Shabbat shalom kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah, and thank you for joining us for the second part of our study of 1 Corinthians 7 which is going to be a tough one for some. But like I said last week, we make it a point to address tough questions because they do need answering, especially when it comes to human relationships and the lifestyle expected of faithful talmidim (disciples).

I must admit I did not personally want to do this sermon for the simple reason it is so controversial, but the Ruach (Spirit) made it clear it had to be done even if it meant some of our listeners tuning out and never coming back, which for us, I have to say, is nothing especially new, particularly in this day and age where people so easily take offense over trivialities. I'd be grateful to have as few interruptions or questions until the end otherwise we will likely go off on lots of tangents and lose the main thread. I do try to antipate your questions in advance so most sermon series do cover them eventually.

There are already people upset with us this year for not endorsing Christmas or Hanukkah, which started three days ago for most Jewish and Messianic communities, with one irritated person saying we should better use our time sharing the Gospel instead! We do both, and over 90 per cent of the time we do share the Gospel. People will always find excuses and erect straw-man arguments to not deal with the truth. But that's not a luxury believers can embrace. Yah'shua (Jesus) said that the Ruach (Spirit) would guide us into "all truth" (John 16:13, NKJV), not just particular areas of salvational theology, and not just the bits that sit easily with us or make us feel comfortable. He also intimated that these daily adjustments to our thinking, feeling and behaving that make us uneasy or cause us to squirm, are all a part of living lives of authentic repentance. No pain, no gain.

I'll admit that what I want to talk about today makes me uncomfortable because I don't enjoy stirring the pot. I know exactly how people react. The first segment we are going to look at, part 2 of the 5 parts I mentioned last week, is notoriously badly translated, because people don't know - including renowned and extremely brainy scholars like N.T.Wright (whose translation we shall be again using, if only to make a point) - the meaning of some really key biblical words, distorted as they have become thanks to centuries of twisted theology and cultural blindness and prejudice. This has necessarily made me a controversial and, at times, disliked minister and teacher because I insist the original biblical meanings be used and not the stuff evolved over the centuries, however much they may grate against our hypersensitive PC acculturation. Instead of maturing, we are de-maturing. As I don't want to get sidetracked by controversy or stoke up passions, I am now going to give the bible definitions of key terms, based upon the whole council of Scripture, and if anyone has trouble with any of these because of various traditions or personal issues, they can study the links to the various articles that expand on them that I'll leave. There are hundreds of them so no one can say I haven't treated the subject exhaustively. After we have defined terms, we will better be able to understand what Paul is talking about in the second segment of chapter 7.

Here, then, is a very abridged dictionary of definitions of key words connected with marriage, which is the topic under discussion:

• 1. Marriage is the life-long covenant agreement and union, sanctioned and blessed by Elohim (God), between a man and one (e.g. Adam/Eve, Isaac/Rebekah,Joseph/Asenath,Joseph/Mary,Peter/Mrs.Peter) or more (e.g. Abraham/Sarah,Hagar,Keturah, etc., Jacob/Leah,Rachel,Bilhah,Zilpah & David/Michal,Ahinoam,Abigail,Maacha,Haggith,Abital,Eglah,Bathsheba) women [1];
• 2. Adultery is the breach or violation of this life-long covenant/contract agreement and is caused by:
  • a. A married man having a sexual relationship with another married man's wife (or even just thinking about it - Mt.5:28); or
  • b. A married woman having a sexual relationship with either another married man or a single, unmarried man (or even just thinking about it).
• 3. Fornication occurs when:
  • a. Two singles, who do not have a marriage covenant or contract made in the presence of at least 2 or 3 witnesses, have a sexual relationship with one another; or
  • b. A married man has sexual relationship with a single, unmarried woman, whom he has not lawfully contracted to be his wife; if he has already vowed to his first wife to have none other but her, then he also becomes a vow-breaker as well as a fornicator.
• 4. Divorce, in the New Covenant specifically, is only permitted if:
  • a. Adultery is committed by either of the parties (the teaching of Christ); or
  • b. An unbelieving husband deserts a believing wife, or vice versa if both were previously unbelievers and one of them subsequently converted to become a Christian/Messianic (the teaching of Paul).

