GeorgePWood.com

When my wife and I moved from California to Missouri, we possessed 8 tons of stuff. At least that’s what the moving company told us. My books weighed 3.5 tons, almost half the weight of our entire shipment. Some people would say I own too many books.

Specifically, my wife says I own too many books. To which my reply is… Well, I don’t really have a good reply since I do, in fact, own too many books.

But I don’t want to part with what I call, borrowing a phrase from Gollum, “my preciouses.” Jefferson said, “I cannot live without my books.” I know what he meant. Then again, I doubt Jefferson ever had a few hundred pounds of books almost fall on top of him. Evidently, I cannot live with my books either.

I say that in order to ask this: In the short time we have on earth, are we living for the right things or are we living for the wrong dreams?

In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31, Paul writes:

What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

 My dad always jokes that he’d like to preach about the existential reality of eschatological hermeneutic. This would be a perfect text for that sermon. The eschatological hermeneutic is found in verses 29a and 31b: “the time is short” and “this world in its present form is passing away.”

The existential reality is verses 29b-31a. Paul talks about four things: whom we love, how we feel, what we buy, and what we use. We know Paul believes that marriage entails regular sexual intercourse (7:2-5) and is not a sin (7:28). We know he thought that a loving person “does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth” (13:6). We know he worked a trade to support himself (9:6). And we know that possessed and used stuff, including clothes and books (2 Timothy 4:13). In other words, we know that our relationships, feelings, possessions, and use of time are—or can be—both good and legitimate.

But Paul wants us to travel lightly anyway. His advice—mostly rhetorical in verses 29b-31a—drives home a point. Your spouse will die. Your emotions will fade. Your purchasing power will pay diminishing returns. And your stuff will lose its usefulness over time. In light of these facts, how will you live?

Grandma used to cite this poem:

Only one life

‘Twill soon be past.

Only what’s done

For Christ will last.”

 That’s as good a start to an answer as you’re likely to find, and the existential reality of an eschatological hermeneutic.

First Corinthians 7:25-40 is a difficult passage of Scripture to interpret. There are disputes about the meanings of specific words. And the cultural context in which Paul offers his advice is very different than our own.

Let’s try to interpret it anyway, beginning with 7:25-28:

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

First, note that this entire passage is a reply to issues raised in a no longer extant letter from the Corinthians  to Paul (cf. 7:1, 8:1, 16:1).

Second, the meaning of the term virgin is obvious enough, although the precise context in which it is used is not clear. The traditional answer is that it refers to virgin daughters whose fathers are deciding whether to give away in marriage. A more recent answer is that it refers to couples who have contracted “spiritual marriages,” in which they live together as husband and wife, though without sexual union. A third answer is that this refers to engaged couples. Each of these options has strengths and weaknesses, but on balance, we’ll proceed on the assumption that the third answer is correct. I’ll try to explain why as we work our way through the text.

Third, notice that Paul offers his personal “judgment” on this issue, not a “command from the Lord.” Even so, Paul’s judgment is “trustworthy” because of “the Lord’s mercy” to him.

Fourth, in Greek, Paul uses the language of “loosing” in 7:27. The TNIV translates this more literally: “Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.” “Loosing” is not standard terminology for divorce, as the NIV translates the term.

Fifth, as in 7:7, Paul states his personal preference for celibacy. On this one point, he was in agreement with the Corinthians. But their choice of celibacy was a principled (if extreme) asceticism.

 “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (7:1 [TNIV]). Paul’s choice of celibacy, on the other hand, was pragmatic, based on “the present crisis” and “troubles in this life” from which he wanted to “spare” the Corinthians.

Sixth, whereas the Corinthians’ asceticism seemed to have led them to view marriage as less spiritual and perhaps even sinful, Paul specifically says twice that individuals who choose to marry “have not sinned.”

