Shabbat shalom kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah, and thank you for joining us for the third and the final part of our study of 1 Corinthians 7. I hope you've had time to disgest what we covered last week and the week before. Since the whole of chapter 7 is essentially one theme, it's important that we try to keep all the segments 'together' in our minds because there is a key revelation here that is missed typically by Messianics. There is also another controversial segment we need to examine carefully that again results commonly in mistranslation. The serious students among you will need to do a lot of careful thinking, which won't be easy, but immensely rewarding. It's my prayer that many of you will have what I call an 'Aha!' moment today and that this will open new spiritual doors for you.

Because we have three longish segments to cover to finish the chapter and this study, let's jump into the third segment beginning at verse 17 - we shall continue to use N.T.Wright's Kingdom New Testament (KNT) and adjust that translation when necessary. As before I'll be giving you a number of other Bible versions so that you can better assess the difficulties faced by the translators. This is the key or 'hinge' portion/segment because it gives an overarching context to the two portions we have already looked at, and to the two portions that follow it.

This is the portion that will explain why marriage, circumcision and slavery are grouped together to illustrate a higher principle, one that is usually ignored by certain traditions because it contradicts those traditions. The first sentence is the most important one so I am going to recite parts of it to you in several versions so there is no doubt in your mind as to the original meaning of the author:

"This is the overriding rule: everyone should conduct their lives as the Master (Lord) appointed, as Elohim (God) has called them ('But as Elohim/God has distributed to each one, as the Master has called each one, so let him walk' - NKJV; 'I merely add to the above that each man should live his life with the gifts that the Master has given him in the condition in which Elohim/God has called him' - JBP). This is what I lay down for all the congregations (assemblies, churches). If someone was circumcised when he was called, he shouldn't try to remove the marks ('let him not revert to uncircumcision' - AENT). If someone was uncircumcised when he was called, he shouldn't get circumcised ('let him not become circumcised' - AENT). Circumcision is nothing; uncircumcision is nothing; what matters is keeping Elohim's (God's) mitzvot (commandments)! (cp. Eccl.12:13-14)

"Everyone should stay within the calling ('occupation' - AENT) they had when they were called. Were you a slave when you were called ('when you heard the call' - JPB; 'Don't try to change what you were when Elohim/God called you' - CEV)? Don't worry about it (but if you get the chance of freedom, seize it!). The one who is in the Master (Lord) and called as a slave is the Master's (Lord's) freedman, just as the one who is called as a free person is the Messiah's slave. You were bought at a higher price; don't become the slaves of human beings. So brothers and sisters, let each person remain before Elohim (God) in the state in which they were called ('...whatever situation a person is in when he becomes a Christian, let him stay there, for now the Master is there to help him' - LB)" (1 Cor.7:17-24, KNT).

Now as I intimated at the beginning, we must keep the whole chapter in view here - there is a very real danger in breaking up a chapter like 1 Corinthians 7 (as I have done so as to be able to do justice to it) because it is so easy to lose the thread of where Paul is going, particularly when he starts talking about important issues which clearly he is here. You see, this is a controversial passage that divides the Christian and Messianic communities! It is not, however, fully comprehensible without some historical knowledge, and even then it poses some difficult questions, a reason the two communities are still at loggerheads and another reason why the matter must be resolved and why, I believe, we are called to do that today.

At first glance, this passage looks as though it's about circumcision, on the one hand, and slavery on the other (see the two-part series on Philemon). And, actually it is. However, the bigger question is: why is Paul talking about these things here, in the middle of a chapter on marriage and sex? The answer is this: he's using them as an illustration of a larger point he's making which is repeated no less than three times here (vv.17,20,24), which is this: Don't try to change the status you had when you became a believer.

The point for the larger discussion - the overarching issue - is obvious: you shouldn't feel under any social pressure to get married (on the one hand), or to separate from a spouse if you have one (on the other), whether in the particular Corinthian situation of famine, or other conditions that would soon become commonplace for believers in the Roman Empire like persecution by crazed Emperors who wanted to be viewed as gods, or whether in any cultural or political situation, ancient as well as contemporary.

And we already have a fantastic illustration of this in the story of Joseph of Egypt, who is a Messiah figure, who didn't try to start an emancipation movement when he was sold into slavery or to lead a prison revolt when he was falsely accused by Potiphar's wife for attempted rape but patiently endured. He accepted his situations, trusted in Yahweh, and did his very best to represent his Elohim (God) by becoming a superb moral example. In the end Yahweh changed his situation and elevated him to the premiership of Egypt. He was the very opposite of the first century Jewish ideal of a Maccabbee revolutionary!

OK, so here's our first question: why has Paul chosen these two specific parallel examples? And second, what do we learn about the small stories - circumcision and slavery - when we see them in themselves and as illustrations of the larger issue? What is the larger issue? To answer that, we need to turn to Galatians (Evidence Bible, p.1678):

"For you are all sons of Elohim (God) through emunah (faith) in Messiah Yah'shua (Christ Jesus). For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Yehudi (Judahite, 'Jew') nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all echad (one, united) in Messiah Yah'shua (Christ Jesus). And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal.3:26-29, NKJV).

In other words, the old racial, social and gender distinctions are gone as far as access to salvation is concerned. This applied equally to Judeans as it did to Greeks who had similar distinctions - the Greeks referred to all non-Greeks as 'barbarians' because they regarded all others as inferior as far as being civilised was concerned. Indeed, Paul - as if to snub Greek snobbery and pride - goes out of his way to state that he is "a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise" (Rom.1:14, NKJV).