There is, however, a caveat to the 'Divorce' category. Yah'shua (Jesus) reminds His listeners, who were brought up in the first century Judaism of the day under very lax laws about divorce (which were grossly unfair to the women - ungodly men could divorce their wives for virtually anything that displeased them), that originally there was no divorce at all. Where adultery has occurred, the Saviour expects the Christian/Messianic couple to do everything possible to come to a positive resolution, after proper repentance has been made and forgiveness freely given, that is to say, to do all they can to patch up the relationship, because this is a picture of the repentant sinner (of either gender) returning to Messiah. If they can't or won't resolve the breach, then divorce is only permissable, as a last resort, on the grounds of adultery. If a monogamy-only vow has been broken (in the case of #3b), then either the married man must marry the second woman if the first wife freely agrees to it (which is highly unlikely, nor should she ever be pressed to do so) - either that, or (the outcome in 99.9999 per cent of cases where this happens) the fornicating relationship must immediately and permanently cease.

Since this subject is raised by Paul in the chapter we're studying, the matter of separation must also be addressed. Without wishing to pre-empt what I am going to discuss from Paul, a woman who does not wish to divorce her adulterous husband may separate from him for as long as she needs to wrestle with her feelings of being betrayed, until (or if) she is willing to return, but she should not string it out indefinitely either. She decides whether there is to be a divorce or not, not her husband. She is the aggrieved party here, the husband having no rights of access to her and may make no marital demands whatsoever. Indeed he and his accomplice in sin are technically under a death-sentence according to Torah. If she decides after a period of separation to divorce him, then the matter is settled and he cannot object. If she forgives him, the 'death sentence' is commuted, leading to a restoration by grace.

The reverse is true also (a married woman committing adultery with another married man or a single man) - the aggrieved husband can send her away while he wrestles with his feelings and decides whether to forgive her or not. He decides whether to receive her back or not as he is the aggrieved party here. If he decides to divorce her, the matter is settled. Torah also categorically states that he may not marry her again (if he takes this drastic decision) if she subsequently 'marries' again and divorces her second partner. That would amount to him 'changing his mind' which is spiritually impossible when he has, in effect, issed a 'death sentence', but that would then falsely reflect back on Yahweh, who cannot commute a sentence to hell at the Final Judgment after that judgment has been made. Neither can he force her to go through what ammounts to the grief that results when someone 'dies' that divorce causes. It's final (Dt.24:1-4). That is why both parties should never rush into divorce, no matter how broken-hearted or angry they may feel. We have a friend going through divorce now because of an adulterous husband and it's hell for her. Many of us have been through this and never want to go through it again, sometimes more than once.

Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Besorah (Gospel)- Yahweh's forgiveness of us, and our forgiveness of one another. Without it, the Good News of salvation is nullified. It isn't something to be played around with or taken lightly. Our eternal destiny can hang on whether we forgive others who wrong us or not (Lk.11:4; cp. 1 Jn.1:9). And though we are told by Messiah to forgive "seventy times seven times" when we are wronged (Mt.18:22), at first sight apparently no matter how serious or deadly the transgression committed against us may be, always remember the Torah context. In theocratic Old Covenant Israel, there were no second chances for divorce, which is why few dared to commit this evil. They knew the death penalty (viâ stoning) awaited the guilty parties unless the wronged party kept silent and there were no witnesses to make a formal accusation. (The reason there must be witnesses at weddings is because this is also a community affair). Or a kind fellow like Joseph, the husband of Mary, could divorce someone quietly, as he planned to do, thinking initially Mary was guilty of adulterously breaking their Betrothal Covenant, which also merited death. He wished to protext her out of love (Mt.1:19). So to all intents and purposes, an unforgiven adulterer is indeed dead (see The 25 Death penalties) and should be treated as such, in my judgment, when it comes to divorce if the civil law of the day has no death penalty for divorce. However, because of the atonement, there is indeed forgiveness available for those sins requiring even death. Yah'shua (Jesus) took the full penalty for mankind's breach of Torah, for both the minor and the major sins, on Himself.

