel’s God alongside the Jews, then the grandeur of this One God
would become evident to all (Romans 3:28-30).”
44

45. BIBLE IN FIVE
Pastor Dave Kooyers
Valley Bible Fellowship
Box 433
Boonville CA 95415
http://www.slideshare.net/dkooyers
www.ValleyBibleFellowship.org
(707) 895-2325
God bless you as you examine His Word,
Your servant in Christ, 2Cor. 4:5
45
These Microsoft PowerPoint presentations are provided "for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ"
(Ephesians 4:12-15). To help Christians to "to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ." So that "we are no longer...tossed here and
there...by every wind of doctrine." They may be downloaded and modified free of charge.
Matthew 10:8 …Freely you received, freely give.

46. Concubines, Monogamy, Concubinage, Does The
Bible Endorse The Use Of Concubines, Fredric A.
Carlson
• Concubines were common in Old Testament times, and children of concubines were valued. But in God's view, as plainly
expressed in Scripture, concubinage is but one form of fornication. Concubinage, fornication, and adultery are separated
by only technical legal nuances.
• That statement is based on solid foundations. The first is the way God champions the family unit, the basis for all healthy
society. Family is founded on a lifelong monogamous marriage of a male and a female. The protection of that family
arrangement dictated three of the ten great commandments of God's eternal Law: the fifth, the seventh, and the tenth
(Exodus 20:12, 14, and 17). This ideal is held throughout Scripture (Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 19:1-9; 1 Corinthians 5:1-
12; 7:1-11; Ephesians 5:22-23; 6:1-4; Leviticus 19:3; 20:9; etc.), in its praise of those who achieved its highest fulfillment,
in its sad reporting of its most deadly failures inspired by Satan's hate-filled destructive influences against it, and in its
prohibitions against conduct that disrupts or weakens any family tie (Exodus 20: 14, 17; Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy
22:24; Exodus 21: 15, 17; Leviticus 21:9; etc.) or thwarts its purpose to fill earth with those who properly reflect God's
likeness.
• The second foundation is God's repeated definition and descriptions of ideal marriage and family, reinforced by laws and
sad descriptions of what violates them. In addition to the previous Exodus references, see at least Genesis 1:27-28; 2:22-
24; 18:19; Exodus 21:7-11; Joshua 24:14-15; Ephesians 5:21-33; and Revelation 19:9.
• It is true that a number of the otherwise godly men whose lives are described in the Bible apparently got away with
having concubines. However, the Bible nowhere states that God approved or blessed those relationships. It was in His
grace that He sometimes used the children of concubines to fulfill His will. Yet, it must be acknowledged that without
condoning or approving concubinage, God did accommodate it by legislating protections for women, girls, and the
children of concubines from even worse treatment. These laws are of the same character as the law of divorce, which
did not approve of breaking up families, but intended only to protect women and their children who were its victims
from the worst of men's treatments (Exodus 21:10-11; Deuteronomy 24:1-4; Matthew 5:31-32; 19:3-9). Under these
rules, a child of a recognized concubine was recognized to carry its father's name, thus protecting it from the stigma of
illegitimacy (Genesis 22:24; 1 Chronicles 1:22).
46

47. 1 Corinthians 7:11,Vows, Marriage,
Living Together, Shacking Up
• Dear Compass,
• In these times, there are so many people living together without the benefit of the legal papers saying they are married. I "lived with"
my husband prior to legal marriage, as did my sister with her husband. We've both been married to the same man for over 20 years.
Currently our nephew is "living with" his future spouse. They've been together since being high school sweethearts and are both
working, going to college, committed to the relationship and plan to be legally married one day.
• Our problem is that we have an upcoming family event in which one of my family members wants to put a stipulation on my nephew
that he not share a bedroom with his fiance while present at the reunion. Doing so would go against her convictions that sharing a
bedroom is only for marriage. I agree with that; however, in my mind they are just as married now as they will be when they have a legal
piece of paper proving that they married. It seems as if the legality of getting married is for the benefit of men, rather than for the
blessing of God. God looks at the heart, not at the outward appearance.
• So, help me out—does a person have to have a legal document to say they are married in God's eyes?
•
ANSWER:
• A vow, marriage or otherwise, is a religious undertaking to do something or not do something. Vows are taken voluntarily and in the
presence of others as a witness because once taken they are regarded as compulsory. God takes vows very seriously.
• . . . you shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord. —Matthew 5:33I shall pay my vows to the Lord; Oh may it be in
the presence of all His people. —Psalm 116:14
• You shall be careful to perform what goes out from your lips, just as you have voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God, what you have
promised. —Deuteronomy 23:23
• Thy vows are binding upon me, O God . . . —Psalm 56:12
• Paper was not even used to record marriages as recently as 300 years ago. One of the reasons guests are invited to your wedding is to
WITNESS BEFORE GOD what you are vowing. The vow is what is important, not the paper.
• It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. —Ecclesiastes 5:5A good name is to be more desired than
great riches. —Proverbs 22:1
• We are commanded by scripture to abide by the law of the land, which requires us to register our marriage VOWS. In most countries,
the tax you pay is based on your marriage status. Therefore, we must obey the law.
• Regarding your sin-accepting mindset of your nephew: Just because you grieve God's heart with your own unrepentant sexual sin, it will
never justify your nephew doing the same. Your brazenly cavalier attitude of "everybody's doing it" will cause you a great deal of
heartache. Our hats off to the family member willing to take a stand for her Biblical convictions.
• And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. —Ephesians 4:30Do not be deceived, God
is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. —Galatians 6:7
47