You see, the Greeks regarded themselves as intellectually superior ("wise") compared to "unwise" (or stupid) "barbarians". Indeed, in his letters he would frequently squash all notions of 'racial superiority', reminding the Colossians that "there is neither Greek nor Yehudi (Judahite, 'Jew'), circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Messiah is all and in all" (Col.3:11, NKJV). Anyone who therefore (for example) calls himself a 'Messianic Jew' or a 'WASP' (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) or a 'Black Israelite' is demonstrating that he is not properly aligned in Christ! All humans matter in the Besorah (Gospel).

As far as your status with Elohim (God) is concerned, it doesn't matter what gender you are, or whether the end of your progenerative organ has been peeled and sliced off, or what 'rank' you have in society (whether one of the élites or one from a 'lower caste'), what matters whether you are "in Christ" or not and are demonstrating it by the way you live. That's the one-and-only dividing line in human society now. All others are of the sin of "the pride of life ('the boasting of what he has and does' - NIV)" (1 Jn.2:16, NKJV).

This is something that political activists in particular have a problem 'getting' (remember always the example of Joseph of Egypt and of Christ Himself): believers should not allow social pressures of whatever sort to force them into thinking that the most important thing they could do was to change their social status into something else - and I stress the words 'most important' because I am not saying that 'social justice' is unimportant (and by that I don't mean in the way the words are used by Marxist postmodernists today). To conform to social pressure, Paul is saying, would be to undermine the very thing he had been urging in the first two chapters, namely, Yahweh chose the nobodies of the world; if the nobodies then decide they want to become somebodies, they end up accusing Elohim (God) of making a bad job of it, wouldn' they?

Because what is one of the first objections to Elohim (God) commonly raised by atheists and agnostics in defence of their unbelief? 'Look at all the injustice in the world!' 'Look at all the inequality and oppression!' Yes, Yahweh will resolve all these issues in the end, and has done at sundry times in history (like abolishing slavery in England through Wilberforce), but right now they aren't the most important thing! The most important thing is that you are a Messiah's man or woman, that you are a son or daughter with a future and an inheritance in the eternities, as well as possessing shalom (peace) and inner well-being in the present so that you can accomplish everything required of you in this life.

But let's not get off topic, important though these points obviously are. In Paul's day Yehudi (Judahite, 'Jewish') men were under enormous pressure. During the conquests by the Ptolemies, Seleucids and the Romans, Judeans were constantly being pressed to assimilate into gentile (pagan) society - to 'go with the stream'. One of the ways they were assimilated was to compete at the Olympic Games. Indeed, Paul uses the Olympics as an illustration in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 where he likens the believer to an athlete competing in a race to win the final crown of salvation through his steadfast faith or faithfulness.

So many a Yehudi (Judahite) in those days pretended they were Greeks or Romans (Gentiles) by getting surgery performed on their male reproductive organ to reverse the circumcision they received when they were 8 days old. Why did they do that? Because Greek athletes competed in the nude and it would soon become apparent whether they were Yehudim (Judahites) pretending to be Gentiles or not. It's how the nazis identified Jews although they got problems when the first American POW's fell into their hands because circumcision was a common medical procedure on American males at birth, done supposedly for hygenic and not for religious reasons (though it's not as common as it was, it still happens in the USA). You'll find a thorough discussion on these and other issues on our Circumcision website. Anyway, male Yehudim (Judahites), who wanted to pretend to be Gentiles in order to be accepted into Gentile society, commonly underwent a rather painful operation in which the skin of their 'male member' was progressively stretched forward to make them appear uncircumcised.

Competitive sports wasn't the only place where Hellenised Yehudi (Judahite) men had to go naked - there were also the Roman public baths where important socialising and business transactions took place - and in their gymnasiums where they did their exercises. So, you see, to 'get' anywhere in Gentile society, Yehudim (Judahites) had to make sure they visibly had the right 'biological credentials' that in Judean culture were properly concealed. (If you want to know nhow sacred modesty is, in males as well as females, read the account of Noah when he got drunk in Genesis 9:20-23). So this is another example of social pressure peculiar to that age.

Ironically, had these decircumcised Yehudi (Judahite) men turned up at the Temple in Jerusalem and been inspected for the outward sign in the flesh of the covenent, they would have been prevented from entering the House of Yahweh. So they practiced deception both to the Gentile community they were so desperate to be a part of and to their own people, a reason Hellenised Jews were so despised by the strictly Torah-obedient ones.

Paul knew from the Galatian situation and elsewhere that Gentile men who attached themselves to the Jewish synagogue or who became Christian might come under pressure from Jewish groups to get circumcised. Paul sweeps aside all such social and cultural pressures with a wonderful statement: neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters at all wheoever you are, whatever your religious, social or cultural background - what matters, he says, is keeping Elohim's (God's) mitzvot (commandments)!

And here's where the modern controversies start and I am going to let a Messianic, Gabriel Roth, tell his problem and rationalisation in his own words:

"This (v.19) is the key verse of the whole discourse in this chapter (1 Cor.7). Making circumcision into a tradition and distorting it into something other than what is intended by YHWH is to bring it to "nothing". Most Christians tend to read "circumcision is nothing" and stop there, as if that is the message Rav Shaul is sending out. But they fail to grasp the last line, because if keeping YHWH's commandments is what counts, circumcision is most definitely one of those commandments. The Renewed Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8) was given to the house of Israel and Judah, but includes all others who join, meaning that the Renewed Covenant is not just a 'Jewish thing' nor is there a division between what Jews observe and what 'Elohim-fearing' non-Jewish disciples of Y'shua observe. The Kingdom of Elohim is open for all souls to enter, and we are all called into His Kingdom on His terms, not ours" [1].

