← Back to sermon library

Please turn with me in your Bibles 
to 1 Corinthians chapter 7. 1 Corinthians chapter 7. We're 
continuing our study in Matthew's Gospel. You remember last week 
in Matthew's Gospel we considered Jesus' instruction on divorce. 
We saw specifically how he treated Deuteronomy 24, how he treated 
the original intent of God at marriage, and explained that 
Deuteronomy 24 was necessary in a post-fall condition because 
of the hardness of men's hearts. Because of sin, God provides 
legislation to speak to this particular issue. I mentioned 
after the study last week that porneia, or sexual immorality 
as Jesus specifies, in Matthew chapter 19 is an exception. In other words, it is a legitimate 
reason for the innocent party to sue out divorce. And then 
I mentioned desertion. I cited 1 Corinthians 7.15, but 
because this is such an important subject, I thought it would be 
good not only to proof text, but rather to provide exposition 
of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 verses 10 to 16. Again, we need to understand 
that this is an important issue. Christ addresses it. The entirety 
of God's word addresses it. The fact is, it is an aspect 
of God's law that oftentimes goes unrecognized or undealt 
with, and we need to think clearly, and we need to reflect upon the 
biblical data due to the prevalence of this particular issue. You, 
by God's grace, may never have to face such an eventuality. 
You, by God's grace, may have married that man or woman that 
is going to indeed be faithful. But sometimes persons do indeed 
marry those persons that sin against them. And it's unkind 
and unfeeling to just say, well, you just got to deal with it. 
If God said you just got to deal with it, then we, the church, 
can say that. But if God provides exceptions 
or God provides redress in His law, then to deny that of persons 
is to take to ourselves an authority that God has never entrusted 
to us. We need to be cautious and we 
need to be careful when we speak to issues that we have reflected 
upon the data. Now, I am conscious of the fact 
that I don't have all the answers. to last week's message, persons 
ask good questions. Deuteronomy 24 does not provide 
a detailed statement of every possible eventuality. Matthew 
chapter 19 doesn't provide that as well, nor does 1 Corinthians 
7. But I think that it's good to 
exegete these passages, to see what they're saying, and try 
and synthesize the material so that our consciences are not 
bound with reference to the opinions of men, the emotional responses 
of others, or the experiences that we have witnessed in the 
past. God's law must define Christian conduct. God's law must be that 
standard by which we conduct ourselves. So 1 Corinthians chapter 
7, I'm going to read verses 1 to 16 and our focus this morning 
will be on verses 10 to 16. Notice verse one, 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. Let the husband render to his 
wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her 
husband. The wife does not have authority 
over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise, the husband 
does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 
Do not deprive one another, except with consent for a time, that 
you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together 
again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack 
of self-control. But I say this as a concession, 
not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were 
even as myself, but each one has his own gift from God, one 
in this manner and another in that. But 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. 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, 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. 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. But if the unbeliever departs, 
let him depart. A brother or a sister is not 
under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 
For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? 
Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? 
Amen. Let us pray. Father, we thank 
you for the written word of the living and true God. We know 
that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and that it's 
profitable to us for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, 
and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly 
equipped unto every good work. Help us to take every thought 
captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ. We know that this is 
a prevalent matter, not only in the world, but in the church. 
Give us clarity in our understanding and give us wisdom as we approach 
such things and cause us to reflect soberly upon the Word of God 
Almighty. Help us not to withhold what 
you have granted to your children and help us not to grant those 
things that you have withheld. Father, keep us from license 
on the one hand or legalism on the other. Keep us, Father, from 
abandoning the standard of righteousness and turning to our own devices. 
We ask now that your Holy Spirit would be at work in our minds 
and in our hearts. We ask now that you would wash 
us afresh in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul tells 
us we are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. So we pray, forgive us, cleanse 
us, wash us, and supply us with the necessary means of the Holy 
Spirit. And we ask these things through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Well, as we look at this 
particular passage, I want to look at the two sections that 
are given in verses 10 and 11, and then in verses 12 to 16. 
In the first section, in 10 to 11, Paul gives instruction concerning 
Christian marriage. The marriage of two believers. In the next section, verses 12 
to 16, he is giving instruction concerning mixed marriage. And 
mixed does not mean ethnically, but rather it has to do with 
religion, has to do with faith. He specifies, he qualifies, and 
he highlights that reality in verses 12 to 16. A believer has 
or is married to an unbeliever. So in the first section, he's 
dealing with the believers who are married together. In the 
second section, he is dealing with the issue of mixed marriages, 
or believers who find themselves married to unbelievers. So let's 
look first at verses 10 to 11, but let's notice the particular 
context. As is often the case in 1 Corinthians, 
Paul is responding to specific questions that were posed to 
him by the Corinthians. He is dealing with things that 
they had concerns or questions about. Notice in verse 1, now 
concerning the things of which you wrote to me, it is good for 
a man not to touch a woman. Now we're not certain why they 
would ask that particular question. Jews would probably not ask that 
question because they knew of the goodness of marriage and 
God's original intent. But whatever the case was, they 
had sent this correspondence to Paul and asked him, is it 
okay for a man not to touch a woman? And Paul says, well certainly, 
that is legit. And touch here has the idea of 
sexual congress. It is legit. It is okay. It is righteous. It is good for 
a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of porneia 
or sexual immorality, let a man have a wife. Paul's not condemning 
marriage. He's not saying it's inferior, 
it's sub-blessed to the single life. He is simply stating a 
fact. Because of the prevalence of 
sexual immorality, a man and a woman can indeed come together 
as a married couple. It is the prevention of uncleanness. 
