19 Stay as You Are? What Paul Teaches About Mixed Marriages (1 Corinthians 7:12-24)

Krisan Marotta: Good morning. My name is Krisan Marotta. You're listening to Wednesday in the Word, my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. We are studying 1 Corinthians, and today we're looking at chapter 7, verses 12 through 24. This is the 19th talk in our series on 1 Corinthians. And I have another listener warning today. This particular talk still concerns issues within marriage, and it may not be appropriate for young listeners. If you're listening with little ones nearby, you may want to save this podcast for later. You can find lecture notes for today's talk on the link below the podcast or on the website. You can just go to wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 1 9. And while you're on the website, take a moment to check it out. There is no spam, no charge, no ads, only Bible study. Glad to have you along. Well, we are still looking at Paul's response to a specific question the Corinthians have asked him about the place of sexuality within marriage. Chapter 7 starts Paul's now concerning sections where he responds to specific questions that the Corinthians have asked him in a letter. And you'll recall that we have Paul's answers, but we don't have the questions the Corinthians asked. And how you reconstruct their question makes a big difference in how you interpret the passage. I've argued that we want to see chapter 7 as arising from a specific question, and that Paul is not intending to give general advice on marriage and divorce, rather, he's giving advice on a specific situation. So I interpret this whole chapter as a response to 7.1. Paul says there now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. And I have been arguing that this chapter is Paul's response to that specific situation in Corinth and this specific viewpoint that the Corinthians held. Greek culture at the time held the idea that all things physical were evil and unclean, while all things spiritual were good and clean. And some in Corinth had brought that idea into their newfound faith, and they concluded that in order to be truly spiritual, they had to abstain from sexuality altogether, regardless of whether they were married or single. So they concluded it's not good for a man to touch a woman, period, and they were advocating complete abstinence. And Paul is dealing with the various situations where they have been applying this idea. So first he addressed married couples where one spouse decided to abstain, leaving the other involuntarily celibate, and he tells them no, abstinence in marriage is not a good idea, they should stop depriving each other. Then he moves on to those who used to be married, widows and widowers, and he tells them yes, there are advantages to being single, but there's nothing wrong with being married, and they should remarry if they want to. There is no value in forcing yourself to remain single when your heart's desire is to marry. Then he speaks to those who are married but considering divorcing. So they've got this idea that in order to be super spiritual, they have to be abstinent. It's not fair to deprive their spouse, so they're just going to divorce him, and that way they can remain abstinence. And I've argued that Paul is not addressing a theology of divorce in general there, but this conclusion that I should get divorced because it's more spiritual to be chaste, and he tells them, No, you've got it wrong. It is better to stay married. And that brings us to 712, where we hit a new situation. We're going to start with seven verses twelve through sixteen. This is the new American Standard Version. But to the rest, I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband, for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know a wife whether you will save your husband, or how do you know a husband whether you will save your wife? He starts this section to the rest, and the first thing I want to ask is who is he talking to? And I would argue he does not mean everybody left out of these other groups. I think the idea is I, Paul, have one case left to deal with. You asked me about these specific situations, and I've got one left. So to the rest, he covered married with one party wanting to abstain, he covered the used to be married, he covered the married considering divorce, and the last married group is those who are married to unbelievers. So these are the rest. They are the last type of married people, the rest of the possible situations married believers could find themselves in. Now remember, this is a culture where it is presumed that single people are not in sexual relationships. So this issue would only apply to married people, and he is turning to the last type of married person. And again, I think he's still responding to the question they asked in 7.1 and their conclusion that it's not good for a man to touch a woman. So some in Corinth have held this belief that everything physical is bad and everything spiritual is good, and now they've become believers in Christ, God's called them to a holier way of life, so they should abstain from sexuality regardless. So, in that context, given that belief, what should a believer married to a non-believer do? Well, the Corinthians think that if the highest calling is to abstain, if a clean believer is