This is what I call one of the ultra-messianic positions which we have dealt with before in some depth. It sounds pretty reasonable and authoritative, but the reasoning is actually full of holes. There are lots of problems here:

• 1. The belief of many Messianics that we belong, not to an entirely New Covenant but, to a 'Renewed' Old Covenant (you'll hear the word 'renewed' used by them all the time). True, some parts of the Old Covenant have been 'renewed' or 'carried over', like the moral and ethical laws (though some - like the grounds for divorce - were made stricter by Christ as part of His restoration work), but more importantly the Old Covenant has been entirely swept away (not to be confused with the mitsvot or commandments themselves - these are two entirely different theological categories), and a New and "better" one installed, on the basis of "better promises" (Heb.8:6). One Messianic ministry, honest enough to admit the Book of Hebrews contradicts the idea of a 'Renewed' Covenant, at least is consistent in rejecting the Book of Hebrews, based on a false assumption, rather than attempt to twist it as ultra-messianics tend to do. That's my first criticism of Roth's assessment;

• 2. Quite clearly a whole swathe of commandments, especially those concerned with animal sacrifices and the Levitical Priesthood that administered them, have been fulfilled and therefore set aside in the New Covenant. Roth makes the assumption that Paul's reference to "keeping Elohim's (God's) commandments" (v.19, KNT) must include the mitzvah (commandment) to circumcise all males, is a huge assumption given that so many of the former Old Covenant mitzvot (commantdments) have been plainly decommissioned, having fulfilled their purpose in pointing to Christ and His atonement, namely, the bulk of the Ceremonial Torah or Law which is so necessary to the temporary system of pre-messianic Judaism (see The Cult of Circumcision); and

• 3. As we have seen - which is the whole point of this sermon - the wider context of 1 Corinthians 7 is about living as we were called when we converted. Now that can't obviously apply to everything in everyone's past life. Some may have been prostitutes when they converted, or thieves or assassins, but that clearly does not mean prostitutes, thieves and assassins should remain prostitutes, thieves and assassins, does it? Paul specifically names three areas where we are to remain the way we were unless we are given opportunity, at some point, to change our profession: married/unmarried, circumcised/uncircumcised and slaves/freedmen. If Paul had wanted to include more categories he could have, but he didn't.

What Roth and other Messianics have to grapple with, like the Talmudic Rabbis of the first century, is that Yahweh never intended circumcision to become the supreme, or permanent, badge of righteousness, but has been replaced by a new symbol, baptism which isn't just for adult male Hebrews but for male and female converts of all races. (We won't get into the controversy over Jewish ritual baths or mikveh today, but see Temple for His Name: IV. Baptism and Circumcision).

This is an entirely new arrangement, not a renewal of the old one. So circumcision isn't one of those mitzvot (commandments) of the B'rit Chadashah or New Covenant otherwise Paul would never have told Hellenised and Torah-strict Yehudim (Judahites, 'Jews') to remain uncircumcised or circumcised, respectively. The state of a man's 'middle wicket' means nothing in the New Covenant, even if it was important before, because membership in Elohim's (God's) family is now based on a new starting point (faith in Messiah and adult confession) and a reconfigured set of Torah criteria. Membership in Elohim's (God's) Family is not at birth anymore (as it mostly was back then) - we aren't naturally, but supernaturally, born into the Father's Kingdom.

At the other end of the spectrum of interpretation is the ultra-christian orthodox (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox) position, which basically says the Torah of commandments has been 'done away with' in Christ by being "nailed to the cross" (Col.2:14, NKJV) so 'obviously' the Law of Moses is 'out of the way' and we don't need to bother about it anymore.

Though in truth it is the penalties for Torah violation that have been nailed to the cross, which we can appropriate to ourselves upon proper repentance and life-long comittment to Christ, Roman and Greek Christians have taken this one stage further and interpreted - incorrectly - Paul's easy-to-misunderstand teachings to say that Yahweh, the Law-giver, has got rid of all His laws completely and is now leaving it to individual Christians to act based on subjective feelings - what their hearts say is 'right' or 'wrong'. (I realise there are lots of different ways orthodox Christians approach this subject but we don't have time to get into those today).

Yet what does Paul say, unequivocably? If you're circumcised, stay that way - don't have a 'decircumcision' operation (not that anyone would likely be bothred these days since such social pressure does not exist anymore). If you're uncircumcised, stay that way - don't get circumcised. This is an indisputable instruction to Gentiles not to get circumcised, to Hellenised Jews not to recircumcise and to regular Jews not to decircumcise because none of that is relevent anymore - it belongs to the thinking and practices of an expired Old Covenant. There are just no two ways about this. You have to decide whether Paul was an apostle or not (be very, very careful if you say he isn't and go down that dangerous path - I have known so many shipwreck their faith taking that route - 1 Tim.1:19). Peter, the chief apostle, acknowledged him so who are any of us to ignorantly and arrogantrly dismiss him? (2 Pet.3:14-18)

Then there's another position which is held by most 'Messianic Jews', namely, that there are two different communities of Elohim's (God's) people abiding by different rules - Jews and Gentiles: 'the Jewish community must be circumcised but the Gentile one doesn't need to be', they claim. David Stern's paraphrase, the Jewish New Testament (JNT) and its follow-up , the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) is slanted in that direction. But as I pointed out, Paul repudiates any idea of there being two peoples of Elohim (God) - three, if you're a Zionist who believes Elohim (God) still accepts Messiah-rejecting Jews as an altogether separate, parallel covenant, with ultra-Zionist Protestsant Christians like John Hagee saying we shouldn't evangelise Jews because they don't need to be saved because of that covenant - they don't even need Yah'shua (Jesus), they claim! There has only ever been ONE COVENANT COMMUNITY at any one time and right now there is no way to the Father except through Christ (Jn.14:6) because Yahweh Himself has declared it (Mt.17:5; Mk.9:7; Lk.9:35).