As far as adultery is concerned, though, which is ranked by many, including this ministry, as the #2 sin after murder, there is only one chance given, and the evidence for that is to be found in the story of the woman taken in adultery (Jn.8:1-11). She was granted forgiveness but was sternly warned by the Master not to do it again: "Go and sin (in the matter of adultery) no more" (John 8:11, NKJV). Some take that to mean there's no second chance. Others maintain there is, again, no limit in forgiving even sins as bad as this. I disagree because I think such a claim violates divine tavnith or pattern. How many times was a dead person raised supernaturally by Yah'shua (Jesus)? Was anyone ever raised to mortal life more than once? No. So as far as death penalty-deserving sins like murder and adultery are concerned, it has always been the position of this ministry that only one extra chance is give if there is genuine repentance - a broken heart and a contrite spirit (Ps.34:18; 51:17; Is.66:2). If they do it again, a second time, grace is exhausted for them, and they are reckoned 'dead' by the aggrieved spouse and the Messianic Community (Church). Think also of the positive effect on society, the security that would bring, and the deterrent that would be to the potential murderer and adulterer if they knew how drastic their punishment would be. Those who fear Yahweh would surely not wish to take that risk, and those those who do not fear Him demonstrate what they truly deserve both on earth and in the next world. We are told plainly that there is no inheritance in this life or the next in the Kingdom of Elohim (God) for adulterers and the sexually immoral in general. Yahweh is not so liberal as the liberals. That's reality and that's the only thing we want to have anything to do with.

Before we look at our first text, you need to be aware, if your habit is using a single English translation, that the language of sexual sin varies enormously in different translations. Satan wants people confused and convinced that this kind of sin is inconsequential, so he causes the language to be diluted. Adultery and fornication get mixed up, sometimes they are indiscrimately called 'sexual immorality' without making it clear whether the penalty is unto death or not. There are also problems with Greek renditions of the original Aramaic which is why I strongly advise you to look up both Greek and Aramaic texts and to see how different translations render them. Add to that the fact that our English language is constantly evolving. So whereas 'fornicate' or its derivatives appear 44 times in the old King James Version it does not appear once in more modern versions like the New International Version (NIV) and only 8 times in the New American Standard Bible (NASB) which came inbetween. So it is regarded as an 'antiquated' term by more modern Christians and you almost never hear it used save in, perhaps, KJV-using churches. Finally, its dictionary definition, 'voluntary sexual intercourse between unmarried persons', fails to take into account Category #3b which addresses the multiple (polygamous) marriage situation. So you see the problems involved. That's why we have to go back to Torah to resolve terms and get the proper definitions.

So, forearmed with that information, let's now turn to 1 Corinthians 7:8-16 which I am going to read from the Kingdom New Testament (KNT) by N.T.Wright. I believe this is one of the hardest texts to translate in the whole Bible because the Greek translator is interpreting as well as translating the Hebrew or Aramaic original. I cannot tell you how many hours I have spent on this text this week, pulling my hair out at times, because so much is at stake when it comes to morality and we have to get this right or we cannot properly pastor or counsel. The problem is that 'unmarried' and 'separated' are not always clearly distinguished in our Greek translations. This forces us to go back to the Torah and to interpret Paul based on what Yahweh has already said on the matter for clearly there is a difference or distinction between the two. For:

• 1. One can be physically separated or living apart and still be legally married (bound in a covenant relationship) in Yahweh's eyes; and
• 2. One can be physically separated or living apart AND be legally divorced in Yahweh's eyes (no longer married and, for the most part, free to remarry).