In sum: this passage seems to address Christian engaged couples whom the Corinthians were encouraging not to marry. The Corinthians’ reasons were ascetic, however, and Paul was not an ascetic. He himself offered pragmatic reasons for celibacy. But he concluded that the either celibacy or marriage was a morally legitimate option for Christians.

The underlying message of 1 Corinthians 7:1-24 is that social status is irrelevant to spirituality. One can be celibate or married, and spiritual (verses 1-16). One can be circumcised or uncircumcised—that is, Jew or Gentile—and spiritual. And according to verses 20-24, one can also be enslaved or free and, and spiritual.

Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

Modern American readers of this passage often struggle with it, understandably. Our culture emphasizes action, but Paul says, “Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him” (verse 20, cf. verses 17 and 24). Our culture emphasizes freedom, but Paul says, “Were you a slave…? Don’t let it trouble you.” Our culture emphasizes independence, but Paul says, “each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.”

And—to be blunt—Paul seems nonplussed by the practice of slavery, which modern Americans shrink from in horror. Didn’t we fight a Civil War to end that practice? Why in the world, then, would the apostle be so casual about a slave purchasing his freedom? Shouldn’t he be demanding the man’s emancipation?

This passage, then, is both countercultural and controversial.

Before we get into a high dudgeon about Paul, we should remember his cultural context, as well as the point he’s trying to make. Regarding cultural context, slavery was a given in Paul’s culture. Indeed, given the brutality of Greco-Roman society, it’s unclear whether there was even a moral conscience regarding slavery’s wrongness. It would take centuries of Christian influence for that change of moral conscience to work its way toward the abolition of slavery in medieval Europe.

But we should also remember Paul’s point. For the ancients, only free men could be genuinely spiritual. Indeed, only men freed from the burden of manual labor could be genuinely spiritually free. Paul’s point in these verses is that such an idea is total rubbish. Obviously, from the standpoint of the slave, freedom is preferable to slavery, which is why Paul encourages slaves to “gain your freedom.” But if they can’t gain freedom and must remain a slave, “Don’t let it trouble you.” Why? Because in Christ, a slave is “the Lord’s freedman” and the free man is “Christ’s slave.”

Now, imagine the Corinthian worship service at which this passage is first read. The Christian slave owner, proud of his free status, learns that he’s no better in Christ’s eyes than his Christian slave. This is humbling. The Christian slave, ashamed of his chains, learns that he’s no worse in Christ’s eyes than his Christian owner. This is emboldening. Paul’s message, which modern readers consider retrograde, in its own day was downright revolutionary.

If only it could be revolutionary once again, against the social status markers we consider spiritual significant!

Is celibacy more spiritual than marriage?

Some Corinthians evidently thought so. They argued, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1 TNIV). In consequence, they urged married Christians to practice celibacy within marriage, widows and widowers not to remarry, Christian spouses to divorce, and Christians to divorce unbelieving spouses. None of this advice makes sense unless the Corinthians believed that marital status and sexual activity were spiritually inferior to celibacy.

In reply, Paul argued that if married, Christian spouses should maintain regular sexual relations with one another (verses 2-6). If widowed, marriage is permitted, although Paul stated his personal preference for celibacy (verses 8-9). Christian spouses should not divorce one another (verses 10-11). And Christian spouses should not divorce unbelieving partners, although the unbeliever may initiate divorce (verses 12-16). None of this advice makes sense unless Paul believes, as he states in verse 7, that both celibacy and marriage are spiritual gifts and that one should live as one is gifted.

Underlying the debate between some Corinthians and Paul is the assumption that certain social statuses are more spiritual than others. This is a recurring argument in Christian history, where celibacy and poverty have often been viewed as more spiritual than marriage and relative wealth. Having dealt with the specific issue of celibacy versus marriage in verses 1-16, Paul now turns to other markers of social status—specifically, circumcision and slavery—in verses 17-24. The thread tying the entire argument of verses 1-24 together is simply this: Social status is irrelevant to spirituality.