married to an unclean pagan, then surely you would have to abstain in that case. Because you've got this holy person in physical contact with an unholy person, and surely the Corinthians would argue God doesn't intend that to happen. They think abstaining from sexuality is the holiest calling, so at all costs they would argue we have to avoid contact between a believer and a non-believer, right, Paul? I mean, that's what we ought to do. So he's addressing the last type of married person, which is a person married to an unbeliever, and he adds this really interesting phrase, I say not the Lord, in 712. And we want to ask, what is he trying to get at there? We don't find this language any other place in Paul's writings. There is no other place, at least that I could find, where Paul says anything that sounds like, well, here's my opinion, but not Jesus'. And I don't think that's what he's saying. It would be helpful if we did have other passages with similar language because we can use clear passages to help us understand obscure passages, but we don't have any other passage like this one. So what are we to make of this phrase? Well, in 710, Paul just said, not I, but the Lord. And there I think he meant on the general issue of divorce, we have Jesus Himself weighing in. We have direct teaching from the Lord, from Jesus Christ, telling us how we ought to think about divorce. So we have this principle Jesus laid down, what God has joined together, let no one separate. That's the principle you should be applying to your situation, not this idea that sexuality is unclean in a marriage. Now we have in 712, I say, not the Lord. The most straightforward reading is that he means the opposite in 7.12 of what he said in 710. So in 7.10 he said, We have direct teaching from Jesus. This isn't coming from me, this is a direct teaching from Jesus himself. And now he's saying, Well, we don't have direct teaching from Jesus about this issue of a believer being married to an unbeliever. So I can't point you to a direct quote from Jesus on this issue, but based on my apostolic authority, this is what I would say. So we do have specific teaching from Jesus about the general issue of divorce, but we have no specific teaching from Jesus about this issue of a believer married to a non-believer, but this is what I say as an apostle of Jesus Christ. So I don't think that Paul means to imply this is just my opinion, and you Corinthians are free to ignore it. I think he's making it clear that he is no longer directly quoting the Lord, but he is an apostle called by Jesus Christ, and his word has authority. So he was just talking about a direct teaching from Jesus, and he's clarifying, look, I'm no longer talking about a direct teaching from Jesus, but as an apostle of Jesus Christ, this is what I say, and this carries authority. And I think this is different than what he said in 7-7, where he said, I wish that all were as I myself am. There he's clearly stating an opinion. He makes it clear that this is his opinion. He's expressing his feelings, his desires. He's not giving a command. And he makes it clear by adding in that verse, but you are free to do otherwise. So I'm saying to the widows that you would do well to stay unmarried, but you have the freedom to marry. I'm not giving you a command. So in 712, Paul's not indicating this is my opinion, and you are free to do otherwise. I think he's saying, I don't have a direct teaching from Jesus to point you to, but here's my command based on the fact that I'm an apostle of Jesus Christ. This is what you ought to do, and you're not free to disagree with me. There is a moral issue involved here, and you are not free to follow your whims because there is a moral principle at stake. So what is that moral principle? Let's look at seven, twelve, and thirteen again. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her, and a woman who has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. Remember the context. The Corinthians are saying, We know that it's not good for a man to touch a woman, so you shouldn't stay married to a nonbeliever, right? I mean, marriage to a nonbeliever is a corrupting, defiling relationship. So clearly in that case, it would be better to divorce, right, Paul? I mean, if sexuality makes you less holy, then certainly a sexual relationship with someone who is a nonbeliever must really make you unclean. And Paul's saying, no, that's not the way to think about it. It's not an issue of being ritually or spiritually defiled by being in contact with a nonbeliever. There's a moral principle at stake. This is a person I made marriage vows to, so therefore I ought to stay married. I'm not experiencing pollution. I made a promise to be married, and the moral thing to do is to keep my promise. The question on the table really is what does God want? And the Corinthians are saying, well, in order to be pleasing to God, it is my job to keep myself ritually, spiritually, holy, and pure, and that involves chastity and abstinence. And the Corinthians think I should avoid any contaminating influences, and the best way to do that would be to divorce my unbelieving spouse. Paul's clarifying, I think, this is not a problem of ritual purity. This is an issue of character. It's an issue of morality. Yes, it's your job to strive to try to be holy and to have a holy