And so we have another problem, one that arises arises when the two words ('separate' and 'divorce') are conflated to mean the same thing, which they don't. As Messianic Evangelicals we have always been absolutely clear as to the distinction but not all Christian and Messianic traditions are. To some, regrettably, to be separated or living apart is much the same as being divorced, especially if a long time has elapsed.

Then there is the added problem of the State's views and pronouncements on what marriage and divorce are, and what Yahweh's are. When people elevate the State's rulings above Yahweh's (which they frequently do, based on the error that we should always obey the State in everything it demands of its citizens), serious problems inevitably arise, because States and their governments who make our laws are fallible and Yahweh is infallible. So this is another area you need to be absolutely clear about, namely, the relationship between the Messianic Community (Church) and the secular State. Again, Messianic Evangelicals are absolutely clear about this, and always have been, but if you're not (and most Protestants seem to me to be very confused about this), you should carefully read The Limits of Obedience to the State: A Study of Romans 13:1-7 (video #V125), because here I discuss vitally important issues that need to be resolved in our chaotic and anarchistic postmodernist age. We must be absolutely clear, then, and unwaveringly faithful to the Master's teaching, namely, that:

"...whoever divorces his wife, except for adultery ('sexual immorality' - NKJV), and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matt.19:9, NKJV; cp. Mk.10:2.12).

The Messianic Community (Church) claimed, and maintained, exclusive jurisdiction over marriage until the 11th century, at least in my home country of Great Britain. In England, the first breach was made by Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753, with further Acts in 1836 and 1857 establishing civil (State) marriage, abolishing the the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. The final breach between the State and the Church, in England at least, occurred in 1969 with the immensely destructive Divorce Reform Act. Since then there has been a sharp rise in divorce and moral confusion. Parallel stories may be found in other once Christian nations. It is for this reason we generally advise believers not to get the State to sanction either marriage or divorce which in effect renders all marriages polyandrous and therefore adulterous by definition, with the State acting as a kind of extra 'Supra Husband'. Marriage is defined by Yahweh's Torah, not by any man-made institution. Yet so many churches continue to insist that the State's power over marriage is supreme and that we must submit to it. We must not. We must return marriage to common law status once again.

So to summarise what we have covered so far, there are essentially six different definitions of marriage and divorce:

• 1. The original definition given by Yahweh which Yah'shua (Jesus) said He had come to restore;
• 2. The laxer laws on divorce in the Law of Moses which Yah'shua (Jesus) taught were permitted only because of the hardness of men's hearts;
• 3. The hyperlax laws and traditions of the Talmudic Elders which were little different than those we find today in Islamic Sharia Law, which is the historical context of the New Testament writings;
• 4. The Restored Law of Yah'shua (Jesus) - ideally, no divorce and then only, as a last resort, after a failure to be reconciled and only on the grounds of adultery; and
• 5. The pagan marriage practices of the Gentiles outside the Hebrew Lands whose minefield Paul had to navigate in order to bring new believers into Torah-compliance and the higher practices the Messiah restored. Add to that:
• 6. The secular State's ever changing marriage, cohabitation and divorce laws in the modern 21st Century, as they become more and more irrational and anti-Christian.

Can you understand why Christian/Messianic marriage counsellors - and especially Pastors and Bishops who have to make decisions that impact families for the rest of their nlives - find this one of the hardest ministries to give? This is one of the reasons why I, in my own pastoral ministry over the last 30+ years, have spent more time studying and praying about marriage than any other topic in the Scriptures. If I'm saying a lot today, and sometimes repeating myself, it's because I have a lot to say, and this is in any case only a summary. Because we don't have time, I have left out all sorts of issues like same sex marriages, domestic violence, and the like, all of which have to be factored into the big equation. I have seen a lot of poorly informed and immature ministers make terrible decisions that have led to disasterous outcomes. And the problem, at least for the Remnant, is that if we are to do this in righteousness, we have to accept that there is going to be little or no backup from either the churches or, the secular state or the culture, at least, not any more. When I was a boy divorce was virtually unknown. In the space of half a century, everything has been turned upside down on its head. That means we have to swim against the tide, and do so courageously, for truth's sake, and for our families' well-being and happiness.

