Missionary Marriage

If God’s people would once again
take your Bibles and turn back to 1 Corinthians chapter 7, 1
Corinthians chapter 7. Not an easy passage as we have
already discovered and we’ve seen. It’s obvious from what
Paul has already addressed that the Corinthians were really in
great need of instruction on the subjects of marriage and
divorce. Given their background and the
life that they lived in the midst of the heathen Greek culture,
they needed really to be re-educated on the moral aspects of marriage
and divorce because all they knew were the godless principles
in which they had been raised. They assumed a relatively low
view of marriage. As we already saw, adultery was
readily accepted. Immoralities of all kinds were
rampant. Divorce was widespread. And those
documents were filed by both men and women in the Greek culture. A recently saved person had a
critical need of pulling back from the culture and being reoriented
in God’s ways. And that’s what Paul’s doing
here. A child of God could not hope to thrive as a Christian
without exposing their ungodly ideas to the light, repenting,
and gaining practical discipleship even in the basics of their newfound
faith. This would not be easy. The world
continued its steady diet of misinformation and blatant heresy. And so for one to follow Christ,
especially in the area of marital purity, it would be a heroic
battle against the flesh, against the world’s lies, and against
the devil’s deceitful manipulations. Their questions, the questions
that the Corinthians posed to Paul, were simple and even clumsy. But for Paul, there were no dumb
questions. And if not for their gracious
apostle and friend, Paul, their wandering in error would have
been prolonged, if not perpetuated. But Paul is equal to the task
as God’s servant. He begins with an eye-popping
exhortation to develop and enjoy wholesome marital relations according
to their needs and capabilities. As such a frank discussion might
make people in any age blush. But Paul’s bluntness on the subject
is necessary and it’s refreshing. Not all are called to marriage,
but fewer still are called to singleness. And it’s imperative
that one carefully and accurately assess their own calling and
gifting by God. A misdiagnosis in this arena
is an almost sure recipe for catastrophe. If you’re called
to singleness and you marry, You’re going to regret it. If you’re called to singleness and you take a wife, you just
brought trouble. But if you’re called to marriage
and you seek to live a single life, you are going to stumble
almost certainly in the area of immorality. And so in order
to avoid the widespread immoralities of the day in which they lived,
the day in which we too live, marriage was the God-ordained
relief that so many people needed. And so each man was to take his
own wife, each woman her own husband, and therein was God’s
protection for both individuals and society. his enjoyable grace
of marriage. But, as Paul hinted, and then
described much more fully in verses six through nine, there
is yet another gift. It’s the gift of singleness,
and few by comparison are called to this state, but it’s made
possible only by God’s grace. But it’s a status that is good
and sensible and profitable for those who are so gifted by God’s
grace. Those who are called to singleness
and enabled to subdue the greedy flesh and live God honoring lives
of moral purity and a much liberated capacity of serving their heavenly
master. that marriage and singleness
were not the only matters hounding the Corinthian believers. They
were also perplexed in the extreme about matters of divorce. Divorce
was easy in the Greek culture. Even their Jewish friends had
little to offer by way of any tangible wisdom to the contrary,
and Paul likely courses down their lengthy list of questions
sitting before him until his rough and weathered fingers land
upon questions pertaining to the idea of dispatching one’s
spouse, divorce, questions like this. Look, Paul, I recently became
a Christian. I love the Lord, but my wife
is an ungodly product of Corinth. I do love her, but I love Christ
more. May I divorce her so that I can
serve the Lord with undivided affections? Or this. Oh, Paul. My husband is such a wretch.
He’s a winebibber, but worse than strong drink. He has imbibed
much of the Judaistic teaching that is making the rounds here
in Corinth these days. He lets me go to church, but
he has adopted practices contrary to my Christian faith. I’d like
to be freed from my marriage so I can glorify God. But to Paul, divorce is an ugly
word. And it’s ugly to God himself.
It’s ugly and damaging in its effects on individuals, families,
churches, even society itself. And so Paul must address this
subject of divorce. And he does so here in verses
10 through 16, as I pointed out last week, under three heads.
