|
 A
woman writes, "My husband is not a Christian, and he is
about the bitterest person I've ever contacted... has never
asked me to leave, but I can assure you he doesnt act pleased
one bit. She wants comments on 1 Cor. 7:11 and 18.
Reply:
I
am extremely grieved by domestic problems, and have great
sympathy for both parties where unhappiness and bitter
frustration seem their lot. In the case of young couples,
immaturity is often the culprit. Middle-age couples may find it
difficult to get "over the hump" of departed children,
the frustration of unskilled labor pay now that strength ebbs,
or one or both may have become careless in personal habits ---
having forgotten the need to continue cultivation of their
"first love." Now, what if one is a Christian and the
other is not??
First,
we must insist that the "Christian" act like one:
"rendering due benevolence" (1 Cor. 7:3-5); "in
subjection" or "nourishing and cherishing" (Eph.
5:22-29); adorned inwardly with "a meek and quiet
spirit" or "giving honor" (1 Pet. 3:1-7). Even
those antagonistic to "the word" may be won by such
conduct as this. The chronically "bitter" person is
angry or displeased with self, and only
"takes it out" on others. That does not make such
easier to live with, but we way help the partner to better
understand what is taking place. The "Christian"
partner will "suffer long" "is not easily
provoked" etc., (1 Cor. 13:4-7). No one said it was easy!!
1
Cor. 7: emphasizes marriage as the proper sphere for the
God-given sexual urge
| |
(v. 1-9). It is a permanent
relationship (v.10; Matt. 19:5-8) and separation, even for
service to God, must be with caution, and limited, lest we give
Satan advantage (v. 5; Matt. 5:32).
"Pleased
to dwell with" (v. 12-13) means only "consents"
to dwell with. If the unbelieving husband or wife is willing to
continue dwelling with the believing partner, let it be so. Let
not the believer initiate a separation and that includes
"nagging" it into being though that party takes no
legal action. Many a golden (50 yr) marriage exists only after
toughing it through some hard times; and many a broken marriage
leaves two people wishing they had tried harder.
"But
if the unbelieving depart " the believer who did not
want it that way who tried to prevent it from taking place
is not held accountable for failure to keep the marriage
obligations but even this "freedom" is
undesirable. Expositor's note: Two considerations make against
it: Peace is better for a Christian than disruption (15b); and
there is the possibility of saving the unbeliever by
remaining with him, or her (16).
It
is my conviction that if the one who puts away an innocent
party, then forms a new union, the innocent party comes under
the exception made in Matt. 5:32; 19:9. These are not
"divorce laws" however; their nature as
"exception" shows clearly that the sanctity and
permanence of marriage is being emphasized Semantics and
sophistry can not change that!!
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