If you look at our confession, one of the purposes it gives 
for marriage is the prevention of uncleanness. Now I typically 
don't think that the bride and the groom, as they're walking 
down the aisle on that day, are thinking in that regard. You 
know, why are you getting married? For the prevention of uncleanness. 
It's not something that sounds extra romantic. It doesn't have 
that sort of vibe to it that makes our hearts pitter-patter 
and our eyes starry-eyed. It's for the prevention of sexual 
uncleanness. But it is. The world could take 
a cue from what God's holy word says. Fornication is wrong. To engage in this act without 
marriage as the covenantal parameter is wrong. It is a sin against 
God most high. So he asks, or he deals with 
the question, yes, 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 husband have her own husband. Now he 
says within the context or realm of marriage, it is deprivation 
or robbery from one spouse to withhold from the other. It is 
deprivation or robbery for one spouse to withhold this from 
the other. In other words, God has said 
that in this covenantal context, you are to engage in this particular 
activity. Notice toward the end, in verses 
8 and 9, Paul gives advice to the unmarried and to the widows, 
it is good for them if they remain even as I am. The idea being 
celibate, not married, not engaged in this particular relationship. 
Paul gives this as advice. He's not speaking a commandment 
that everybody who's unmarried or everybody who's a widow must 
needs be celibate. No, he says as much. But if they 
cannot exercise self-control, let them marry, for it is better 
to marry than to burn with passion. Paul highlights and underscores 
and knows the reality that it's been given to him to become celibate. It's been given to him to engage 
in this particular manner. It is good, but if you do not 
have this, then get married. You see the unrighteousness of 
an imposition of celibacy in the Roman papal system. It is 
wrong. Man has legitimate needs and 
God has said that this is an avenue to pursue that. When we 
bar that up or we stop that, unfortunately it's often spent 
in other ungodly and unrighteous ways. Now notice, we get to verses 
10 and 11, the instruction given concerning Christian marriage. 
Paul says in verse 10, "...now to the married I command, yet 
not I, but the Lord." What does he mean by that? Notice in verse 
12, "...but to the rest I, not the Lord, say." What's the distinction 
that the apostle is making here? I believe the distinction the 
apostle is making here is simple. In Jesus' earthly ministry, what 
we have in terms of the record of Jesus' teaching in the Gospels, 
He has indeed addressed this issue of married people that 
are believers. Specifically in Matthew 19, specifically 
in Mark chapter 10. When Paul says, but to the rest 
I not the Lord say, Jesus didn't deal with this particular issue 
in his earthly ministry. Paul is not saying that his words 
are any less binded. Paul is not saying that his words 
are any less authoritative. Paul is not making a distinction 
between the words of Jesus and what I have to say. He makes 
it clear when he's giving advice. Look at verse 6. But I say this 
as a concession, not as a commandment. That whole idea of abstaining 
for a time to pray and fast. Notice in verse 18, I say to 
the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they remain 
even as I am. That's a piece of good advice. It's not an authoritative command, 
however. Notice as well in verse 25, now 
concerning virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, yet 
I give judgment as one whom the Lord in his mercy has made trustworthy. Again, it's not something specifically 
covered by the Lord in his earthly ministry. But Paul, as an inspired 
apostle of the Lord God Almighty, when he speaks authoritatively, 
it is as binding. We need to take it to heart. 
We need to understand. Notice as well, in verse 40. He says in verse 40, but she 
is happier if she remains as she is according to my judgment 
and I think I also have the Spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 14.37, 
the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 
So Paul is not saying in verse 10 or verse 12 that he's somehow 
not as important as Jesus. What Paul is saying is the distinction 
lies here. As Charles Hodge says, it is 
intended between what Christ taught while on earth and what 
Paul by his spirit was inspired to teach. So notice again in 
verse 10, now to the married I command, yet not I but the 
Lord. So if the Lord had commanded 
this, Paul is rehearsing it, then we know that there is consistency 
between these two men. And what is that specific directive? A wife is not to depart from 
her husband. That's that whole Genesis 2.24 
emphasis. Remember the Pharisees in Matthew 
19.3 come out of the gate saying, is it lawful for a man to divorce 
his wife for any reason? They're asking for the any reasons. The disciples themselves in verse 
10 after they hear Jesus teaching say, well if this is true, it's 
better not to marry. Men approached marriage with 
the view that there are a whole host of exit gates if I don't 
like what is going on. If I don't like the way she cooks, 
I don't like the way she looks, well then I can just issue a 
certificate of divorce and be done with it. Jesus says, no, 
Moses permitted this because of the hardness of your hearts. 