Then there's N.T.Wright's novel explanation of this message in which he claims Paul was being "provocatively amusing" and then, as an Anglican Protestant, gives the usual orthodox Christian spiel about the fate of the Law that has supposedly been bludgeoned to death by the Cross. This is how he puts it:

"Paul knew as well as any other Jew that circumcision was itself one of God's commandments, and I think he meant verse 19 to be deliberately and provocatively amusing. Somehow, he is saying (in ways we need the letter to the Romans to explain), there is a new sort of 'obedience to the commandments' which has come into being through the Messiah and the Spirit. That's what counts; so don't let yourself be pressured into seeking to change your social status one way or the other. In the Messiah you already have all the status you will ever need" [2].

Oh boy, an ingeneous explanation to be sure but potentially misleading. I know Paul sometimes gets sarcastic which is sometimes hard to 'see' when you're reading the text literally without knowing something about the character of the man. In another famous passage on circumcision in which he says the circimcision party shouldn't just get circumcised but go all the way and emasculate themselves as well, because they are working against the Besorah (Gospel). "If you let yourselves be circumcised," he says, "Christ will be of no value to you at all" (Gal.5:2, NIV), because physical circumcision doesn't matter any more in the New Covenant. I don't think somehow Paul would joke around with, let alone gentle mock, the mitzvot (commandments), do you? So I can't agree with Wright.

I won't share David Stern's Messianic Jewish inbetween 'explanation' in his otherwise excellent and very useful ground-breaking Commentary on the Jewish New Testament (JNT) [3] because it is very long and convoluted, as well as being contradictory and we would need a whole sermon just to untangle his mess, and indeed the whole mess of Messianic Judaism which sadly, in many quarters, has racial supremacist overtones. Though they will admit non-Jews if they get circumcised, these 'gentile' converts tend to be treated as second-class citizens, the very opposite of what Christ and Paul taught. As I have preached many times, I see no rational basis for the existence of Messianic Judaism except as maybe a transition to the fullness. It seems to me it exists because Jews don't want to let go of all the Talmudic evolved cultural and religious traditions, and they especially want to avoid being ostracised in the Republic of Israel where they are rejected by nearly all regular Jews anyway. It's a compromise that re-establishes the old "wall of hostility" (Eph.2:14) or partition between 'Jews and Gentiles' which Yah'shua (Jesus) died to tear down.

The rest of this segment is about slavery which I have already covered extensively in several past sermons, including one earlier this year on Paul's letter to Philemon about a runaway slave called Onesimus. These days there are all sorts of slavery, particularly political, not just the kind that Paul wrote about (which is still going on in Islamic countries along with the whole vile sex-trafficking industry), but within totalitarian systems, for example, where freedoms are highly restricted and where persecution can be a way of life. Having operated behind the former Iron Curtain in communist East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ukraine, this is the kind of 'slavery' we need to discuss in our day and age.

Paul's basic message to the Corinthians is this: you shouldn't constantly be seeking to be free as though everything depended on it, anymore than Joseph of Egypt did. He also said that if you are free, don't go and get enslaved to someone else, for you will remember that in those days people could sell themselves as slaves to pay off debts, though it was far less common than slaves seeking to be set free. If you can find a legitimate way to get free of slavery, Paul says, grab it! The message is: don't spend all your time worrying about how to get free, but serve honestly and honourably like Joseph of Egypt and thereby be a witness for Christ. Some masters and mistresses anciently were good people and their slaves loved them and desired to remain with them, but that was not always so, particularly in the non-Torah conditions of the Gentile world which were often brutal and upon which the economy depended.

The overarching message of this segment is clear: Yahweh's calling through the Besorah (Gospel) through which unbelievers come to faith, is far more important than social, cultural or political status. We are to resist both the subtle and not-so-subtle pressures put on us to either 'fit in' and 'be accepted' that would require compromising the Besorah (Gospel) as the Hellenists did within first century Judaism, and therefore not to make status our over-arching goal, and not to try to force other believers to imitate the pagan culture around us with promises of self-esteem, power, influence, wealth, etc., which should be of no interest to us. Everything else in 1 Corinthians 7 basically centers on this theme.

This brings us back to the subject of marriage and sex. Paul now addresses another aspect, so let's read the next portion beginning at verse 25 and I'll include alternative readings from Magiera's messianic English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta this time to make the text a little richer and more interesting:

"Now when it comes to unmarried people ('virginity' - Peshitta), I have no mitzvah (command) from the Master (Lord), but I give my opinion as (thanks to the Master's/Lord's mercy) a trustworthy person ('I give counsel as a man who has obtained mercy from Elohim (God) to be faithful' -Peshitta). This, then, is what I think is for the best: just at the moment we are in the middle of a very difficult time, and it's best for people to remain as they are. Are you bound to a wife? Don't try to dissolve the marriage ('seek divorce' - Peshitta). Have you had your marriage dissolved ('Are you divorced from a wife?' - Peshitta)? Don't look for another wife. But if you do marry ('take a wife' - Peshitta), you are not sinning, and if an unmarried woman marries, she is not sinning. But people who go that way will have trouble at a human level ('in the [physical] body' - Peshitta), and I would prefer to spare you that.