character, and a holy character involves integrity and keeping your promises. The issue is not ritual purity, it's morality. The right and wrong lies in the integrity of the issue. You made a promise to be married to this person and you ought to keep your promise. And then he goes on to clarify why their thinking is wrong. In seven fourteen he says, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband, for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Now remember to keep this in the context of the discussion of chapter seven and the question of is sexuality inherently bad and is chastity and abstinence inherently better. I must say, as a little aside, this verse is one of the poster child verses to me on the absolute necessity of keeping Bible verses in context. It makes a huge difference whether you try to understand this verse in the context of the entire chapter, particularly 7-1, or whether you pull it out and try to understand it as a standalone verse, or just limit your context to verses 12 through 14. I have run into folks who pull this out as a standalone verse and conclude, therefore it's okay to date and marry non-believers, even though we have other scriptural teaching on that subject, and people just run in all kinds of directions and applications by treating this verse as a standalone verse. I heard one person argue that physical descendants get a kind of salvation based on this verse. But if you remember the issue that Paul is addressing, then this verse makes a lot of sense in the context. The Corinthians think it is good for a man not to touch a woman, and I have to get out of this relationship with an unbeliever because it's defiling me somehow. And Paul is saying, no, it goes the other direction. It's not that you are defiled by a relationship with an unbeliever. An unbeliever is sanctified by a relationship with you. Now, sanctified in what sense? We have to ask that question. Are we talking about sanctification in the sense of saving faith and being freed from God's wrath and granted eternal life? No, because in 716 he's going to raise the issue, how do you know whether your spouse will come to faith or not? The fact that he raises that as a question shows he doesn't believe that marrying a believer automatically gains that non-believer salvation. The issue is from God's perspective, would I be most holy to divorce my unbelieving spouse or to stay married? And Paul is saying, do not get divorced. By virtue of being married to a believer, the relationship is sanctified. The one person I ought to have a physical relationship with is my spouse. It's appropriate because we made marriage vows. It's sanctified in the sense that we made marriage vows to each other, and so that is the relationship that ought to exist. It's not that in this relationship my spouse is somehow polluting me, so I need to end the relationship. It's that in this relationship we are married people. The relationship is good. In God's eyes, married sexuality is a good thing and a wonderful thing. The fact that one of us is not a believer does not change that. Married sexuality is not dirty or polluted or something less than holy, as we've seen throughout this chapter. It is a wonderful gift of God. It is a good thing. So it is sanctified in the sense that it is being used for the purpose God intended sexuality to be used for. It is a good thing, and any children that result from that are blessings from the Lord. That phrase otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. I think there Paul is turning their argument back on them. He's saying, look, if what you're saying is true, if what you're saying that a physical relationship in a marriage is defiling, then that would imply that your children are defiled. Do you really think that your children are somehow a product of an unholy union and are unclean and that God wouldn't accept them or something? He's saying that's the implication of your view, and you can see that obviously that's wrong. You're married, you have children as a product of your marriage. There's nothing unclean about that. Your children are holy in that they are an appropriate and legitimate and natural result of your marriage. That's a natural part of God's creation. From God's perspective, this is an appropriate relationship, not a defiled relationship. You're married, you have children, your husband is appropriately your husband, your wife is appropriately your wife, because you have taken vows. So from God's perspective, this whole relationship, you, your spouse, and your children, that's a good thing. You don't have to break it up to be holy. In fact, being obedient to your marriage vows, being obedient to your parenting responsibilities, that's a good thing. Don't break that up to try to be holy. That would be wrong. I don't think he means anything mystical by talking about being sanctified. I think he simply means this is a good and acceptable thing to God. Now recognize that Paul is not giving advice to a single person who is considering marrying a nonbeliever. That is an entirely different issue. If the choice to marry is still in front of you, then you have advice about being unequally yoked and so forth. There are other verses that speak to that issue. That's an issue of wisdom, and that's an entirely different issue. Because of the nature of marriage, it's