Moses permitted this. God regulated this because of 
sin in this world. The same way that Moses permits 
the civil magistrate to execute criminal offenders. The same 
way that Moses permits an army to go into war, battle, and kill 
people. The same way that Moses permits 
self-defense. Because we live in a sin-cursed, 
fallen world, sometimes persons do wretched things, and the innocent 
party is protected by our good God. We need to understand. You say, 
well, you know, I don't need to hear another sermon about 
divorce. I think what we think concerning this does reflect 
what we think concerning God. I think theology proper is at 
stake, at least to some degree. Is God only out to get us if 
we are victimized? Is God only out to get the innocent 
party? She thinks she's married a believer. Or he thinks he's married a believer. And it turns out they're not 
believers and they're akin to Satan. But you need to stick 
it out and stay with it. You need to just stay... Is that 
the picture that we have of God? Or does God provide lawful redress 
in His Word? I argue that He provides lawful 
redress in His Word. And I believe that Paul upholds 
that specifically for the sin of willful desertion. But back 
to our text. A wife is not to depart from 
her husband. You want to know what God's will 
is for you married people? Don't leave your spouse. Do you want to know what God's 
will for you for your marriage? Do not leave your spouse. Now 
the verb is different when he says, let not the wife depart 
from her husband. Let not the husband divorce his 
wife. Probably that first verb has the same significance though 
of divorce because Paul prohibits. Even if she does depart, she 
is to remain unmarried. The idea being that in the case 
of divorce, there's going to be remarriage. But in this particular 
instance, what God's word to you is, my dear beloved brothers 
and sisters who find themselves married today, do not depart 
from your husbands, ladies. What about the husband? The end 
of verse 11, and a husband is not to divorce his wife. There 
are exceptions. There are reasons why to break 
that or to dissolve that. But do not approach the situation 
through the exceptions in the first place. Do not ask the question 
of the Pharisees, how many reasons are there why I can divorce her? 
How many reasons are there why I can divorce him? No, you need 
to go back to the garden, you need to go back to the original 
intent, you need to realize that God made man in his image, male 
and female. He brought them together in a 
one flesh relationship until death does them part. Now, of 
course, the law subsequent regulates the conduct with reference to 
porneia and here willful desertion. But suffice it to say, God's 
purpose originally, as intended in the Garden, is that you stay 
together. Now, notice. He gives this prohibition 
and then he mentions this particular situation. The beginning of verse 11. But 
even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled 
to her husband. She's not to depart from her 
husband. He's not to divorce her. But 
if she does depart, look at what Paul's instruction is. Let her 
remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. What's in view 
is that Paul wants reconciliation. All things being equal, as far 
as you're able, be at peace with each other. If she does depart, 
let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. I 
think I hear in this the echoes of Deuteronomy 24, 1-4. Remember 
what's prohibited in Deuteronomy 24, 1-4. If the woman departs, and she remarries, she can't 
come back to husband number one. She cannot reconcile with him 
at that particular point. Seems to me there's an echo here 
of Paul with reference to Deuteronomy 24, which we know is what Jesus 
is dealing with in Matthew chapter 19. Nevertheless, this is the 
instruction. Wives, do not depart from your 
husband. Husband, do not divorce your 
wife. Even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be 
reconciled to her husband. That's what Paul reiterates as 
from the Lord to the Corinthians. Now notice, secondly, the instruction 
concerning mixed marriages. Verses 12 to 16. Anthony Thistleton 
phrases the question concerning this issue this way. Think about 
it for a moment. He's not dealing with the, you 
know, go marry an unbeliever and then this rule applies. He's 
dealing with Corinthians, who when they got married were pagans. 
They were unbelievers. They were not righteous. They 
were not fearing God. What does the Lord do in His 
grace and mercy? He saves one of them, right? You see the issue? You get married as unbelievers 
and then God in His grace and mercy saves one of them. The believer finds him or herself 
at this time married to an unbeliever. Thistleton says the believer 
asks Paul with genuine concern. If I have left behind the old 
life and become a new creation in Christ, does not my relation 
with my unbelieving spouse and my entire home atmosphere threaten 
to pollute and to corrode my purity as one who belongs to 
Christ? Do you understand the pressure? 
Do you understand the rub? You've become a Christian. 2 
Corinthians 5.17 is true. All the old has passed away. 
Behold, you're a new creature in Christ Jesus. But wait, I'm 
married to an unbeliever. How will this affect me? Will 
this defile me? Is it a contagion, to use the 
older brother's words? Is there impurity involved in 
this particular setting? It's a real issue, brothers and 
sisters. It's a real issue that happens 
even today to unbelievers happening to a church. God saves one of 
them. You ask Paul, what do I do now? You're praying for their conversion, 
to be sure. You're inviting them back to 
church and to hear gospel preaching, to be sure. But is your marriage 
defiled? Is it unsanctified? Is it unclean? Now note Paul's instruction, 
verses 12 and 13. Here's his rule. If any brother 
has a wife who does not believe and she is willing to live with 
him, let him not divorce her. You see that? Your having become 
a Christian, being married to someone who has not become a 
Christian, is not a legitimate reason to sue out divorce. You 
see, it's interesting. As God provides redress in his 
holy law, he nevertheless continually reiterates just how important 
this relationship is. 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. It's a pretty simple rule, isn't 
it? It's pretty clear. Not a lot of difficulty in this 
particular one. Now it is intriguing because 
this rule seems different than what we find in the book of Ezra. 