"This is what I mean, my brothers and sisters. The present situation (famine) won't last long ('the time is now shortened' - Peshitta); for the moment (while the crisis lasts), let those who have wives live as though they weren't married, those who weep as though they were not weeping, those who celebrate as though they were not celebrating, those who buy as though they had nothing, those who use ('are occupied with' - Peshitta) the world as though they were not making use of it. The pattern ('fashion' - Peshitta) of this world, you see, is passing away" (1 Cor.7:25-31, KNT).

So we're back to Corinth and its famine and the problems associated with marriage and raising a family under such abnormal, challenging circumstances, of which this life has plenty to be sure. No problems from my side, this is all sound counsel from a trustworthy witness, even if, as he admits, it's just his "opinion". How you unpack that in our yown life is entirely up to you, the more so when there is terrible persecution going on, and little is 'nornmal' under those circunstances. Read George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, if you want to know what I mean by 'not normal', humanly-speaking. It's an extreme example but that's the kind of world we are now heading towards where children are born having no idea what 'normal' is save what their parents tell them. So tell them and give them normal homes in the midst of abnormality as best you can until you can gather with the Remnant for the Final Exodus.

Back in the 1970's and 80's I was involved with a Christian organisation in Germany called Friedenstimme which helped support the persecuted Baptists of the then communist Soviet Union who refused to register and come under Bolshevik control but preferred to remain independent and underground. I could tell you a lot of stories! One thing I remember, though, was all the orphaned and semi-orphaned children of Pastors, their wives, and others who were sent to the Gulags, some never to return. They had to be raised by others in the congregation and in many cases never saw their parents for years, even decades. We used to organise money being sent to help buy food for these stricken families, amongst other things (like smuggling in Bibles and petitioning the Soviet government for the release of prisoners) so I know what it is like for persecuted Christians trying to raise families in a totalitarian state.

I'll tell you one thing which you may find surprising - in so many ways the children were left alone by the authorities in that brutal, murderous communist state unlike in the West where Social Services often kidnap children, sell them to pedophiles, and wreck families [4]. Things have got so much more evil in our day but in more subtle ways that we don't hear so much about anymore, because the greater the wickedness, the deeper the darkness this refuse of society operate out of. That's why, I suspect, many of the last generation will not get married or raise children. The Corinthian situation on 51 AD was in so many ways a foreshadowing of days to come over the centuries.

Layered on top of this really common sense counsel seems to be Paul's own belief that the Second Coming was imminent and so, the reasoning goes, there really wasn't any point starting new families, as the Great Tribulation would soon be along. If that's the case then Paul was wrong, but so was the whole Messianic Community (Church) at that time because they really though Christ would return in their generation. And then there's another layer of counsel which basically said that, if you could do it and were called by Yahweh to do it, it was preferable to be single and to devote yourself full-time to the work of the Besorah (Gospel) to save as many as possible in the time left. Though he doesn't mention it, we must assume that most who followed this path of voluntary, emergency-provoked celibacy, had regular jobs, as Paul did as a tent-maker when he needed to be. They weren't scroungers.

So you can picture those first believers, well tutored in the Scriptures by Paul and others like Sosthenes (1 Cor.1:1) who, if was the same Sosthenes and former ruler of the Jewish Synagogue in Corinth (Ac.18:17), would, one supposes, have been well versed in the Torah. Paul was in Corinth for 1½ years and they must have heard this message repeated many, many times, in some form or another:

"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed -- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.' 'O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?'" (1 Cor.15:51-55, NKJV).

Now if you had been hearing this message over and over again for 18 months to lots of eager listeners, and if you believed that this was about to be literally fulfilled, might you not have been persuaded to forego marriage and raising a family? And during the local famine, at least, it was additionally very practical advice from the apostle who gave his opinion as "a truthworthy person" (v.25, KNT). These were the years when, you must remember, the Besorah (Gospel) was preached with fire and miracles were relatively commonplace. Paul, as we saw last week, has solved the problem of the ultra-conservatives wanting to force everyone to be celibate and the less enthusiastic who wanted to marry 'a.s.a.p' (as soon as possible) and give vent to their untamed, testosterone-driven passions. Now it was a matter of choice. And free agency, as we must stress again and again, is so important.

Paul left Corinth in AD 51 and right around that time, as is known, and for a few years afterwards - exactly the period between his leaving and his writing this letter - there was a severe shortage of grain, the most basic foodstuff, around the Greek world. So this was more than a local failure - this likely affected a good portion of the eastern portion of the Roman Empire. Other people writing around the same time mention this crisis, so we know Paul was speaking the truth. The Roman colonists in Corinth had taken it for granted that Rome would keep them safe and provided for - militarily protected and well fed. Suddenly the food had run out and the colonists were wondering if something had gone horribly wrong. As in all famines, the poor feel the pinch the hardest, and the believers in Corinth were poor (1 Cor.1:26). People wondered if it might get worse because they could see the immediate effects of the crisis.

It is natural - and indeed this has happened in every age where there has been a crisis - that the thoughts of those suffering would turn to apocalpytic prophecy of the end times. Even unbelievers do it and you may remember not so long ago the great anxiety over the pagan Mayan prophecies over the world ending in 2012, with New Agers and others getting exceedingly anxious and then, after the event failed to materialise, re-interpreting it. They're no different from thre rapturists and others who lap up the babblings of the false prophets of lawless Christendom. People are doing it now in 2020 because the more astute and informed - those with a prophetic leaning - see the writing on the wall for our Western civilisation. This is our 'Corinthian crsis' though the 'faminine' concerns, amongst other things, a lack of truth (Amos 8:11).