Three divorce scenarios. The first we looked at last week
is the question of divorce between two married believers. The second
question is a question of a believer married to an unbeliever, but
one who desires to stay in the marriage. And the third question
that we’ll take up in the future, the question of a believer married
to an unbeliever, who leaves? These were the questions with
which the Corinthians were wrestling. And so how could this shepherd
not speak to this significant line of questions? We don’t have
the exact question before us, but we can be certain it was
along the lines of those hypothetical questions I just posed. Paul addresses that in verses
12 through 14. Would you just glance at that
passage? But to the rest I say, not the Lord, I say, not the
Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and
she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And
a woman who has an unbelieving husband and she consents to,
he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband
away. 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.” As we saw last week, Paul began
by addressing the question of divorce between two married believers,
and his cautions assumed a familiar tone. A caution once again about
adultery, we looked at it, spent much time there. But this time
it’s not a warning about premarital adultery or even counsel to be
on the alert for extramarital affairs, that kind of adultery.
Verses 10 through 11, Paul exposed that third kind of adultery,
divorce prompted adultery we called it. adultery, even sexual immorality,
which is brought about by divorce. And we don’t think of extramarital
affairs on those terms. But when God’s honor is at stake,
Paul must address it. And having dealt with that question,
Paul quickly turns to the second Corinthians additional questions. the question of a believer married
to an unbeliever, but one who desires to stay in the marriage. And the argument really sounds
reasonable. It always sounds reasonable,
even to our modern day ears. And so to a first century Corinthian,
the argument sounds plausible. It sounds almost noble. Divorce
your spouse in order to more carefully follow Christ. I mean,
we can almost get there, can’t we? What could be a better reason
for divorce than that? But think of how that line of
reasoning could be presented. Bear with me. Honey, I’m home
and you’ll never guess what happened to me at work today. That guy
in our office, the guy who’s always talking about the Bible
and stuff, well, he told me that I was a sinner, but that this
Jesus had already paid for my sin by his death on the cross. And you know what? It finally
made sense to me. So I prayed, I gave my life to
Christ. So I need to find a suitcase.
Because I’m going to be leaving, leaving everything to follow
Jesus. Leaving you, leaving the kids,
leaving my golf clubs, leaving my dog, our house, everything.
I’ve been born again. Isn’t this great? You know, that kind of absurd
and lopsided dialogue would be hilarious. if I hadn’t heard
of similar announcements from professing out-of-balance believers. I knew of one years ago. He quit
his job, what job he had, and largely left his wife and kids
at home. He kept a bed there. Because
after all, he was called to evangelize. I knew of that one, and I know
of others more contemporary, and the argument is always the
same. Time is short, the harvest is plentiful, and I can’t be
burdened with a wife and kids anymore. I’m off for the sake of the kingdom. Sounds so noble, doesn’t it? Except that abandoning your God
given wife and family is never noble. Not even for the sake
of the gospel, not even when that woman that God gave you
is an unbeliever, even an ungodly unbeliever. She is not what is
holding you back from ministry. She and your children are your
ministry. I’ve entitled the message this
morning, Missionary Marriage. Because what Paul gives here
is counsel to the one who is saved alone in a marriage. The first thing that he says
there in verses 12 and 13, he sets forth the standards to the
saved alone. The standards to the saved alone,
look at verses 12 and 13, to the rest I say, not the Lord,
that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she
consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And with
that, Paul has turned his attention here to this second group of
people for whom divorce might be a question. However, it is
not two believers anymore who are in view, but it is a believer
who is married to an unbeliever. Paul does address both potential
cases, a husband married to an unbelieving wife and a woman
married to an unbelieving husband. And remember again here that
in verses 12 through 14, Paul is dealing with a situation where
the unbeliever desires to remain married. Notwithstanding their
theological differences, their eternal standing. Regardless,
they desire to stay married. We looked at this briefly last
week, but Paul begins here by addressing what he calls the
rest. Last week I mentioned that this
is one of the keys to figuring out who it was that he’s addressing
in verses 10 and 11. The only thing, as we noted,
that makes sense is that it’s clear in verses 12 through 16
that Paul is talking about blended marriages, a believer and an
unbeliever. And that led us to conclude that
Paul can only be talking about two married believers in verses
10 and 11. But now he turns to the rest, those in blended marriages. Now, Paul never does address
the how of this situation, how it was that these believers came
to be married to unbelievers. We believe that he certainly
would repudiate the idea of missionary dating, that is, searching out
a spouse regardless of their spiritual standing. And I have
known people, I’ve counseled people that went into this foolishly. They ended up, you know, married
and then pregnant with kids. And then they come and they come