So finally we come to the second portion of 1 Corinthians 7 and what I'm going to do is correct Wright's text by putting in the Torah-consistent English equivalents of the Aramaic as well as telling you what Wright and some other translators have used so you can see how easy it is to get translations wrong. It will be up to you to read this subject up later if you want to - I won't read all the alternative translations out so that you don't get 'information overload' but what you can do is check the written sermon up online afterwards. Where I make a correction based on the Aramaic text I will embolden and colour it green, and then colour and strike through Wright's erroneous translation in red in the printed version. I hope you will agree that my rendering makes better sense and that it harmonises with everything else the Scriptures say on the subject:

"To those who are single ('no longer married (i.e. divorced)' - KNT; 'the unmarried' - NRSV, NIV) and to widows, I have this to say: it's perfectly all right for you to remain like me ('stay unmarried' - NIV). But if you don't have the power over your passions, then get married. Much better to marry ('take a wife' - HRV) than to have desire smouldering away inside you!

"I have a command, too, for married people - actually, it's not just from me, it's from the Master: that a woman should not separate (= leave) (NRSV) ('depart' - NKJV) from her husband. If she does, she should remain without a man (HRV) ('unmarried' - KNT, NRSV) or return to her husband. So, too, a man should not leave (HRV) (= separate from) (divorce - KNT, NRSV) his wife.

"To everyone else I have this to say (this is just me, not the Master). If a Christian has an unbelieving wife, and she is happy to live with him, he shouldn't divorce ('leave' - HRV) her. If a woman has an unbelieving husband, and he is happy to live with her, she souldn't divorce him. The unbelieving husband, you see, is made holy ('has been set aside by God' - JNT) by his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy ('has been set aside by God' - JNT) by her husband; otherwise your children would be impure (''unclean'' - JNT), whereas in fact they are holy ('pure' - HRV). But if the unbelieving partner wants to separate and/or get divorced ('separate' - KNT), let them separate and/or get divorced ('separate' - KNT); a brother or sister is not bound in a case like that. Elohim (God) has called you in peace. If you're a wife, how d'you know whether or not you will save your husband? If you're a husband, how d'you know whether or not you will save your wife?" (1 Cor.7:8-16, KNT).

What is not clear to me is whether Paul is telling those convert wives and husbands with unconverted husbands or wifes, respectively, whether 'separate' includes getting divorced or not. Personally I can't see that he isn't, otherwise the matter of whether the believing spouse could remarry or not would remain unresolved. The Greek does use divorce language - I can't imagine an unbelieving, pagan husband or wife being willing to simply separate and not remarry. This situation had not been faced by Israelites since the return from exile in Babylon at which time those Yehudim (Judahites) who had taken pagan wives, in violation of the Sinai Covenant, were commanded to divorce them. But this is not at all the same situation Paul is being called to resolve. We're talking about pagan converts to the Besorah (Gospel) where one of the spouses does not convert and may want to separate and divorce.

Another issue we need to deal with is the fact that Christians are now 'Messianic Israelites', whatever their ethnic background, with gentiles now being adopted into Israel (Rom.11) something which would be unnecessary if the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches were right claiming that 'Israel' and the 'Church' are now, since the cross, two separate entities, or two separate groups of Yahweh's people. This is known by them as the doctrine of Dispensationalism which maintains that the 'Church' gets all the blessings of ancient Israel (while becoming Torah-disobedient) and unbelieving 'Israel' gets all the cursings (while following their Talmudic version of Torah-obedience). Again, if this is confusing for you (which I understand if it is), you need to do some deep studying on the Torah and Israel. Paul does very clearly teach that the Messianic Community ('Church') is the continuation of authentic Israel, of which He is King and His laws (which are His Father's laws) are the Torah. Those rejecting Him of the stock of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob simply revert to being unredeemed 'Jacobites', the name of the father of Israel before he spiritually overcame and was renamed.