Could Paul, in actual fact, have been simultaneously referring to both the local crisis and to the ultimate crisis at the end of the æon (age), by juxtaposing the two together? That is not unusual in the prophetic literature of the Bible. We see, for example, how the judgment and doom of the city state of Tyre are conflated with the fall and judgment of Lucifer (Heylel) or Satan himself in Ezekiel 26, so it is distinctly possible, in which case I may have misjudged Paul. Put yourself in Paul's place: could the apostle have been using the second and ultimate historical crisis-to-come to colour in the warnings which apply to the first, as N.T.Wright believes? I can agree that is a distinct possibility. So even if the present crisis (famine) suddenly comes to an end, if wonderful crops and plentiful food again fill the markets of Corinth and everywhere else in the eastern Roman Empire, there will still be the final crisis to come. Like I said, I think this is very like our present crisis, which will pass, but the Great Tribulation and Final Judgment will yet come later on down the timeline, within the lifetime of many, or all, of my children, at any rate.

So if N.T.Wright is right, then verse 29 doesn't necessarily mean that world history only had a short time left - it could well mean, as Wright translates it, that the present crisis can't last forever, so it is better to do nothing drastic at the moment. In that situation, then (Paul is saying) - and I think this is supported by the Aramaic text as we'll see in a bit - betrothed (not "engaged" as many translations wrongly say) couples might want to consider postponing their marriages rather than cancelling them outright (which would, in any case, be a violation of Torah). That seems to be what's at stake in these verses and in verses 32-38 which follow. That interpretation makes the best sense to me. These verses have nothing to do with the anti-Torah notion of contracting sexless marriages for the sake of spiritual advancement - that's a pagan Greek idea that slipped into Roman Catholicism and (to a lesser extent) Eastern Orthodoxy, not a Hebrew one. And I, for one, am always very supicious of theological interpretations that go against the grain - or grate against the phronema of the Torah out of which the New Covenant naturally arises. Like I said, some of the Old Covenant is being 'renewed' in the New, a sizeable chunk, in fact, something Protestants silently and unconsciously acknowledge when they turn to the Tanakh (Old Testament) to justify certain types of moral behaviour and to repudiate moral behaviour because their subjective feelings, wrongly labelled the 'Holy Spirit', frequently clash. You see, then, that we can't actually do withour law...without the Torah. Common sense, really, so stop misreading Paul, get a grip of your wayward imaginations, and stop hammering it to the cross!

Another not unimportant point and something that needs to be factored in to Paul's remarks about marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 is this: we have to remember that this is a first century AD pagan Roman Colony in Greece when couples would be betrothed at an early age and frequently through arranged marriages. Girls would often marry at puberty, around the age of 12, and had frequently been 'promised' to someone well before that. So here would be yet another social pressure to be combatted and dealt with, something that still happens in parts of the world like India, for example.

In fact I knew an Indian man who had been 'betrothed' and 'married' in this way when he and his 'bride' were still Hindus. He eventually came to England and converted but she only made a nominal conversion under pressure from her husband and later reverted to Hinduism, and I found myself, as a young Pastor, trying to sort this mess out. Ironically, she was a decent woman and he was not a nice man, with a ton of issues. In the end the marriage fell apart, with encouragement from the liberal culture of the 1980's in which all this happened. Sad to say, the mess never got resolved. I share this simply to illustrate the kind of marriage problems that undoubtedly faced Paul in Corinth and elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world. And the problems persist in our day, making 1 Corinthians 7 such invaluable pastoral counsel when used correctly.

So back to Corinth. Some of these betrothals lasted for many, many years so you can picture the anxious couples (assuming some were happy with the set-up of arranged marriage) wanting to consummate their marriages and become fully married and to start building a life together. Then along comes a famine that messes all their plans up. The culture would have put social pressure on the betrothed couple to get fully married and bear children anyway. Paul wants to help these young folks who want to be responsible new parents in times of a national disaster as well as wanting to share their newly found salvation with others - they were being pulled in three directions! So the apostle builds on the former verses, saying, 'who you are as a Christian/Messianic matters much more than changing your social status, so don't be worried about whether you may need to postpone your marriage. It's not a problem.' Does that make sense?

Remember, the new Corinthian qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) are being asked to do nothing less than reorient their entire worldview to dovetail in with the Besorah (Gospel) and the Torah. That was a huge leap to make from raw paganism as anyone working in the mission field will know in a non-Christian culture. Yet the present world will one day pass away and give way to an entirely new world in which Yah'shua (Jesus) will have completed His work in defeating all hostile powers, including, ultimately, death itself. And when that happens, it won't matter in the least whether you followed some social order or pattern in the way that your family and friends all assumed that you would. What will matter is that you were faithful to Yah'shua (Jesus) in whatever strange circumstances you may have found yourself in, and that is the main point that Paul is going to make in the concluding segment or portion.

So if you'd like to join with me in turning to verse 32 we'll take it to the end of the chapter. I need to forewarn you, so you are prepared, that verses 36-38 are very different in the Aramaic than they are in the Greek, so that is going to pose a real problem for some accustomed only to the Greek-based English translations which most people use:

"I want you to be free from worries. The unmarried man worries about the things of the Master (Lord), how to please the Master (Lord); but the married man worries about the things of the world, in other words, how to please his wife - and he is pulled in both directions. So too the unmarried woman or girl ('maiden' - AENT) worries about the things of the Master (Lord), how to be qadosh (holy, set-apart) both in body and ruach (spirit); but the married woman worries about the things of the world, in other words, how to please her husband.