much more difficult to become one with a person who is going an entirely different direction and who will be at odds with you on really basic fundamental issues of life and values. Paul is not speaking to that issue. He's speaking to those who are already married. Maybe they were both unbelievers when they got married, or maybe the marriage was arranged, or maybe they just chose unwisely, but that's in the past. Now they're married, now the vows have been made. What should they do? And Paul is saying, stay married. But Paul does recognize that there could be another issue involved, and he addresses that. What if a believer is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever wants to leave? If the fact that one of them has become a believer and that's now a problem and an issue in the marriage, such that the non believer no longer wants to be part of the marriage, in that situation Paul says let them go. So look at fifteen and sixteen. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know a wife whether you will save your husband, or how do you know a husband whether you will save your wife? Here I think he's clarifying it's not that I need to think it's my responsibility to save my spouse and make sure I keep this relationship together with the intent on saving their soul. That's not our job. That's what he's saying, I think, in verse 16. Don't think that their salvation is on your shoulders because you're married to them, and don't start thinking that if they don't come to faith, God will somehow hold you responsible. You can't be their salvation. Don't break the relationship because you think it's making you unholy. On the other hand, don't think that you are now enslaved or that you have an obligation to remain solely because your spouse's salvation depends on you. I think Paul's advice here is basically common sense. You're only responsible for yourself. You have made a marriage commitment, keep it. If the nonbeliever no longer wants to keep the marriage vows, then let him go. It's not your job to save him and make him keep his vows. That's not your decision. Only God can save him. Well that ought to make sense to us. It's not true that this relationship taints you or makes you impure or unclean or somehow less holy. It's just a marriage. Marriage is a good thing. It's something you as a believer need to be committed to and keep to the best of your ability. But if the non believer says, nope, I don't want to put up with this anymore, then you let them go. The significant issue is your decision to be obedient to God. To strive to live in accordance with holiness and integrity and the life God has called you. But at the same time, it's not up to you whether the other person breaks the relationship or not. You can't control that. That's up to God and that person. Then he goes on, let's look at 17 through 24. Only as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each in this manner let him walk, and so I direct in all the churches, was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Each man must remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it, but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedmen. Likewise, he who was called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price, do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in the condition in which he was called. This section at first reading seems to come out of left field. He starts talking about circumcision and being a slave, and you have to go, wait, what does that have to do with marriage? What does that have to do with the premise that it's not good for a man to touch a woman? Actually, in context, I think it makes perfect sense, but you have to read it in the context of the chapter. He wants to talk about a principle that informs and explains what he has just said about how they ought to look at marriage, and I think that principle informs everything he said really up to this point in the letter. In seven seventeen he says, Only as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk, and so I direct in all the churches. Now remember the flow of thought that leads up to this verse. One of the Bible study mistakes we make is taking a single verse and jumping off of it in all directions without taking into consideration the context in which the verse was written. Obviously, Paul doesn't mean if you were a drug dealer and a thief when you became a believer, then you should keep being a drug dealer and a thief. He does not mean if you were working in a grocery store when you became a believer, you have to stay at that job for the rest of your life and never move on to any other position. Paul is not trying to dictate the circumstances of your life as if becoming a believer is a kind of game of eternal freeze tag, and when you become tagged with Christ, you're frozen in that spot for life. The issue he's been discussing up to this point is how does becoming a believer change my life? I've gone from a state of unbelief to a state of belief, and belief ought to change my life, but how? What has to change? What should I be worried about if it doesn't change? And in chapter seven, he's been applying that issue to marriage because the Corinthians have the this idea that one of the things that has to change is they now have to be celibate. And Paul is correcting that idea. Their idea is