Turn to Ezra chapter 10 for just a moment. I cited this last week 
as a proof text for at least the observation that there was 
divorce going on in Israel. And in Ezra chapter 10 at verse 
3, the particular situation is, Now therefore let us make a covenant 
with our God to put away all those wives and those who have 
been born to them according to the advice of my master and of 
those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done 
according to the law. Now notice dropping down to verse 
10, "...then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, you 
have transgressed and have taken pagan wives, adding to the guilt 
of Israel. Now therefore make confession 
to the Lord God of your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves 
from the peoples of the land and from the pagan wives. Then 
all the assembly answered and said with a loud voice, yes, 
as you have said, so we must do." So you see when we come 
to 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul's advisor, Not his advice, his 
command rather, is not put them away. It's if the unbeliever 
is willing to stay with you, then you need to remain in this 
marriage. You say, well, what's the difference? 
Why does Ezra command something and Paul command something different? 
John Gill says the gospel revelation does not dissolve the natural 
obligations men and women are into one another. He said the 
Jews had a law prohibiting marriages with heathens and idolaters and 
such marriages were dissolved and such wives put away, Exodus 
34, Ezra 10. But this was a law peculiar to 
that people and was not obligatory on other nations and especially 
has no place under the gospel dispensation. You say, well, 
that seems like an arbitrary hermeneutic. No, it doesn't. 
The law concerning holy war in Deuteronomy 7 is no longer obligatory 
under the gospel dispensation. God does not call us Chilliwackians 
to take up arms and go destroy Abbotsfordians. The mandate for 
holy war is no longer extant because of the dissolution of 
the theocracy, of the Jewish state. So what we find is Paul's 
legislation in its new covenant setting, that if you as a believer 
find yourself married to an unbeliever, you are not to put them away. And may I say as well, if you 
find yourself as a believer, married to an unbeliever, you 
are not to try and provoke them to leave. Oh, well, we would never do that. 
I was just reading Deuteronomy the other day, talking about 
loaning money and giving money to the downtrodden and poor within 
Israel. Don't let it rise up in your 
heart that the Jubilee is coming. Don't let it rise up in your 
heart that that debt is going to be suspended. What's the point? Somebody asks you for money and 
you know that next year that debt's going to be canceled out, 
Jubilee Law. Well, I don't want to give them the money because 
I won't get my money back! Stuff like that rises up in our hearts. 
I wish it weren't so. Maybe it doesn't rise up in your 
hearts, but at least God speaks to us who have this problem or 
who have such problems. You may be a believer married 
to an unbeliever and you know Paul's words and you feel the 
pressure of them and the tension you find yourself in. Paul says 
if they're willing to stay with you, you need to stay with them. 
You know, maybe I'll have 15 Bible studies a day in their 
bedroom and try to smoke them out. Maybe I'll do those sorts 
of things that drive them nuts so they'll sue out a divorce 
or so that they'll be willing to leave me. You can't do that. Peter addresses this in 1 Peter 
3. What is a wife supposed to do 
when she's got a man that's an unbeliever? Is she to pound him 
over the head with her Bible at every instance? Is she to 
continually hand him gospel tracts? Is she to put a leash and collar 
on him and drag him off to church? That's not supposed to be her 
conduct. Brethren, you may say right now, 
well, that would never well up in my heart. Well, then pray 
for those who have such issues and such challenges. You know, 
there's no legitimate reason for me to send her away. But 
if I make her despise being here, maybe she'll just go away on 
her own accord, and then I'm off scot-free. Now, notice the reasons given 
by Paul for the rule in verse 12 and 13. A man who has a wife, 
who's willing to stay. Don't send them away. Woman has 
a husband that's willing to stay, don't send them away. What are 
the two reasons given for in verse 14? The sanctification 
of the spouse and the sanctification of the child or the children. 
Notice what Paul says, verse 14. It's a reason. Four, 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. We know the sanctification 
in view is not internal. It is not unto salvation. Not 
a definitive sanctification wherein they are set apart as recipients 
of gospel grace. It can't be the case that the 
unbeliever, just by virtue of being married to a believer, 
comes to Christ. I mean, if that were the case, 
then there would be a place for missionary marriages. There would 
be a place. We just marry someone and they'll 
become a Christian. That's not the sanctification 
that's in view. I think the idea here has to 
do with something that is clean. In a ritualistic or a ceremonial 
sense. Remember there were many things 
that happened to Old Covenant Israelites that made them unclean 
and they had to leave the camp. The idea here, with reference 
to sanctification, is probably the idea of non-profane, clean, 
or even legitimate. Murray says the sanctification 
of which Paul speaks, therefore, must be the sanctification of 
privilege, condition, and relationship. In other words, this new condition, 
this new situation, where one party becomes a believer, does 
not invalidate the marriage. It doesn't render it unclean. It doesn't make it profane. It 
certainly doesn't make it illegitimate. It is sanctified before God Most 
High in the sense that it is legitimate, it is clean, it is 
righteous. Now notice what he says concerning 
the children. He says, otherwise your children 
would be unclean or unsanctified, but now they are holy. The Apostle says that if the 
marriage was not lawful, then the children would be unholy. 