"I'm saying this for your own benefit. I'm not placing restrictions on ('laying a snare for' - HRV) you; my aim is that nothing will get in the way of your appropriate behaviour and steady ('undivided' - JNT) devotion to the Master (Lord).

"If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly towards his fiancée ('mocked by his unmarried [daughter]' - HRV; 'his maiden (daughter)' - RSTNE) - if he finds the situation overly stressful ('who is past her time' - HRV; 'if she is past the marriage age' - RSTNE; 'and he has not presented her to her husband' - AENT), and matters reach a point of necessity ('and it is fitting that he present her' - AENT) - then let him do as he wishes, he won't be sinning: let them marry ('let her be married' - AENT). But the man who settles it firmly in his heart and is not under necessity, but in control of his own will, and has made his judgment in his own heart to keep her as his fiancée ('keep his fiancée as a virgin' - JNT; 'that he keep his maiden (daughter)', AENT), will do well. So the one who marries his fiancée ('And therefore, he who presents his maiden (daughter)' - AENT) will do well ('acts very beautifully (righteously)' - AENT); and the man who holds back from marrying will do better"

"A woman is bound in marriage ('by Torah' - HRV, 'married by the Torah' - RSTNE) as long as her husband lives (Dt.24:1ff.). But if the husband dies she is free to marry anyone she likes, only ('provided he is a believer' - JNT) in the Master (Lord). But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think I too have the Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God)" (1 Cor.7:32-40, KNT).

Before we dig into this text, we need to make a comparison between the Aramaic and a literal translation like the New King James Version (NKJV) of verses 36-38. I'll state right off that I believe the Aramaic to be the correct of the two versions. We don't have time for going into the issues surrounding the Aramaic vs. the Greek versions of the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) and for those not familiar with them, I'd like to invite you to study the Introduction to the Hebraic Roots Version, other than to mention that this was the language spoken by Christ and the apostles.

So what we're going to do now is read the Aramaic English New Testament (AENT) translation of 1 Corinthians 7:33-28 which agrees with the Hebraic Roots Version (HRV), both of which we use regularly, plus the English translation by Janet Magiera of the Aramaic Peshitta, and then I am going to quote the New King James Version (NKJV) which I'd invite you to follow as the read the AENT:

[Aramaic reading]: "But if anyone thinks he (that is, the father) is acting wrongly on account of his maiden (daughter), because she has passed her time, and he has not presented her to a husband, (and) if it be fitting that he present her; let him do his own will, he does not sin; let her be married. But he (the father) who has firmly determined in his own mind and nothing compels him and he can act his own pleasure, and he so judges in his heart that he keep his maiden (daughter) [unmarried], he acts beautifully (righteously). And therefore, he who presents his maiden (daughter) [for marriage] acts beautifully (righteously); and he who does not present his maiden (daughter) [for marriage] acts very beautifully (righteously)" (1 Cor.7:36-38, AENT).

One of the reasons we can know that Paul wrote this in Aramaic before having it translated into Greek is that he uses an Aramaic word, shapira literally meaning "beautiful". It sounds strange in English to us because in Aramaic beauty and righteousness are used interchangeably. The Greek translator translated it into "you do well" which loses some of the meaning.

To the Hebraic mind, righteousness is a thing of beauty, with wisdom being compared to a beautiful woman as in the first chapters of Proverbs. Here the father of the bride-to-be is a picture of our Heavenly Father (or Messiah) and the bride-to-be is Israel, the Messianic Bride, betrothed at Shavu'ot (Weeks or 'Pentecost') and fully married at Sukkot (Tabernacles).

Now let's listen to the English translation of the Greek again but using a more literal version, the NKJV, and notice the disjunction and confusion:

[Greek reading]: "But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry. Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better" (1 Cor.7:36-38, NKJV).

The NKJV has at least got verse 38 right, bringing in the girl's father, which N.T.Wright jumbles up a bit in his KNT version. In reality, the girl's father enters the scene at verse 36, so these three verses (vv.36-38) should rightly be viewed as a separate paragraph - the betrothed husband exits the picture and the betrothed wife's father replaces him as the main character. Like the bridegoom's father, who also has a rôle (though Paul does not mention him here), the bride's father plays a vital rôle: in such an emergency (famine) he can intervene and decide whether he should give his daughter away in full marriage or not. If he refuses to, he eacts with exemplary righteousness or 'beauty', because he's putting the welfare of his daughter first.

Indeed, you could make a legitimate midrash out of this passage by assigning the bride the rôle of a typical believer fired up with passion and longing for his or her companion yet doing the right thing by asking Yahweh's permission to get married in prayer and Him either replying by saying either a loving 'No' (because the timing is wrong and could led to serious trouble, as in a famine or persecution) or Him saying a loving 'Yes' (because it is now safe and it therefore indeed the assigned hour for marriage). The original Aramaic therefore conveys even more wisdom than the blurred Greek translation and is therefore greatly to be preferred. A hormone-crazed believer-in-love might not appreciate the extra guardrail but the minister or marriage guidance counsellor surely has need of this divine wisdom. So don't knock the Hebraic original!