New Covenant Torah - that is to say, the Torah completed by, amongst other things, being restored to its original intention by Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) - says that no one may divorce save for the cause of sexual immorality, specifically, adultery, with severe penalties for fornication and vow-breaking by the husband. If a wife separates from her husband for any other cause, she remains technically still married in Yahweh's eyes but must remain single or unattached to another man otherwise she becomes an adulterer. And even if she commits adultery, her husband may forgive her, which is the higher way taught by Yah'shua (Jesus), and vice versa too if the husband is the adulterous party. In fact Yah'shua (Jesus) insists that originally, as we have seen, in the pre-flood Patriarchal Era, there was no divorce at all, and taught that He expected His talmidim (disciples) to walk this harder, more exacting and sanctifying, path. This is what He said:

"The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?' And He answered and said to them, 'Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what Elohim (God) has joined together, let not man (including the State/Government) separate.' They said to Him, 'Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' He said to them, 'Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces ('puts away' - HRV) his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery'" (Matt.19:3-10, NKJV)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators ('the sexually immoral' - HRV)...nor adulterers...will inherit the kingdom of Elohim (God)" (1 Cor.6:9-10, NKJV).

When the doctrines concerning marriage and divorce gets confused because of poor Scriptural exegesis and the imposition of centuries' old denominational tradition, problems arise and injustices are perpetrated, compounding sin rather than resolving it. Today we face a bewildering array of moral questions and difficulties, thanks to the near complete apostacy of the former Christian West. We are assailed not only by false religions flooding our lands but by increasingly irrational atheistic philosophies which would have us deny even the material reality around us. We can learn from the way Paul resolved marriage and divorce questions in pagan Corinth that were not covered in the Tanakh (Old Testament) by applying the same tavnith (pattern) to our own 21st century's problems too. We need to have clear-cut teachings about gender dysphoria. But clearly Paul isn't going to be of much help to us without a clear Torah framework, or the matter of gender dysphoria either. Apostolic counsel is needed in every æon (age).

Nevertheless there are a lot of unanswered questions from today's segment of 1 Corinthians 7. Who are the two categories of people in verse 8? We know who widows are, but who were the "single" or "unmarried" folk placed alongside them? Were they never-before-married people, as I believe or, as N.T.Wright suggests in his commentaries, widowers - husbands who had lost their wives? Or were they divorcees of both genders? Paul wishes both would remain single like himself both because he feels being single makes for more concentrated evangelism, remembering from last week that he believed the Second Coming was imminent (which it wasn't) or because being single was necessary then because of either famine (in the Corinthian case in 51 AD) or persecution (as would be the case in many periods throughout early Christian history)? We'll be able to better answer some of these questions as we examine the other segments next time.

Add to all of this the social pressure to get married in that culture. A similar pressure existed in first century Palestine too. People under pressure can make wrong decisions because they aren't able to tune into the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) in peace. Did your parents or elders ever pressure you into marrying people they recommended? Were you ever the victims of 'matchmakers'? Now it's true parents are expected to advise their children on choosing spouses but never to force them. We learn this rule from as early on as the matchmaking of Isaac with Rebekah in Genesis 24. The guiding hand of Yahweh was clearly as work but Rebekah still had the final say - 'yea' or 'nay' - because agency or freewill is paramount in the Kingdom of our Elohim (God). Unfortunately I have known many people from cultures where neither the bride nor the groom had any say in the matter, and I know personally of several very unhappy arranged marriages. By the same token I have known of arranged marriages that started badly that became very successful and happy, especially after husband and wife came to Christ. Nevertheless, free choice is important. My parents tried on separate occasions to line me up with two different young women either because the parents were good friends of theirs or because (in the case of the other) she was a Biologist and I a Biochemist. But they respected my 'nay' on both occasions when I made it. Neither were believers, incidentally, but then my father was an agnostic and my mother a nominal Anglican.