to these passages or passages like these and they wonder if
they should duck out of their marriage. No. I’ve told people
before, marriage is one of those things that becomes the will
of God. You said I do. And so did God. Paul would repudiate the idea
of missionary dating, but it does happen. But he doesn’t tell
us exactly what happened in this hypothetical case. It’s a believer
and an unbeliever. And in all likelihood, it’s someone
who came to Christ In a relatively recent time period, they came
to Christ and their spouse did not. Paul did not support, as
you know, missionary dating. in his second epistle to the
Corinthians, in that passage that is classically assigned
to dating and marriage, Paul says, do not be bound together
with unbelievers, right? Every singles conference you’ve
ever gone to, they quote that verse telling you not to, well,
I would say that it’s classically or typically assigned to dating
and marriage because many, many people use that to argue that
you should not date or marry an unbeliever. And it may include
that, but it certainly isn’t limited to that relationship. I believe it has a much broader
reference which would take into account business partners. People
don’t think twice about jumping into a business relationship
with an unbeliever who’s going to run his business like an unbeliever. But certainly the idea for avoiding
blended marriages is a reasonable application of that principle. God had long commanded to Israel
that they must not intermarry with heathen nations. Would you
turn back all the way near the beginning to Deuteronomy chapter
7? And we would take this principle And if you laid it over the gridwork
of Christianity, you would say it’s obvious that a Christian
is not to take a wife that is an unbeliever. or a husband for
that matter. Deuteronomy 7 verse 1, when the
Lord your God brings you into the land where you’re entering
to possess it and clears away many nations before you, the
Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the
Perizzites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, I wouldn’t marry them
either, right? Seven nations greater and stronger than you
and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat
them You shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant
with them show no favor to them furthermore You shall not intermarry
with them You shall not give your daughters to their sons
nor shall you take their daughters for your sons For they will turn
your sons away from following me very practical advice They
shall turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods.”
Well, if that was true for the nation of Israel, how much more
true is it for a Christian to have their hearts turned away
from their Savior? Godly Joshua echoed the same
thing. If you would turn over to the
book of Joshua, and I realize it might take you
a moment, Joshua chapter 23, And verse six. Joshua 23, 6, Be very firm then
to keep and do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses,
so that you may not turn aside to it from the right hand or
the left, so that you will not associate with these nations,
these which remain among you, or mention the name of their
gods, or make anyone swear by them or serve them or bow down
to them, but you are to cling to the Lord your God as you have
done this day. For the Lord has driven out great
and strong nations from before you, and as for you, no man has
stood before you to this day. One of your men puts to flight
a thousand, for the Lord your God is he who fights for you
just as he promised you. So take diligent heed to yourselves
to love the Lord your God. For if you ever go back and cling
to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you
and intermarry with them. so that you associate with them
and they with you, know with certainty that the Lord your
God will not continue to drive out these nations from before
you, but they will be a snare and a trap to you and a whip
on your sides and thorns in your eyes until you perish from off
this good land which the Lord your God has given to you.” It
couldn’t be any more clear. Do not marry with these heathen
nations. God’s reasoning there, especially
in Joshua, was spiritual. That there would be this syncretistic
effect that by intermarrying their sons and daughters would
imbibe the theology, the attitudes, the culture of these heathen
nations with which they married. God’s reasons were spiritual.
And so it remains in the Christian realm. to go rummaging around
looking for a spouse among the godless, among unbelievers, is
to court disaster, especially if it ends in marriage. But this is very different from
the case where one of two members of a heathen marriage suddenly
and by God’s Grace suddenly finds himself saved. And this, I believe,
is primarily the situation to which Paul is speaking. It is
a providentially blended marriage. A marriage into which God’s saving
grace has sovereignly invaded. Such is a wonderful scenario.
Even if no one else in the family ever gets saved, one did. And that’s a gracious gift of
God. But such a believer finds himself or herself in a difficult
position, no doubt about it. And it’s only natural that some
in Corinth would begin to wonder about the long-term prospects
of their marriage. Was it already time to end it?
Was this, to use a much overused phrase in our day, was this sustainable? Even more concerning would be
the words that Paul had just uttered in 1 Corinthians 6, 19,
where he exclaimed, do you not know that your body is the temple
of the Holy Spirit? And so is it morally wrong for
one to be merrily involved with an unbeliever? Not alone would
generate questions of morality and purity and connection with
this blended marriage. So Paul turns to this marriage,
or marriages like them, to answer this very delicate question.