Consider what Paul writes in verses 17-19:

Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

In the ancient world, circumcision marked the difference between Jews and Gentiles, both religiously and ethnically. Jews practiced it. Gentiles did not. Indeed, they considered it barbaric. But Jews were so committed to the practice—it was part of the law (Genesis 17), after all—that many Jewish Christians required it as part of Gentile conversion to Christianity.

Paul’s “rule” was that “each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him.” A Christian, in other words, can be genuinely spiritual whether their social status is “circumcised” or “uncircumcised.” Either status is “nothing.” Paul’s rule agreed with the ruling of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35). For Paul, moral behavior rather than social status is a sign of genuine spirituality. “Keeping God’s commands is what counts.”

Does this have contemporary application? Yes. Most American Christians aren’t concerned about marital status or circumcision, but we routinely assume that “real Christians” will look like us, spend like us, be educated like us, and choose political parties like us—whatever “like us” may mean.” But are demographics, socioeconomics, education, and party affiliation any more reliable indicators of authentic spirituality than marital status and circumcision? No.

Now, as in Paul’s day, social status is irrelevant to spirituality.

In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, Paul offers this command to Corinthian believers who are married to nonbelievers:

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Notice several things:

First, the context of these verses indicates that Paul is talking about mixed marriages, i.e., one in which a believer is married to an unbeliever. This differentiates it from verses 10-11, in which Paul spoke directly to Christian couples.

Second, this Paul’s command, not Jesus’. In verses 10-11, Paul appealed specifically to the commandment of Jesus regarding divorce in believing marriages. Jesus did not explicitly address the issue of divorce in mixed marriages, so Paul issues this command on his authority as Jesus’ apostle.

Third, notice that Paul explicitly addresses the believing spouse directly. Though an apostle of Jesus, Paul has no authority over nonbelievers. This commandment applies to believers. And notice that it applies to them whether they are women or men. Indeed, notice throughout this chapter how Paul demonstrates the mutuality of Christian marriage by balancing his remarks to women with similar remarks to men.

Fourth, the most difficult part of this passage has to do with the words “sanctified” and “holy,” which Paul applies to unbelieving spouses and the children of mixed unions, respectively. What Paul is not saying is that unbelieving spouses or children of mixed unions are saved or made holy simply because of their believing parent. This would be contrary to his consistent teaching of salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Rather, the general idea seems to be that by remaining married to an unbeliever, a believing spouse puts his or her unbelieving spouse and children in the position of hearing the gospel and potentially coming to faith themselves. He makes this idea explicit by asking in verse 16 whether a believing wife will “save” her unbelieving husband, and a believing husband his wife.

Finally, Paul allows an exception. A believer may not initiate a divorce simply because of the spouses lack of faith. But if the unbelieving spouse leaves, Paul says this frees them from their marriage vows.

Even in mixed marriages, Paul sees the potential for God to work. If you’re in such a marriage, take heart!

—–

P.S. Check out my review of Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith.

Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010). $22.99, 224 pages.

The Hitchens brothers are a study in contrasts. Christopher, the eldest, is an atheist, man of the Left, and resolute supporter of the War on Terror. Peter, the youngest, is a Christian, man of the Right, and opponent of the same war. The former wrote God Is Not Great. With The Rage Against God, the latter has now published his rebuttal.

The rebuttal unfolds in three parts. Part 1, “A Personal Journey through Atheism,” is autobiographical, and for my money, the best part of the book. Born in 1951 on Malta, the son of a British naval officer, Peter was educated in a naval boarding school, steeped in his country’s intertwined patriotic traditions and state church. After two world wars, however, that patriotism and religion lost credibility. “As the old regimes, one by one, crumbled and sagged, the churches crumbled and sagged with them.” Peter came of age in the dissolution of Empire. Its dissolution was the cultural milieu in which Peter’s patriotism and childhood religion dissolved too. At 12, he announced his disbelief. At 15, he burned his Bible. Until he returned to church in 1985, he considered himself a man of the Trotskyist Left, which is what Christopher continues to be.