As we saw last week, Paul was walking on a tightrope between the social pressue in Corinth to marry as quickly as possible and pressure from the ultra-conservative Corinthian believers to force celibacy on everyone, including those already married. As a pastor have I have been pressured on more than one occasion and on one occasion I refused to conduct a wedding when it was clear one of the parties was being pressured against their will. In this letter Paul is also concerned about those wanting to remarry after losing a first spouse, the widows and widowers and perhaps those divorced by unbelieving spouses.

In these days of extreme permissiveness people have sometimes had dozens of sexual partners, and in some cases hundreds, and sorting that mess out is not always an easy matter, a bit like trying to untie the proverbial 'Gordian knot'. You have to ascertain if any of the former sexual partners were authentic believers, whether they were divorcees or even still married or just separated. There are so many issues facts that need to be ascertained: where any of them, if they were believers, abandoned or divorced for reasons other than adultery? I tell, you I have had some really, really tough calls to make that in the end has required direct revelation through prayer, not an easy matter and one I particularly dislike. To be honest, sometimes modern relationships can be such a tangled mess that only Elohim (God) Himself can sort through it and say who belongs to who. What nobody wants to be responsible for is sanctioning two people coming together in marriage when to do so would be to force them to commit adultery and endanger their spiritual welfare. No minister wants to be responsible for encouraging sin.

Verse 9 is sometimes misinterpreted by the radical 'hellfire-and-brimstone' crowd, "...it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor 7:9, KJV), the King James Version puts it, and overactive imaginations still insert the false clarifier, "in hell". No serious scholar believes that is the correct interpretation which is why the NKJV adds in italics, "with passion", which is indisputably correct. Or as N.T.Wright puts it, also correctly, "But if you don't have the power over your passions, then get married" (KNT). It's Paul's opinion, sage apostolic counsel, no doubt, but not actually revelation, though I agree with him on a certain level. Still, better to do that than head to the nearest prostitute, or do some fornicating, or go 'strict celibate' or flaggelate yourself to subdue your passions as some fanatical Catholics and others have done over the centuries, none of which are necessary if you have the authentic Ruach (Spirit). Paul is being practical, on behalf of those whom he perceives choosing the 'low road', when there are other, natural ways to subdue passion (like prayer and getting deliverance when necessary) until the right lad or lassie turns up at the right time and in the right place.

One thing I do want to underline many times is that divorce was never Yahweh's intent for His children. It is unbelievably destructive, both for the parties concerned and their children. Yahweh hates divorce. Personally I loathe it because it causes so much pain to so many. It hurts individuals and it hurts society. You see, there is something in the marriage bond that reflects Elohim's (God's) image to the world, and back in worship to Yahweh Himself.

There's a reason He forbids us to marry unbelievers, aside from all the obvious unnecessary practical difficulties and sorrows that result (v.39 & 2 Cor.6:14). Where Elohim (God) is absent in the unbeliever, something else will fill the vacuum and seek worship, consciously or unconsciously, which is a constant pressure on the believer to commit idolatry. No man or thing can ever fill that Elohim-shaped space in us. Nothing can substitute for the depth and breadth and height of a relationship in Christ that comes from a man and women having that space filled by the same, and one-and-only, Elohim (God). There will always be something missing. Besides, anything breaking that image that Yahweh intended is dishonouring to Him and, as almost all divorced people will admit, damaging to the persons involved, not to mention the spiritual distortion that their children pick up and spontaneously seek to imitate.

None of this is to say that other things don't play their part when divorce happens, even between believers not living out their faith as they ought to be - anger, unkindness, bitterness, abuse, long separations, and infidelity - all these are destructive and need to be nipped in the bud early on before they start eating away at the fabric of the relationship and ultimately destroy it.

It's an interesting question, isn't it, when in a previously non-Christian marriage only one of the partners converts. You hear lots of amazing stories, though, like that of Lee Strobel's wife who converted before her husband did. Her conversion set up huge tensions in their marriage, inevitably, as their former way of life was completely upset by her move. There's a 50:50 chance such disrupted relationships will fall apart or, if it doesn't, the couple will either reach some sort of a compromise (resulting in internal separation to varying degrees) or, as happened to Lee Strobel, the unbelieving partner converts. That couple had a huge struggle but the husband was honest and open to investigate his wife's new found faith, and tried to prove her wrong, hoping to 'save' their marriage and restore it to the way it had been. Yet he noticed, at the same time, how much nicer his newly converted wife had become! He was torn down the middle, wanting his old marriage and his much nicer wife, an impossibility.