Paul, I just came to Christ, but my spouse has not yet. Should I leave this spouse, whom
I do love, and by whom I, by the way, have children, what
should I do? Those are deep and significant
questions. The first thing Paul does is
effectively to tell the individual in such a situation, on this
particular question, you cannot look to the Lord’s teaching because
Jesus didn’t teach about this. Paul acknowledges that. This
is Paul’s point when he says, I say, not the Lord. It’s not
that Paul’s words, again, are not inspired. They are. He’s
not saying that his own words were unimportant. We dealt with
this last week in Paul’s comment in verse 10, I give instruction,
not I, but the Lord. He just acknowledges there that
the teaching that he’s given was an echo of what Christ himself
had taught. Paul’s words were Spirit-inspired
Holy Scripture. Paul simply admitted there that
his instruction was not original. He did not invent it. The Lord
Jesus himself addressed the issue of marriage and divorce. And
here, Paul takes the flip side of that same argument. And he
says here that Jesus didn’t address this at all. So I must. And he addresses first the man.
He says, if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever. So he paints
this picture. And that’s the case that he’s
taking up a believer married to an unbeliever. He knows the
Savior. She does not. He has come to
Christ. She has not. He’s saved. She’s not. And the form of the
verb here practically confirms that this was a marriage that
occurred before the believer had come to faith in Christ.
Look at the sentence, if you would, if any brother has a wife. And it speaks of a marriage union
that was already established when one of the two came to Christ.
But Paul further narrows down the discussion. It’s not a discussion
about blended marriage. Look at the passage. She consents
to live with him. This is what differentiates this
marriage and the discussion about such a marriage in verses 15
and 16. There, the unbelieving one leaves, pretty clear what
their intent was, but here the unbelieving wife consents to
live with him. This consent is a peaceable consent. The word sun yudokeo. It’s a beautiful, it’s really
a cool word. Let me unpack it for you. It’s a compound of three
Greek words. Sun means with. Yu is good. We use our word eulogy to speak
a good word. And dokeo is to think. So yudokeo is to think well. and to or to be well pleased
with someone or something. And so soon Yudakao is to think
well with someone else. This word is used in several
astonishing places in the New Testament, and we just read one
of them last week. Remember Stephen? being stoned
at the end of Acts 7. Well, in Acts 8, 1, it is said
of Saul that with regard to the stoning of Stephen, he gave hearty
approval. He was all for it. He was well
pleased with the idea. That’s our word. Paul uses it
in the opening chapter of Romans as well. In 132, he uses it of
sinners who give hearty approval, same word, to others who are
engaged in sin. And so this unbelieving spouse
is not said to have a ho-hum attitude about his or her believing
spouse. They give hearty approval to
the idea of remaining married. Honey, I’m home. You’ll never
guess what happened in the office, but it doesn’t change. It doesn’t
alter my love for you. It doesn’t change my commitment
to this marriage. And she consents. May I point
out. This word consent indicates that
this is an agreement by the unbelieving spouse with the believing spouse. The Christian in this marriage
does not come reluctantly to this discussion about remaining
married. He or she must not have to be
dragged back into such a marriage. The believer has expressed his
or desire to his wife to remain married. They’ve talked all about
the Christian spouse’s faith in Christ, and they still consent
to remain married. The unbeliever consents. In such
scenario, there would be no criticism or frustration or contention
with their spouse’s pursuit of Christ. If the unbeliever consents to
remain married in this situation, Paul has one tiny piece of advice. If she consents to live with
him, Paul says he must not divorce her. Literally, he must not send
her away, which is an awful picture of what a man in that culture
would do to his wife. He’d pack her bags, put them
on the porch, and she’s just gone. It’s an imperative. It’s a command. Do not, you must not send her
away. Not only is such a marriage lawful
in God’s eyes, but a divorce would be morally wrong. And we
should note that this is not the regular word that is used
for divorce here. Rather, Paul is using this word
to send her away euphemistically. Don’t send your wife away. Don’t
you dare. Divorce is not an option. No
matter how intense his relationship with Christ, no matter how lofty
his goals are for serving the Lord, and I would say no matter
how wretched and ungodly his wife is, do not send her away. The Christian husband may no
longer participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but none of
the unbelieving wife’s sins in this regard would be grounds
for divorce, except for adultery. So what he says to the woman
in the same exact situation, verse 13, is really remarkable. He says the exact same thing
to her. And this is remarkable because
in many cultures and circles, the woman had no rights at all. Paul acknowledges the rights
of a Christian woman, not the least of which was to remain
married. This almost went without saying,
but in the Greek and Roman culture, especially women had begun to
acquire the right to file for divorce. And it still would have
been a very bold thing for a woman to make this move, but possible.