Why did he return to church? A number of reasons: On a tour of France, he viewed Rogier van der Weyden’s 15^th-Century polyptych, The Last Judgment, which 500 years after its painting caused Peter to “tremble for the things of which my conscience was afraid.” Marriage and fatherhood played a role too. But two years of reporting on the Soviet Union as that empire unwound, as well as journalistic experiences in Mogadishu, convinced him that civilization is a fragile thing and that belief in God helps to contrain humanity’s violent tendencies.

Part 2, “Addressing the Three Failed Arguments of Atheism,” asks and answers three questions: “Are conflicts fought in the name of religion conflicts about religion?” No. They can be, but they aren’t necessarily. Where they are, Peter is critical, writing, “The Christian church has been powerfully damaged by letting itself be confused with love of country and the making of great wars.” Second, “Is it possible to determine what is right and what is wrong with God?” No. Atheism admits of no moral absolutes. Indeed, it cannot, for there is no natural explanation of human moral behavior. And finally, “Are atheist states not actually atheist?” Christopher argued that the Soviet Union under Stalin, with its cult of personality and whatnot, was functionally religious. It’s a clever argument that is betrayed by a simple fact: “Atheist states have a consistent tendency to commit mass murders in the name of the greater good.” Knowing this, Peter concludes: “This suggests that terror and slaughter are inherent in utopian materialist revolutionary movements.”

Perhaps feeling that he has not decisively laid this third atheist argument to rest, Peter returns to the question in Part 3, “The League of the Militant Godless” (the name of an actual group in the early years of the Russian Revolution). This part focuses on the campaign against the Christian religion the Soviet Union waged throughout its revolutionary history. If the Soviet state were not militantly godless, why did it engage in such a long-last war against belief from its inception under Lenin? Given that the “Living Church” was willing to make its peace with the Soviets, why did the Soviets persecute the faithful, even consuming “Living Church” priests and bishops once they had served their purpose? Because the Soviets desired absolute control, and as Peter writes in an earlier section of the book: “in an age of power-worship, the Christian religion has become the principal obstacle to the desire of earthly utopians for absolute power.” The final chapter of the book, “The Great Debate,” notes that the rhetoric of the so-called “New Atheists”—including brother Christopher’s rhetoric—is eerily similar to the Soviets’, which is obviously worrisome.

In an Epilogue to the book, Peter recounts a debate with Christopher in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The brothers have been at odds since childhood and are more or less estranged now. But other than the occasional barb, they refused to make their debate personal. Indeed, in a touching incident that Peter recounts, Christopher even cooked his brother dinner during a visit at Christopher’s Washington D.C. apartment. The scene is bittersweet to read. But no doubt the debate continues.

—–

P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul offers a commandment against divorce between Christians.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Notice several things about these two verses:

First, they state a commandment. Paul writes, “I give this command” (regarding divorce), then he immediately qualifies it by saying, “not I, but the Lord.” As “an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God” (1:1), Paul has authority to command the consciences of followers of Christ, if for no other reason than because his life is lived in imitation of his Lord’s (4:16, 11:1).  But on the issue of divorce, he need not appeal to his own authoritative teaching because Christ’s teaching was well known to the Corinthians: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her” (Mark 10:11; cf. Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Luke 16:18). According to the Matthean passages, divorce was permissible in case of adultery. And 1 Corinthians 7:15 also seems to allow divorce in case of abandonment. Aside from these exceptions, however, and especially in marriages between Christians, divorce is not an option.

Second, these verses are countercultural. In its 2007 report, The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America, the National Marriage Project reports: “For the average couple marrying for the first time in recent years, the lifetime probability of divorce or separation remains between 40 and 50 percent” (page 18). The divorce statistics for Christians are not much better. According to the Barna Group, “when evangelicals and non-evangelical born again Christians are combined into an aggregate class of born again adults, their divorce figure is statistically identical to that of non-born again adults.” Unfortunately, the Christian norm of lifelong fidelity within marriage is countercultural to both our society and the church.