that coming to faith is a call to chastity, regardless of whether I'm married or not, and Paul is saying that's not true. And he looks at these different situations married believers find themselves in and says, here's what you should do. He's furthering that argument. Yes, belief makes a difference in my life. Belief ought to make a difference in my character, my morality, my values, my goals, my desires. As I learn to follow and love and worship a holy God, holiness ought to start mattering to me more and more and making a difference in my life. But that is a very far cry from saying I am bound to some kind of ritual cleanliness that requires abstinence to show my dedication to God. The issue under discussion is does belief change my life such that I am now called to be sexually abstinent? And Paul is saying, no, not if you're married. That's not what holiness is about. And he's going to look at two other areas of life where folks are tempted to think that following God requires this big shift. He says, yes, following God requires a moral shift, but not necessarily a shift in circumstances. So the first situation he compares this to is being circumcised, and I think we should understand that as being Jewish or not. It's very common in Scripture to refer to the Gentiles as the uncircumcised and refer to the Jews as the circumcised. So in 17 and 18 he says, was any man called when he was already circumcised? So did any man come to faith when he was Jewish? He is not to become uncircumcised, he's not to become a pagan, he's not to give up all his Jewish rituals and identity. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? So is anyone a pagan who came to faith? He's not to be circumcised. He doesn't have to adopt a Jewish way of life. Then he says circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. So the issue he's confronting is after coming to faith, am I called to change the circumstances of my life? Now before Christ, the Jew-Gentile distinction made a huge cultural difference. Now that I am following a Jewish Messiah, should I become Jewish and be circumcised? Am I called upon to make that kind of dramatic shift upon belief? If I am not a Jew, should I become one? And if I am a Jew, should I stop living like a Jew? And Paul's answer is basically stay the way you are. If you are Jewish, you can continue to be Jewish. If you're a Gentile, you continue to be a Gentile because that's not what has changed about you. What has changed about you is your slavery to sin. What has changed about you is that God has redeemed you and you should strive to keep God's moral law. You should strive to be holy as God is the holy. But you don't have to change the outward marks of whether you're Jewish or Gentile. What counts is that you strive to be obedient to God in whatever situation God has called you to. Look at nineteen again. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Now to us modern Christians, that sounds really commonplace. It's an idea we're used to. But this is a bombshell kind of statement coming from a former Pharisee. Paul took the law very seriously. He was proud of his heritage and his genealogy, and he thought of himself as one of the best of the Pharisees. Now his Pharisee opponents would have said, right, Paul, keeping the commandments of God is what matters, and circumcision is required in the law, so circumcision is everything, and Paul himself might have argued that way before his conversion. For him to say circumcision is nothing, what matters is keeping the commandments, I think he's saying what you do on the outside is nothing. What matters is who you are on the inside, and that is a profound shift in his thinking from his Pharisee days. To say circumcision is nothing but keeping the commandments of God is everything, I think he's saying the keeping of the commandments of God, the basic moral requirements of God. He's now made a distinction between the old and the new covenant. Yes, circumcision was part of the old covenant, it was a commandment, but it was a provisional commandment. It was given to a specific people in a specific situation and under the covenant God had made with them. It was given to the Jews for a certain time and place and purpose. There are other commandments, we might say those with a capital C, the moral commandments that reflect God's holy character and those never change, that we love God with all our whole being, that we love our neighbor as ourselves, and so forth. The outward signs have their time and place, and what matters is the state of your heart. Now let's look at the second issue. In 20 and 21, each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. Were you called a slave, do not worry about it, but if you are able also to become free, rather to do that. Slavery would have been the other big issue in Paul's culture. I'm a slave, bound to a human master, but now I'm a slave of Christ. What should I do? Should I find a way to break the relationship in order to follow Christ? Should I run away and try to get free so that I can only serve Jesus? Paul says, no, that's not a necessity. If you can, get free. But if not, you're not a second class believer. You don't have to get free to demonstrate your devotion to God or to please God somehow. Now don't misunderstand me, Paul says. When I say remain as you are, if you have the opportunity to gain your freedom, I am not saying you need to stay a slave. By all means get free. But if you never have that opportunity, then I don't think you are living a less than holy life. There's nothing wrong with being a slave who wants to be free, go for it, but don't get the idea that God requires you to somehow get free as part of obedience to Him. You can serve God in whatever circumstances you find yourself in. And then He says, Let me show you what I mean. Look at 22 through 24. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise, he who was called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price, do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one of us is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. He says, if you were a slave to a human master, and that's your role in this life, there's a sense in which that doesn't matter because you're free. Christ bought you with his blood. You were a slave to sin and death, you were under God's wrath, doomed to destruction, with no hope of getting free. And now you have freedom in Christ. Your earthly freedom is insignificant in comparison to that. You were a slave to sin and death, and now you've been freed eternally from God's judgment. The price for your sin has been paid and you've been rescued. Even though you're serving a human master, for the things that really matter, you have found freedom. Likewise, if you are freed and you're your own master in this earthly life, in the deepest sense, you're not your own master, you're a slave to Christ. You belong to him. He bought you with his blood. He paid the price for your sin for his own purposes. He didn't free you to go your own merry way. He freed you to follow him, to serve him, to be his slave in that sense, and he is your master. So your circumstances in this life, whether you're slave or free, don't matter in the deepest sense. If in the worldly sense you're a slave, you're free in the eternal sense. If in the worldly sense you're free, you are a slave in the eternal sense. Your earthly circumstances are not the issue. The issue is who are you following? Who is your eternal master? In 724, brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. He's saying, I think, your new calling in Christ is to serve God in whatever circumstances you find yourself in. God put you in those circumstances for a reason. You don't have to get married, you don't have to get divorced, you don't have to try to become single, you don't have to become Jewish, you don't have to become a Gentile, you don't have to run away from your human master. You can serve God in any of those circumstances. You can be holy, you can follow God, you're not a second class believer. Just serve God in the life He has called you to live. So don't sweat the small stuff, and this stuff, being married or single, being freed or slave, being Jew or Gentile, that's the small stuff. The big stuff is my relationship to God, which has eternal consequences. This world is going to be destroyed and some people will be rescued from the rubble. The question is which one am I? In light of that question, whether I am single or married, slave or free, Jewish or not is not really important. Now, of course, those things matter to us and they make a big difference in how easy or how smooth or how difficult our life's walk may be, but they are not really the big important question of this life. Circumstances have value, but not as much value as our eternal destiny. Okay, let me try to wrap this up. In this section, Paul is contrasting a life that is religiously devoted to God with a life that is morally devoted to God. And by religiously devoted, I mean the kind of thinking that says I must keep all these disciplines and rules and rituals in order to be pleasing to God. By morally devoted, I mean having a humble and broken heart and longing to be freed from sin and hungering and thirsting after righteousness. So the issue for the Corinthians was, do I need to abstain from sexuality? Is that one of the rules and rituals and disciplines that I have to follow in order to be pleasing to God? And Paul is saying, no, not if you're married. For us today the issue is different. For example, we might ask, do I have to go to church every single week? Do I have to keep the Sabbath? Do I have to have a regular discipline of prayer? Do I have to give away at least 10% of my money or maybe more than 10%? Do I have to engage in spiritual disciplines and practices to prove my devotion to God and make him pleased with me? Do I have to be a full-time ministry professional or do I have to go on the mission field to make him pleased with me? Essentially, the Corinthians are asking, what must we do to be good Christians? And their culture told them, well, everything physical is evil, so to be good you have to avoid from everything physical like sexuality. And they're asking Paul, is our culture right? Are they right in this idea that all things physical ought to be avoided? And therefore we married Christians ought to avoid sexuality. That's the issue Paul's answering. We face different issues today, but the question is the same. The issue of what seems right, what seems like good and holy and proper behavior, what must I do to please God? How we answer that changes with culture and history, but the underlying question is