And so Paul brings them into the discussion and puts them,
husband and wife, on an even plane and says that a woman who
has an unbelieving husband, verse 13, and he consents to live with
her, same exact situation, then she must not send her husband
away. Make no mistake, though, the
translations differ between verses 12 and 13. Divorce there in 12
and to send away here in verse 13. The Greek word is exactly
the same. I don’t know why translators do that. If a wife comes to faith
in Christ and she goes to her husband with the news and the
expression of the appropriate desire to remain married and
he consents. They are to remain married. It’s
the same exact advice. The believer has absolutely no
moral ground to end such a marriage. They are not defiled by such
a marriage. In fact, they enjoy the protection
from immorality that any other marriage provides. The believer’s
response is to go to their spouse with a heartfelt desire to remain
married, humbly seeking their consent. Such a marriage is sustainable. Such a marriage was not morally
wrong, as Paul will soon affirm. One of the greatest marriages
that Barbara and I know is of just such a scenario. Godly woman
married for many years to a sweet and gentle man who, for at least
at this point, has not placed his faith fully and finally in
the Lord Jesus Christ. On both parts, both the husband
and the wife’s part, there has never been even a passing thought
about divorce. And we know of other such scenarios
where the unbeliever is no prize. He’s even a thoroughgoing sinner,
and yet, by the grace of God, the believer remains committed
to the marriage. Rightfully so. In this situation,
by all means, remain married. Paul exhorts, but why? What’s
the motivation? In a sense, what’s in it for
me if I stick it out in this marriage to what’s-her-name? Why is Paul’s counsel here so
cut and dried? Well, he provides that reasoning
in verse 14. And so we move from the standards
to the saved alone to the spouses of the saved alone. Let’s have
a look at her, shall we? Verse 14. For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified through her believing husband. Now here,
we come into a conundrum, don’t we? Verses 12 and 13, that was
easy. If an unbeliever has an unbelieving
spouse who desires to remain married, is commanded to remain
married. That’s easy. Now comes the hard
part. Because this verse has created
as much controversy as any verse in the Bible. Because Paul says
here that the unbelieving husband is sanctified through the wife
and vice versa. That language presents a challenge.
On the face of it, it seems to offer another way of salvation.
You know, if you don’t want to go to the tent meeting, if you
don’t want to go to church, if you don’t want to read your Bible,
that’s OK. Just marry a believer and you’re
sanctified and you’re practically in the gates of heaven already.
That’s the sense that you get from that passage. And not only
salvation for the believing one’s spouse, but as we’ll see for
their children as well, everybody’s in. But the mere appearance of
these words makes things look very questionable, to say the
least. And as you might imagine, there are many different possible
explanations to this passage. Let me tell you what I don’t
believe Paul is saying here. I absolutely do not believe that
the unbelieving spouse is in any way aligned with Christ’s
church simply by means of her marriage to a believer. Nor do I believe that the unbeliever
enjoys any measure of personal holiness by means of their marriage
to a believer. They are sanctified in or by
or through their believing spouse. They’re not made holy. Or as one commentator, this is
shocking to me, he suggested this. that there was, it is not,
that there is in any way a sacred character imparted by Christianity,
a power to overcome the unregenerate condition. That’s blasphemy. If the spouse is sanctified in
the sense of salvation, how is it then that Paul refers to them
as unbelievers? It’s none of those. So in what
sense is a believer sanctified by their believing spouse? The
Old Testament imagery here is rich. In the Old Testament, many
things were sanctified, consecrated, dedicated to the Lord, set apart
for a special use. Men were set apart as priests. Buildings, such as the temple,
were set apart for a holy use. Sacrifices were set apart, sanctified
to the Lord. And take that idea of a sacrificial
lamb set apart, sanctified in that sense, that lamb did not
actually become holy. I believe what Paul is saying
here is that primarily this particular marriage is pure. It’s good and
right and appropriate. In marriage, both individuals
are in a pure state. Marriage is God’s institution
and far better that state, even if it’s between a believer and
an unbeliever. Then to go back out and live
in the world of immorality. Because there in that safe haven
of marriage, neither party is subject to the immoralities to
which the single persons are tempted. Such a marriage is not
unholy. Their one flesh union is sanctified. It’s set apart by God. The husband
wife relations are good and right and pure. The marriage should
still be considered holy matrimony. And the unbelieving spouse enjoys
a measure of moral protection from those immoralities. And then in a secondary sense,
the unbelieving spouse also stands to enjoy the sanctifying influence
of a godly spouse. No, hon, we’re not going to do
that. That would be dishonoring to the Lord. He shares the gospel with her.