Paul clearly does not think it to be impossible for married people to simultaneously serve both Yahweh and one's marriage partner. He knows lots of married believers, including most of the other apostles (1 Cor.9:5) and he doesn't imagine for one moment the two callings - ministry and marriage - are mutually exclusive. But there's a famine on, times are hard, particularly for newlyweds, who would be rightly eager to build up their marriage relationship by pouring themselves into thinking what would make their newly acquired spouse happy. Remember, that as betrothed spouses, they're not living together yet, but in their respective parents' homes, so the fathers, as heads, are still involved in some key decision-making processes until full marriage occurs - the father of the Bridegroom in giving the greenlight to marry once his son has prepared a home for his new brige, and the father of the Bride in giving the greenlight once he's convinced it is safe for his daughter to raise a family. This is part and parcel of the wisdom of divinely instituted righteous patriarchy, the rôle of which (as we can see here) is protective, a rôle it can only perform through years of accumulated wisdom through experience which the youngsters entering marriage don't yet have a whole lot of.

We know this perspective is true because in Ephesians 5:22-33 we find described that self-giving ahavah or agapé love of husband to wife, and the answering love of wife to husband, and that this is richly pleasing to Yahweh, gloriously reflecting His image in the relationship between Himself and the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) or Heavenly Mother. But in times of social and economic distress it may simply be impossible to do both things well - to find out and do what will please Yahweh, working for the Besorah (Gospel) in whatever way one is called to do, and to find out and do what will build up a new marriage relationship. And if there's ever a choice between the two, Paul is absolutely clear: one's service to Elohim (God) belongs first. That is the substance of the the message of this chapter.

As we have pointed out before, Paul is not laying down hard and fast rules. He's trying to teach the Corinthians to think clearly, wisely, and above all, in a Christ-like manner about delicate issues where there is no absolute right and wrong. In our own day, there are many who have ignored his wise advice and have rushed ahead into marriage and into a new sphere of Christian work or service, assuming that because Yahweh has brought them together the complex business of learning to work for the Besorah (Gospel) and the complex business of learning to live as a couple will somehow fall into place. This simply can't be assumed. The sorry story of marriage tensions and breakups among Christian/Messianic workers in recent times bears witness to the dangers.

Notice, would you, the first words of this segment: "I want you to be free from worries (anxieties)" (v.32, KNT). They are so destructive spiritually and physically. Trouble a home can seriously hinder, and sometimes destroy, our first and most important calling, which is service to our Elohim (God). Sometimes Paul simply tells believers to put their anxieties away, trusting in Yah'shua (Jesus) for everything, as in his letter to the Philippians where he said, "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to Elohim (God). And the shalom (peace) of Elohim (God), which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Messiah Yah'shua (Christ Jesus)" (Phil.4:6-7, NIV). But maybe that 'trusting Yah'shua (Jesus) for everything' will involve taking steps to make sure that one is not placing unnecessary burdens of anxiety upon oneself - and upon those to whom one is bound in ties of human love.

Now, this isn't a way of saying that 'the Master helps those who help themselves' but it's a way of reminding Yahweh's people that when we pray for something, part of the answer to the prayer may be some action that lies in our own power 'to do or not to do'. There's no point in praying for safety on the road while persisting in driving dangerously, or praying for a happy marriage if you have chosen to disobey the mitzvah (commandment) not to marry an unbeliever (2 Cor.6:14).

So I repeat, Paul is not opposing marriage itself but he warns that impatience and uncontrolled urges can cause serious trouble. Entering a marriage presumptuously, without Yahweh's permission or without heeding parents' counsel, can create great difficulties and unhappiness, and seriously impede, if not sink completely, the work which we have been called by Elohim (God) to do on earth and which is integral to our sense of well-being and joy. There is a time and season for all things, and raising a new family in the middle of a protracted famine, in wartime, or in days of persecution may be highly irresponsible if not outright foolish leading to bitter regret. Paul wishes to spare believers that unnecessary hardship and heart-break - there's quite enough for faithful believers to contend with already to add more than we were designed to be able to carry.

The segment and chapter end with a kindly word to widows as they apparently tended to outlive their husbands back then as they still do today. Widows, says Paul, are free to marry but only to believers, to committed born-again Christians/Messianics. And such may have come under social pressure to remarry for any number of reasons, and again Paul wants them to resist the pressure. "I think I too have Elohim's (God's) Ruach (Spirit)", he adds, not, I think because he is unsure that he is inspired, but perhaps with a modest wink in his eye to make it known that those Greek Corinthians, who thought themselves so wise unlike the "barbarians" might not after all be so wise, given the way they had already split into factions over whether to ban marriage altogether or go to the opposite extreme and head for the whorehouse. Again, he's not saying his wisdom is binding in all cases, but that it should be taken seriously.

We live in dangerous times, times of crisis, and such pastoral advice is important. This is not a time to be pig-headed and stubborn as some of the Corinthians were. We need to be sure we have our priorities right. This chapter is an amazing exercise in pastoral diplomacy which given how Paul can sometimes be exceedingly blunt if not downright sarcastic, makes it all the more valuable. Of course, at other times in matters over which there is no discussion and where unquestioning obedience is absolutely required, this chapter is also a reminder to us to find the proper balance in things.

I hope this has been helpful and I'm sorry I have run way over my time limit but I didn't want to drag it out another week and so lessen the impact of the overall message by having to repeat myself and offer summaries again. Until next week, may Yahweh bless you and help you to find your shalom (peace) for both the little and bigger decisions you may be called to make in this time of much stress. If there are topics or scriptures you'd like me to address, be sure to contact me and let me know. Yahweh bless you all in Yah'shua (Jesus)! Amen.

Endnotes

[1] Gabriel Roth, Aramaic English New Testament - 5th edition (Netsari Press, USA: 2012), p.510, footnote #25
[2] Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (SPCK, London: 2014), p.87
[3] David H.Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (JNT Publications, Inc., Clarksville, Maryland: 1995), pp.454-457
[4] See my website on the collectivisation of family life in Sweden

Acknowledgements