still, what must I do to please God? What must I do to be a good Christian? And we tend to read the Bible looking for the list. So we read the verses looking for here the list of things I should do to be a good Christian, and here are the list of things that I should avoid. And if I can just get the list right, I'll be pleasing to God and be a super spiritual Christian. Now pay attention to Paul's answer here, because Paul is countering that kind of thinking. I think the key to this chapter, to this section is what he says about keeping the commandments of God. Paul doesn't give them a set of rules and regulations. He doesn't say, well, you have to get out of these circumstances and get into those circumstances, or you have to follow this ritual or that rule. Paul asks them, where is your heart? In whatever circumstances you find yourself in, do you want to and long for and strive to keep the commandments of God? Do you want to live the way God says you ought to live? Do you grieve over your sinful failure to live that way? Do you believe what God says is true? Do you value what God values and trust that He is a gracious king and a loving Lord and master? So whether you're married or single doesn't determine the state of your holiness. The issue is if you're married, do you strive to keep your vows? If you're single, do you reserve your sexuality for marriage? Those issues matter because that's something God has called us to do. God has said that sexuality is reserved for marriage, and if I'm not married and I'm ignoring his commandment, well that says something important about where my heart's at. If I'm married and enjoying my sexuality with someone other than my spouse, that also matters and reveals a great deal about where my heart's at. Because God has given us commands for when and with whom we are to enjoy sexuality. And my willingness to follow his commands says something about the strength or genuineness of my belief. So what really matters is whether or not my heart is set on striving to keep God's commandments or not. Now, of course I'm going to fail in that quest, but it matters whether I even want to try and how I respond when I do fail. If my response when I fail is, well, look, everybody does it. This is just normal and get over it. You're just so old-fashioned and uptight, that's a problem. If my response is, Lord, I know what you're asking of me and I can't do it, forgive me by the blood of your son and have mercy on me as sinner, that says something different about where my heart is at. Now my circumstances influence and dictate how I live my life and what keeping God's commandments look like in my life. But the really important issue is not what are my life's circumstances. The really important issue is do I want to keep God's commandments no matter what circumstances I find myself in? And that's where holiness is to be found. God has not required that I choose a specific lifestyle. God has given me a life and my job is to serve him in it. And that's the theme throughout chapter seven. Does God want you to live on some higher plane that doesn't include sexuality? No, God wants you to keep your marriage vows. Does God want you to stop keeping the Jewish rituals or start keeping the Jewish rituals? No, God wants you to seek what is good and obey him. Does God want you to run away from your human master? No, God wants you to realize that you are free to serve and follow him no matter who your human master is. Our job is to choose to follow God in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in. Now some are going to be much harder than others, some are going to be easier, and some are going to please me more than others. But God has called us to live whatever lives we may have in light of the truth he has given us. So whatever our circumstances, married, singled, widowed, Jew, Gentile, slavery free, our job is to follow him. Whatever your circumstances, think of them in light of the master you really serve and strive to live faithfully. That's where the rubber meets the road. Your job is not necessarily to change your circumstances. Your job is to live faithfully in the midst of them, to love your neighbor as yourself, even if your neighbor is an unbelieving spouse, or even if your neighbor is your master. To love God with your whole heart, soul, and strength, even if following him means staying in a difficult situation, because that's where he's put you for now. Gaining the perspective that God wants me to learn his values and live them out in this particular circumstance in which I find myself, rather than achieving some kind of super spiritual discipline routine, that's a real step of wisdom. When we come to terms with the idea that stay and be faithful where you are is a profound spiritual directive, I think we've learned a piece of real wisdom. You've been listening to Wednesday in the Word, my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. If you've been blessed by listening, please leave a positive comment wherever you listen to the podcast and tell your friends what you want. Our theme music is graciously provided by Reggie Cooks of HeartTeltmusic.org. I invite you to check out his website and listen to his other music so you won't be disappointed. Thank you for listening today. I'm Kriston Morata, and I'll meet you here next week for Wednesday in the Word.