48. 1 Cor. 7:14, Infant Baptism
• New post on DR. RELUCTANT
• A WORD ABOUT PROOF-TEXTS
• by Paul HeneburyThis is one which came out a couple of years back. Thought it deserved a rerun:
When one is associating a belief with the text of Scripture it is never wise to choose texts from obscure, debated or overly figurative portions of the Bible. Why go to a vision of Zechariah
when you can go to an epistle of Paul for the same doctrine?
• When tying a doctrine concerning the Church to Scripture we find good men like F. Turretin running to the song of Solomon. Surely it is unwise to appeal to the Song of Solomon, since the
assumption that the Song is actually speaking about the Church is a decided long shot.
• A Dispensationalist who thinks he has proven the pre-tribulation rapture by just citing 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is not paying enough attention to the passage. I have seen this done many
times. Someone says, “the pre-trib rapture is there in 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15.” Not in those passages it isn’t. Yes, 1 Thessalonians 4 speaks of the rapture. No, it says nothing
about the timing of the rapture. More passages need to be brought in to help.
• Likewise appealing to certain verses in the Prophets and applying them indiscriminately to the present state of Israel, or extrapolating OT warnings of judgment upon Israel for her idolatry and
wickedness and applying them to the United States often entails lack of respect for the context.
• Is it a fait-accompli to refer to Jn. 5:25 for proof that the first resurrection of Rev. 20 is the new birth and not physical resurrection? The verse right before Jn. 5:25 famously refers to
regeneration as “passing from death to life.”
• It is a good bet then that the “dead” who hear and “live” are the spiritually dead. Then again, the word “resurrection” is not in the passage. It is there in verse 28-29 where Jesus is referring to
“those in the tombs” – i.e. corpses! – being raised at the end-time judgment, but not in first century Israel. Thus, the resurrection in Jn. 5:28-29 supports the idea of physical resurrection in
Rev. 20. The new birth in Jn. 5:25 has nothing to with Rev. 20. Notice also that the context of Rev. 20 refers to those who had been “beheaded” (20:4), and who are contrasted with “the rest of
the dead” in verse 5.
• When trying to prove that infants of believers should be baptized and admitted to membership in the visible church, the Shorter Catechism (Q.95) uses Acts 2:38-39, Gen. 17:10; Col. 2:11-12;
1 Cor. 7:14. Acts 2:38-39 says:
• And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “For the promise
is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself.
• Notice that repentance is necessary to receive forgiveness and the Holy Spirit; something which infants cannot do because they do not understand repentance, nor indeed what there is to
repent of. But if it is pressed that only the hearers of Peter had to repent and the promise would automatically include all their children, then clearly there would be no need for any of the
children to repent, because they would have already be forgiven through the promise. If individual repentance is necessary to receive forgiveness then infants would need to show repentance
before being baptized according to the order of Peter’s instruction (nobody thinks it would have been alright for these Jewish hearers to have been baptized before showing repentance!).
Thus, Acts 2 really has nothing to do with why infants ought to be baptized.
• What about the Catechism’s next proof-text: Gen. 17:10? Well Genesis knows nothing at all about baptism. The reference is to male circumcision. Yes, infant males were to be circumcised,
but that was so they would be included under the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant as descendents of Abraham and Isaac to inherit the promised land (17:8). There is no Church in view
here, so again, how is this a proof-text for baptized infants being church members? We start to see the presuppositions in the next two references which were given as comparisons. First up,
Colossians 2:11-12:
• and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in
baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
• Nothing here about infants or church membership. The “circumcision made without hands” relates to the new birth, so those to whom Paul is writing had believed the gospel. How do I know
that? Simple, verse 6 says, “As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” These are believers! The context was ignored by the Westminster men. Please notice that
these believers were said to have been “buried with Him in baptism,” which is surely Spirit-baptism not water baptism. So water baptism isn’t in the text either!
• The final proof-text resorted to is 1 Cor. 7:14:
• 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.
• This passage has to do with marriages where the father is an unbeliever and the mother is a believer. In such a situation it is comforting to know that God regards the children as “clean” in the
sense that the marriage is “clean.” Notice that if used to prove infant regeneration this would not require anything else (belief, repentance, consecration) from the children. they would be
saved already! And without baptism too!
• These are examples of poor proof-texting. In each case the context was ignored because it wasn’t important to the formulation of the doctrine. The doctrine was presupposed and forced upon
the verses.
• It is also not good to choose proof-texts which could quite easily and legitimately be interpreted in a way which would not lead to one theological conclusion. We ought to find the clearest,
most unequivocal verses to prove our beliefs. When employing these base-texts careful attention should be paid to those passages which most closely match the doctrine or interpretation we
are setting forth.
• Paul Henebury
48