He says the children are holy, so what are we to conclude? The 
marriage is lawful. It's legit. It's sanctified. I know our paedo-baptist brethren 
like to take verse 14 and argue for, you know, paedo-baptism 
or the sprinkling of a child. In my mind, that's a stretch 
and a leap. What Paul is arguing for is that 
within this context where one party gets converted, it doesn't 
render obsolete the marriage. It doesn't delegitimize it. It 
doesn't make it profane. It doesn't make it unclean. It 
doesn't mean that your children are now bastards or illegitimate. 
It means that the body, or the family rather, is sanctified. 
It is set apart. It is good unto God. It is not 
an impure or an unclean thing. And I understand what drives 
the paedo-baptist here. If the child is part of the family, 
he's sanctified, well then he's part of the church, and ergo 
he ought to be sprinkled. Again, I think that's a step 
removed from what the context is dealing with. If you're going 
to argue that way, at least tell us first and foremost what Paul 
is dealing with in verse 14. It is a reason for the rule set 
down in verses 12 and 13. If a man has a woman and she's 
willing to stay, then stay. If a woman has a husband that's 
willing to stay, then stay. Why? Because that unbelieving 
spouse is sanctified by virtue of being married to the Christian. 
Again, not internally, not unto salvation, but in the sense of 
not profane, not impure, not defiled. As well, the children, 
they are protected. Not in the covenantal sense of 
let's sprinkle them now, but in the sense that they are legitimate, 
this family is a decent, normal acting unit. Gil says, so the 
children born of them were in a civil and legal sense holy. That is legitimate. Wherefore, 
to support the validity of their marriage and for the credit of 
their children. It was absolutely necessary they 
should abide with one another. That's the point in verse 14. 
It is the reasons for verses 12 and 13. If you find yourself 
in a mixed marriage and that unbeliever is willing to stay 
with you, you need to stay. Your marriage is not defiled, 
your marriage is not profane, your marriage is not impure, 
your children are not illegitimate, but everything is, to use a colloquialism, 
hunky-dory. Everything is legit. Cannot use 
this as an argument to send someone away. They're not a believer 
and I can't be defiled by them, so I'm going to sue out a divorce. 
Paul says just the opposite. May I say, you may show evidence 
of a greater purity and non-defilement by staying in this situation 
and being a faithful partner. We're too quick to look for the 
loopholes and too quick to look for the easy ways out. Too quick 
to say, well, this has to fall under desertion. No, not necessarily. Desertion means desertion. I 
would argue abuse as well. Don't just chalk it up right 
away. That's it. It's all over. I want 
to remind everybody of something as well. John Calvin hits the 
nail on the head when he says, Paul therefore declares here 
that marriage is nevertheless sacred and pure, and that we 
must not be apprehensive of contagion, as if the wife would contaminate 
the husband. You know, when I was a kid, I 
don't know if they still have it, there were cooties. You know, 
the girl would come near you or the boy would come near you, 
you got cooties. And then they developed cootie spray to inoculate 
oneself against such cooties. could have marketed the whole 
thing. You know, we've got cooties, we've got the sprays, now we 
have the aerosol pump because we're environmentally friendly. 
We don't want to hurt the ozone while we're defeating cooties. 
That's what Paul is saying. You're not going to get cooties, 
spiritually speaking, from the unbeliever. It's just not that way. It's 
not a defilement. Because God saves one in a marriage. The marriage is still legit. 
So listen to Calvin in this vein. Paul therefore declares here 
that marriage is nevertheless sacred and pure. And that we 
must not be apprehensive of contagion as if the wife would contaminate 
the husband. Let us however bear in mind that 
he speaks here not of contracting marriages. but of marriages that 
are already contracted. Do not take verses 12 and 13 
and argue, well, I can marry an unbeliever. No, you can't. That is prohibited. It is forbidden. Paul specifies in this very chapter, 
this only in the Lordness must a believer marry. Calvin goes 
on to say, It's but of maintaining those that have already been 
contracted. For where the matter under consideration 
is, whether one should marry an unbelieving wife or whether 
one should marry an unbelieving husband, then the exhortation 
is in point. Be not yoked with unbelievers, 
for there is no agreement between Christ and Belial. So don't take 
verses 12 and 13 and say, well, it's okay if I go marry an unbeliever. 
That's not what he's saying. The Word of God specifies that 
if you are in Christ, you must marry a believer. You mustn't 
be in it for missionary purposes. You want to be a missionary that 
bad, go downtown and witness to people and hand out tracts. 
Do not contract a marriage with an unbeliever. It is that clear. It is that crystal clear. In 
that instance, you will be defiled. In that instance, you will be 
profaning your own walk before the Lord. Do not take this as 
a license to go out and to marry an unbeliever. The situation 
envisions two persons that are unconverted when they're married, 
and God in His grace saves one of them. Now notice, I'm going 
to call this the Pauline exception. Some commentators, I think it's 
called the Pauline privilege, in the history of interpretation. 