I think the verses that fascinate me the most in today's portion are those about how a believing spouse sanctifies the unbelieving spouse, and how the children are counted as 'holy', 'set apart ('set aside - JNT)' or qadosh. But what exactly does that mean? This is very familiar language to those who know their Torah but easily misunderstood by those who do not. Without getting into that particular discussion, the key to unpacking this passage is knowing what power is in the believing partner and what that can do if the believer is true to Messiah.

Now anciently, as in the first century, you didn't touch a leper for fear of contracting the disease. Lepers were confined in isolated camps outside normal human settlements so they coudn't infect others. Yet Yah'shua (Jesus), as we know, touched lepers and other unclean people with diseases, but instead of being infected with their diseases, instead 'infected' them with Yahweh's new life. I am sure that's why Paul believed that holiness could be more powerful than uncleanness. The believing partner, if strong in Messiah (and that's a big 'if'), would not need to experience the damaging influence of the unbelieving spouse. And, the unbelieving partner would be regularly within the reach of Elohim's (God's) ahavah (love) in Christ, shining through the believing partner. Of course, this is the ideal, as Paul saw it. Reality and actual events might be very different indeed, and commonly are. For this reason, Paul says, the Christian/Messianic partner should not initiate a split because there is always the possibility, even if remote (usually considerably less that 50 percent), that the unbelieving partner may be converted. Mrs.Strobel was 'lucky' to have an unbelieving husband passionate and morivated enough to want to know the truth. Not all get wonderful results like that. It's one thing if you're the convert in a formerly unbelieving couple's relationship but it's quite another to rebell against Yahweh's mitzvot (commandments) to knowingly marry an unbeliever. In all my years as a believer I have only ever known one case of the unbelieving spouse converting. In all the others, the believing spouse abandoned his or her faith, including one or two close friends, which greatly saddens me even all these years later. One of them was one of my best friends - he died an atheist.

There is a parallel effect on the children of such an unequal marriage because in coming under the influence of one Christian parent, are placed within the sphere of Yahweh's ahavah (love) and the power of the Besorah (Gospel) - again, ideally, though in practice such relationships can be hellish to maintain and the children can suffer, in which case - especially if the unbelieving spouse is abusive - separation may be required for the chidlren's well-being. Mixed religious marriages, even where one of the belief systems is atheism, can be very stressful indeed, with one partner pulling one way, and the other, another way. One of our own sisters married a Moslem and succumbed to the pressure to convert to his religion for the sake of the peace of their family. Over the years I have had to counsel married people in some very, very difficult situations of this kind. So what Paul is saying here is the ideal result of following his advice - he's not prophesying that all will work out splendidly or that major sacrifices won't have to be made.

I hope our study of this section has answered some questions for you. If there are unanswered ones, feel free to ask me to address them next week, though I think you'll find answers to most of them in the links provided on the website and in the video description box below - those of you who are reading or watching online. As ever we are over, and out of, time, and I suspect we are going to need more than one more sabbath teaching to get through this material, but we'll see. There's a very important Rosh Chodesh message in two days' time which I hope you'll join us for. Please slso be aware that we are transferring all our old videos from Facebook and YouTube to Rumble which will probably take us many months, so we hope you'll join us there when we stop live broadcasting here. Yahweh bless you and keep you in His shalom (peace) in Yah'shua's (Jesus') Name. Amen.

Endnotes

[1] See the Sex, Romance & Marriage, Holy Echad Marriage, and Polygamy websites - also see, in particular, for a detailed exegesis by this ministry, The 'First' in Your Life: An MLT Position Paper on Marriage

Acknowledgements