He reads the word to her. He verbally testifies of the
grace of God and lives out a godly life before his unbelieving wife
or before her unbelieving husband. There is no second option for
salvation, especially one that entrusts a person’s eternal standing
into the hands of their spouses. That’s Mormonism. Even a godly
Christian cannot be held responsible for
the salvation of their spouse. Every individual stands alone
before God, dependent entirely upon their faith in Jesus Christ
and in him alone for their salvation. So you’ve heard of missionary
dating, dating an unbeliever in hopes of leading them to Christ.
Doing that is dangerous and wrong as we pointed out, but if a person
comes to faith in Christ after they’re married, then they are
called to missionary marriage. They are called even committed
to remain in such a marriage with a prayerful hope of leading
their spouse and their children to faith in Christ. So Paul turns
his attention to the children of such a marriage. Are children
of a blended marriage illegitimate? Not at all. But if that initial
statement of verse 14 is difficult, the next, if possible, is even
harder. Look at the end of verse 14,
where we see not only the standards to the saved alone and the spouses
of the saved alone. What about the children of the
saved alone? Paul says, for otherwise your
children are unclean, but now they are holy. what Paul does
here is provide support for the statement that the unbelieving
spouse is sanctified through their believing spouse because
otherwise your children are unclean but now they are holy. What can
we reasonably make of this, that children are not unclean but
holy? Are we to understand that they too are saved, sanctified
in that sense, made holy simply because one of their parents
is a Christian, On the face of it, that’s what
we seem to gather, but let’s take these strong statements
one at a time. First, in what sense are children
considered to be unclean if they’re not born by a believing parent,
a sanctified parent? Here as well, there are many
different perspectives, theories about what these statements could
mean. But in what sense is an innocent child said to be unclean? I believe the reference here
is initially to children born out of wedlock, unclean in that
sense, an illegitimate marriage or no marriage at all would produce
illegitimate children that would be considered, especially in
Jewish culture, as unclean. In no way can it mean that merely
by virtue of their parents’ spiritual status that somehow they are
made holy in an absolute sense before God. That would be to
contradict the great portion of Scripture, wouldn’t it? But
Paul says this is not the case with the marriage of a couple
where one has come to Christ, neither the marriage nor the
offspring are illegitimate. They are not unclean. But neither
are they without sin. They are in desperate need of
a savior. They are still sinners in need of the grace of salvation
like the rest of humanity. Paul merely is arguing from the
ground up. If the children of such a marriage
are not unclean, that is illegitimate, then the marriage from which
they were produced is not illegitimate. The children of such a marriage
are said in the final analysis to be holy, sanctified, set apart. They have a believer as a mom
or dad. This does not mean that they
are inherently holy without sin. Rather, they come from a good
and God honoring marriage. Children of such a marriage are
sanctified, consecrated, set apart in some manner. And that marriage, a sanctified
marriage, must not be dissolved. That’s Paul’s argument. Christ’s words were similar. What God has joined together,
let no man separate. To dissolve such a marriage would
itself be a great sin. I know of one such marriage,
a godly wife with an ornery, unbelieving husband, In time,
at least one of the children became an amazing follower of
Christ through the influence of that very quiet, meek, godly
mother. But it would take another 40
years in their marriage for the father to finally come to Christ.
The steady influence of the grace of the gospel bears much fruit. Paul has argued here that both
marriage and singleness are good states. And here in this section,
he continues his argument by saying first that Christian marriage
is a good moral state. And likewise, a marriage between
a Christian and unbeliever, if that person consents to stay.
It is a good moral state, it’s a good marriage, it’s set apart,
sanctified for the Lord’s use. But what if that unbelieving
spouse desires to leave? We’ll take up that scenario next
time. Would you humble yourself before
him?