I say that so you'll know what it's referring to, but I think 
exception is better. There's no privilege involved 
in the sense that, I mean, it almost makes it sound like a 
good thing. You want ice cream? I guess it is a privilege. If 
we invoke the law of God, it is a good thing. So now it's 
coming to me. It's perfectly acceptable. Notice, though, here's 
the situation that Paul addresses in verse 15. But if the unbeliever 
departs, but if the unbeliever departs, you can hear it now, 
can't you? Man marries a woman, they both 
engage in all manner of sexual sin and drug use and alcohol 
abuse, whatever the case may be, and then one or the other 
gets converted. And the spouse says, you know what? This is 
a drag. I didn't sign up for this. We used to have such fun. We used to have such a free, 
happy life together. Now all Shiri wants to do is 
read their Bibles, or they want to pray, or they tell me about 
Jesus. And, you know, I'm just not into 
this. I'm going to leave. This is the 
situation that Paul addresses again. It's not something confined 
to the Corinthians, brethren. It's a real-life issue that affects 
real-life persons today who really profess faith in the living God. 
If the unbeliever departs, notice Paul's ruling, the apostle commands 
the believer to let the unbeliever depart. Let him depart. That's Paul's rule on this subject. If the unbeliever is unwilling 
to stay in such a situation, the believer lets them depart. 
Now, that doesn't probably mean you can't say, you know, can 
we talk about this? Can we try to get some help? 
Can we do? You know, I don't think Paul is saying you can 
never try, at least to some degree. When you exhaust those issues 
and you've used the means and that unbeliever is resolute, 
they want to depart, they don't want to be married to you anymore, 
what is Paul's judgment? Let them depart. Let them go. Now notice why. He says that the believer is 
not under bondage in this particular situation. The unbeliever departs, 
let him depart. A brother or a sister is not 
under bondage in such cases. The bondage here being to continue 
in or remain in a marriage that is dissolved by the departing 
unbeliever. They're not in bondage to that. Life goes on. That person departs, 
you let them depart. What is the assumption? That 
the unbeliever sues out for divorce. Are you still in bondage to that 
marriage? Are you still in bondage to that 
person? No, the marriage has been dissolved. You are not in bondage for such 
a thing. And now notice what Paul says. 
God is a God of peace. Here's what I said. Theology, 
proper, God has called us to peace. He's not called you to 
spend every waking moment trying to get this unbeliever back. 
He's not called you to the turmoil and the stress and the trial 
of being in bondage to a man or a woman or a marriage that 
is no longer. He's telling you to move on. Go forward. And then note what 
he says in verse 16, and this verse can go one of two ways. 
There's what's called the positive or the optimistic view, and there 
is what's called the negative or the pessimistic view. The 
optimistic view seems to go like this. Look at what he says in 
verse 16. For how do you know, O wife, 
whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, 
whether you will save your wife? Try with all your might. Stay 
in it. Keep going. Witness. Testify. Share. Declare. Because how do 
you know God might save them? Stay in it to win it, Paul is 
saying in this particular view. But I think the weight falls 
with the negative or the pessimistic. He's already said the unbelievers 
departed. The unbelievers gone. God's called 
you to peace. God's released you. You're not 
under bondage. How do you know if he would save 
him? Why in the world would you continue in this arrangement? 
Why would you continue to subject yourself when God has said you're 
not under bondage? He's called you to peace. Why 
would you stand outside that person's door with a sign that 
says repent and believe so we can be back together? You don't 
know what God's plan is. You don't know what God's purpose 
is. You don't know if in His sovereignty He is going to save 
that person. You do what God tells you to 
do. I think the weight falls here because the unbeliever has 
departed. Paul says you're not under bondage. Paul says God's called you to 
peace. Doesn't seem like a peaceful, 
non-bondage life to me if you're constantly chasing this unbeliever 
who's already departed and who's already dissolved the marriage. 
And you're continually pleading with them and you're continually 
saying, certainly pray for them. You want them to come to Jesus. 
You want them to be saved. I'm not suggesting otherwise. 
But in terms of verse 16 as a reason, I think the idea is more along 
the lines, let them go. Let them depart. You don't know 
what God has planned for them. God may use this actually to 
bring them to repentance and faith. So there's our exposition. I hope it's clear. I hope you 
track with what the apostle is saying. And I want to address 
by way of application just a couple of things before we close. Paul 
does not say remarriage is permissible in verse 15. If the unbeliever 
departs, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under 
bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. My position 
has been accused this way. Paul doesn't say they can remarry. 
Paul just says they're not under bondage. That does not necessarily 
legitimize a remarriage. I have three particular reasons 
why I believe that remarriage is permitted in this particular 
issue. In the first place, the absence 
of a prohibition against remarriage in verse 15. Paul does not say, 
if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. Once he's gone, the 
marriage is dissolved, now you stay unmarried. He doesn't say 
that. Now, I realize that that's an 
argument by silence. I understand that. But that silence 
is made loud in light of verse 11. Because in verse 11, when 
the believers separate one from another, Paul takes pains to 
tell them not to remarry. So it's certainly in his wheelhouse 
to prescribe not to remarry. But he doesn't do that in verse 
15. It says, you're not under bondage, and God has called you 
to peace. What would most sane persons 
rationalize? That my peace is found married 
to someone. My lack of not being bondage 
means that I am now free to remarry. That brings us to consider in 
the second place the assumption of remarriage upon lawful divorce 
in the entirety of the Bible. Deuteronomy 24, 1-4. I stand 
by that exposition. There are still a lot of questions, 
still a lot of things that perhaps do not make sense or do not look 
so obvious and apparent, but that the woman was separated, 
or divorced rather, from husband number one. She then went and 
remarried. The sin condemned in Deuteronomy 
24 was not that remarriage. It was her then coming back to 
husband number one. That's the defilement. You say, 
well why is that? I don't know that I can explain 
all the ins and outs, but that it was the case is obvious. The 
fact that priests were prohibited from marrying divorced women 
in Israel. It argues that divorced women 
in Israel remarried, just not priests. They could marry the 
rank-and-file non-priest fellow that had sufficient means to 
provide for her. And then, of course, Matthew 
19.9. Upon analogy, Jesus allows divorce and remarriage 
upon porneia, and by way of analogy, we can say that when Paul authorizes 
a lawful divorce for willful desertion on the part of the 
unbeliever, then remarriage is permissible. Third, the fact 
that the first marriage is dissolved. It was the unbeliever who dissolved 
it. It was the unbeliever who broke 
the covenant. It was the unbeliever who did that thing. Listen to 
John Gill in summary. He says, nor are they bound to 
remain unmarried. And I cite Gil here as somewhat 
representative of what's called the Protestant tradition. Now, 
not every Protestant holds this position, that porneia and willful 
desertion are the legitimate reasons for lawful divorce and 
remarriage. I get that not every Protestant. 