Third, these verses are contextual. We must remember that in these verses Paul is dealing with extreme ascetics at Corinth who advocate celibacy even within marriage (see my comments on 7:1). Evidently, some of these people even went so far as to advocate divorce as an aid to ascetic practice. Because in marriage, each spouse possesses, has obligations to, and holds authority over the other’s body (see my comments on 7:2-5), divorce in itself was a sin, a breach of marital mutuality. But if Christians separated or divorced (in Greco-Roman culture, these terms were functional equivalents), they should not compound the original sin with remarriage. Rather, they should remain celibate or reconcile with their spouses, for remarriage was tantamount to divorce.

Extreme asceticism is not a temptation in modern America. Extreme libertinism is, however. When couples divorce, there is little sanction against extramarital sex or remarriage. But Christian marriages should be different. As Gordon Fee asks: “If the Christian husband and wife cannot be reconciled to one another, then how can they expect to become models of reconciliation before a fractured and broken world?”

If—on divorce or any other issue—Christian behavior is indistinguishable from non-Christian behavior, is it really Christian?

For Christians, the rule of sex is this: fidelity within marriage, chastity without it. Against extreme ascetics among Corinthian Christians, who encouraged celibacy even within marriage, Paul encouraged Christians to maintain regular sexual relations with their spouses. And yet, he also reminded them that lifelong celibacy was a viable option, one that he himself had chosen based on his spiritual gifting. See 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.

Now, in verses 8-9, Paul goes on to apply the Christian rule to sexual relationships among de-married Christians, that is, men and women who had been married but are now widowed.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

In Greek, the word for “unmarried” is agamos. Broadly speaking, it refers to any person who is not presently married, regardless of whether they ever have been. But in the context of 1 Corinthians 7, it likely refers to de-married persons generally and, in verse 8, widowers specifically, as Gordon D. Fee argues in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. He offers three reasons: (1) In koine Greek, agamos was sometimes used for “widowers.” (2) Paul pairs husbands and wives twelve times. This man/woman pairing makes sense in verse 8, especially since “widows” would be redundant if “unmarried” referred to all unmarried people rather than a specific subset of unmarried people. (3) Paul uses agamos of de-married people, not never-married people. The word refers to a divorced (separated?) woman in verse 11, and stands in contrast to “a virgin” (i.e., never married persons) in verse 34.

If Fee is correct, then Paul is counseling widows and widowers “to stay unmarried, as I am,” or more literally, “to remain as I am.” (The word unmarried does not appear a second time in Greek.) By saying “as I am,” is Paul implying that he is de-married, whether through the death of his spouse or divorce? Perhaps.

So, celibacy is Paul’s preference for widowers and widows. But verse 7 is still in force. If the de-married are now gifted for lifelong celibacy, then that is the lifestyle they should choose. If not, they should choose marriage. Sexual immorality in general, and consorting with prostitutes in particular, is not a viable option for Christians—even de-married ones.

Paul’s final statement—“it is better to marry than to burn”—is somewhat controversial. For one thing, it makes it sound like marriage is a begrudged concession to persons who can’t keep their clothes on, rather than the creation and gift of God. For another thing, it is unclear whether the burning refers to divine judgment on sin or to intense desire. In favor of the former, see 3:15; in favor of the latter—the NIV adds “with passion” to the Greek text—see 2 Corinthians 11:29.

Either way, marriage and celibacy are still the Christian’s options, whether never married or de-married.

This video is part 9 of Dr. Jim Bradford’s ongoing series on spiritual formation, The Resurrected Life. In it, Dr. Bradford talks about how to lead others into the experience of being filled with the Spirit. He uses the acronym C.A.L.L.:

• C = Confess all known sin.
• A = Ask for the Holy Spirit.
• L = Long to be used by God.
• L = Lift up praise.

Last Thursday, I interviewed Larry Osborne for MinistryDirect.com. Here’s the video.