But the Protestant interpretation consistently through history 
has been what I'm preaching to you this morning. Gill says, 
nor are they bound to remain unmarried, but are free to marry 
another person. After all, proper methods have 
been tried for a reconciliation, and that appears to be impracticable. 
Desertion in such a case, and attended with such circumstances, 
is a breach of the marriage contract, and a dissolution of the bond, 
and the deserted person may lawfully marry again. Otherwise, a brother 
or a sister in such a case would be in subjection and bondage 
to such a person. Think about it, the unbeliever 
departs, he dissolves the marriage, he goes out and he gets remarried. Are the believers still into 
bondage to him? To her? I know in these sermons 
I tend to pick on men a little bit more, but let me tell you, 
women are wicked too. It didn't take me long to find out 
that Doug Wilson was wrong on a pastoral level. I've got problems 
with Pastor Doug Wilson. on a number of things, but practically 
and pastorally, he made this comment in a book on marriage. 
He says, when I am called to the home of a married couple 
that is having some sort of dispute, I always go in there with the 
assumption that it's the husband's fault. There's some wicked women 
out there. Sorry to say that. Don't want 
to pop your little bubbles. There's some wicked women out 
there. We're going to heap that abuse upon the poor guy, too. 
It's your fault that she's out committing adultery. She's out, 
you know, doing these sorts of things. She's out smoking crack. 
She's out cooking meth. It's all your fault. What kind 
of pastoral kindness is that? I don't fancy myself the kindest 
person in the world, but I certainly don't want to bash suffering 
people on the head with a shovel, pastorally speaking, of course. There's wicked women out there 
too. Notice I said out there because 
none of you dear sisters have any streak of wickedness in you 
whatsoever. I hope the irony and sarcasm 
dripped out enough there. Secondly, we need to appreciate 
the original intent of marriage. The passage reiterates the original 
intent for marriage when Paul instructs on the issue of one, 
Christian marriage, and two, when he instructs on the issue 
of a mixed marriage. Don't miss the point. Believers 
must stay with unbelievers. If the unbeliever departs, that 
introduces a new situation. But in terms of the unbeliever 
willing to stay with the believer, stay with them. What does that 
underscore but Genesis 2.24 and this one flesh relationship? 
The fact that it is a good thing. The fact that it is legit. The 
fact that it is holy. The fact that it is clean. We 
can't get around that particular situation. Murray says it is 
precisely here that the sacredness of the marriage bond is attested. 
The very cleavage between faith and unbelief constituted no ground 
for separation or dissolution." Even the issue of faith and unbelief. Nevertheless, Paul says, stay. 
So as we conclude, at least in terms of the practical or the 
exposition, we see that Porneia, Matthew 19.9, and we see willful 
desertion, 1 Corinthians 7.15 are the lawful instances why 
the innocent party may indeed sue out divorce. I want to deal 
with one more thing. I know that's probably close 
to the time here, but I wanted to say something. Last week I 
interacted with Pastor Votie Bauckham's sermon on the permanence 
view of marriage, and I neglected to point out one further thing. 
That is a real concern that we need to really deal with. One 
of the things that Pastor Bauckham says, if we take porneia and 
desertion as exceptions and legitimate reasons why the innocent party 
may sue out divorce, then we really haven't taken to heart 
Matthew 5.20. In Matthew 5.20, the Lord Jesus says that your 
righteousness needs to exceed the righteousness of the scribes 
and the Pharisees. He says interpreters that take 
Jesus to teach that there is an exception and that there is 
permission for divorce and remarriage, their righteousness doesn't exceed 
the scribes and the Pharisees. That's something we've got to 
take to consider. That's something we've got to deal with. Am I 
inferior? Am I last in the permanent view, guys? I mean, I'm as bad 
as they get, don't get me wrong. It's only by grace alone, through 
faith alone in Jesus Christ. I'm thankful there's a fountain 
open for sin and uncleanness. Let's just take that to heart 
for a minute. If we take the opposite of a permanence view 
of marriage, which I take, a permanence view of marriage, qualified, 
however, by the two places that the law qualifies it, but if 
we take a different position, our righteousness isn't as good 
as the Pharisees and the scribes, and they were those dirty, rotten 
scoundrels. Certainly, we should do a little better than them, 
right? Well, I would suggest a few things in response to that 
particular objection in the first place. We have the imputed righteousness 
of Christ. While I certainly think that 
the Sermon on the Mount is typifying or portraying what normative 
ethics are for the Christian believer, I think there's a pedagogical 
use in the sermon. In other words, the sermon and 
its high ideals not only serve to illustrate for the believer 
conduct that is consistent with the kingdom, but it always shows 
the believer how much they need Jesus. how much they stand in 
need. Machen says this with reference 
to the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount rightly 
interpreted then makes a man a seeker after some divine means 
of salvation by which entrance into the kingdom can be obtained. 
The Sermon on the Mount, like all the rest of the New Testament, 
really leads a man straight to the foot of the cross. You get 
that when you read the Sermon on the Mount? Yes, I get the 
definition of how I ought to be but it also causes me to reflect 
upon how wonderful it is that Jesus paid it all. about Lloyd-Jones, 
there is nothing that so utterly condemns us as the Sermon on 
the Mount. There is nothing so utterly impossible, 
so terrifying, and so full of doctrine. Indeed, I do not hesitate 
to say that were it not that I knew of the doctrine of justification 
by faith only, I would never look at the Sermon on the Mount 
because it is a sermon before which we all stand completely 
naked and altogether without hope. You know, on a more practical 
level, not everything the Pharisees did, not everything the Pharisees 
said, was always the most dirty, rottenest, scoundrelist thing 
they could do. I mean, we hear in the Christian 
Church, Pharisees, and we say it with a little bit of a gag, 
oh, those guys. Not every one of them was the 
worst possible human being. In fact, Jesus in Matthew 23 
says, Whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and 
do, but do not do according to their works, for they say, and 
do not do." So Jesus himself does not condemn every jot and 
tittle that proceeded from the mouths of the Pharisees. Thirdly, the standard for righteousness 
is God's law. That's it. That's it. I can't be said to 
be worse than a Pharisee if God says, I can sue out divorce when 
it's porneia or willful desertion. How in the world can we condemn 
persons who actually do what God's Word says? Why would we 
ever make them feel inferior or make them feel less than the 
Pharisees and the scribes? That's not kind. That's not great. 
No, I don't think he's saying it diabolically. What he's saying 
is he's making this implication that if this, then that. And 
I'm suggesting that if this, then that is incorrect! Because 
if Christ specifies and Paul specifies, when we invoke the 
law of God and we do what he permits us to do, then we're 
not unrighteous. We're not inferior. We're not 
bad. never wrong to obey what God 
has given you. You are never wrong to take the 
Bible seriously. You are never wrong to do what 
Jesus Christ commands, what Paul the Apostle commands, or when 
there is a permission given by Moses. That is not wrong to exercise 
that. It is legitimate. We end by reminding 
that I know that this is a difficult subject, I know that I don't 
have all the answers, I know that there are still probably 
many, many more questions that you have in your minds, but hopefully 
you've got enough to go back to the Scriptures, to think through 
this, and not let emotion, not let experience, not let the opinions 
of men dictate what our practice will be, but rather to the law 
and to the testimony. What does God's Word say on these 
issues? And if you're not a believer 
here this morning, I'd like for you to understand what God's 
Word says concerning this issue, because I think everyone should 
understand what God's Word says about everything. The thing I 
want to leave you with this morning is something about marriage that 
is quite beautiful. Paul tells us the marriage between 
a husband and a wife typifies or points to or pictures for 
us something about Jesus and His church. Jesus and His church. And you know what Paul underscores 
Jesus does for His church? gave Himself as a sacrifice for 
her. That's what you need to remember 
today. That Christ went to the cross. The just for the unjust. Christ was our substitute. Christ stood in our place. Christ 
took the wrath of God. Christ exhausted it in His own 
sufferings. Christ paid the debt which we 
all owe. And Christ ultimately rose again 
from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and 
He sits enthroned at the right hand of God Most High. And He 
will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. The 
only way that you will be protected on that day is not because you 
have the bestest understanding of what the Bible says about 
divorce, but because you're found in Him. Because you're holding 
on to Him. Because you, with the hymn writer, 
says, Foul I to the fountain fly, wash me, Savior, or I die. Nothing in my hand I bring, simply 
to thy cross I cling. So please, think about your soul. Christ is coming again to judge 
the living and the dead. Where will you be on that day? Let us pray. Our Father, we thank 
you for the Word of God and for its clarity in these ethical 
matters. And God, help us to operate according to what is 
revealed. Help us not to base our practice on things that are 
extra biblical outside of the Bible. Help us to be faithful 
to the law and to the testimony. I pray God that you would give 
us all a robust and healthy and biblical view of marriage, that 
we would see it in its original intent. Those of us who are married 
would be very thankful to you for having provided that to us. 
For those who are unmarried, God grant them contentment, grant 
them grace, grant them strength to persevere. to be faithful 
in their callings and to bring glory and honor to your most 
high name. Bless our young people, I pray 
they would approach this subject with great care. For those who 
believe the gospel, God most high, instill in their hearts 
the reality that they must marry in the Lord. Be gracious to us 
in these things we pray, through Christ Jesus our Lord, amen.