Today's reading from the Chronological OT/NT Reading Plan is 1 Chronicles 4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:1-19.
Okay, I'll admit it. This time the genealogies in 1 Chronicles glazed my eyes over and I ended up just skimming through these chapters. Nothing really stuck out other than the fact that Judah and Reuben switch places in the line-up for very specific reasons. Not all the other sons of Jacob/Israel and their descendents and tribes are listed in the order in which they were born, but the order in which these two are presented is given special mention.
Reuben is the first-born, but mentioned third because he disgraced himself by sleeping with his dad's concubine, after which his birthright was given to Joseph. Judah is listed first, not because he was the first-born, obviously, but because the Jews' greatest leader ~ king David ~ had come from this tribe. (Keep in mind, Chronicles ~ originally just one book ~ was written several hundred years after the events they retell, well after the fall of both kingdoms and the destruction of Jerusalem. According to Jewish tradition, the prophet Ezra was the author, writing to encourage and remind the returned exiles of their past, their heritage, and the hand of their great God through it all.)
Of vastly more interest to me was the passage in 1 Corinthians! Here the apostle Paul takes time to begin to address some concerns the Christians in Corinth had written him about. We don't know exactly what they asked, but evidently there was some confusion about how to approach the subject of marriage among the new believers. Just looking at the text, we might wonder why he had to address it at all, but John MacArthur, my favourite go-to guy for background and cultural significance, does a WONDERFUL job of explaining it all. (vv. 1-7) And trust me, when he's through, you'll see it's perfectly understandable!!
It seems some of the local customs, in combination with past and current relationships AND their new faith, made it difficult for these young Christians to know how best to live for the glory of God in their current relationships. Paul clears it up for them, encouraging them to stay in their current relationships and to be content with their marital status. He advises the married believers to honour their marriages in all areas, including the bedroom. I think it's interesting that Paul specifically addresses physical intimacy in marriage, essentially telling the Corinthians (and us) that it's a good thing. In fact, that it's the right thing for married couples to do, especially in their pursuit of holiness!! (Again, my pal Johnny Mac does a great job of explaining this all ~ vv. 8-16)
Really, what all the Corinthians' questions boil down to is Christians and Social Revolution. Again, MacArthur helps us see it so simply: Now Paul wants to show in this passage that being a Christian does not mean that you have to create chaos by jolting the institutions in which you live. The point is this: a relationship to Christ is compatible with ANY social status.
It doesn't matter what you are. It doesn't matter what the society is, in terms of the basic identity of Christianity. The gospel is not an immediately revolutionizing, disorganizing element in society. For example, if a wife becomes a Christian, what should she be? A better wife, right? If a husband becomes a Christian, what should he be? A better husband. ...A citizen who becomes a Christian, what should he become? A better citizen. Not a social reactionary. (emphasis added)
And in case we get the impression from this that MacArthur means Christianity has nothing at all to do with social activism, he maintains the Bible is quite clear about the fact that we are to meet the needs of people ~ binding up the wounded, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the lonely and the outcast. There is a responsibility for Christians to seek justice in a society through the means that the society provides, "But the heartbeat of Christianity with all of its deep social ramifications is still this: it is a spiritual regeneration and spiritually transformed people will change a society not like dynamite, but like leaven; not by blowing the lid off the society, but by spreading the power of Christianity through the transformed lives of the people within that society." (emphasis added)
I found this series of messages to be a powerful reminder that it isn't my job to change who and what is around me. I'm often caught up in the belief that things should be done the way I think they should be done because I've studied my Bible now for a bit, and read some commentaries by people who've studied it much more than I have. I mean, come on, I write weekly for a Bible blog!! But Paul gently reminds me here ~ and in the next few chapters ~ that it isn't my job to transform my surroundings, my society.
It's my job to show to the world how God's transformed ME from the inside out, and in such a way that those around me will want that transformation, too.
Tomorrow's passages: 1 Chronicles 7-9; 1 Corinthians 7:20-40
5 comments:
Excellent point... change is always more effective when we seek change within ourselves rather than trying to change the things around us. Thanks!
Great post with much to chew on. One thing that popped out for me was this verse:
"If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him."
There have been many separations/divorces in our immediate circle of family and friends and I struggle with this verse. If a spouse agrees to live together regardless of what has happened prior to that, doesn't this verse mean that they should stay together? Does happiness override this? I don't think so but it keeps happening more and more that the desire to serve feelings is placed above what the bible says.
There are two biblical reasons for divorce - one is adultery and the other is if an unbeliever initiates divorce proceedings against a believer.
You asked two different questions really. "Does happiness override this?" No. Happiness has nothing to do with it.
"If a spouse agrees to live together regardless of what has happened prior to that, doesn't this verse mean that they should stay together?" Yes, unless what happened prior was adultery, then divorce is permitted (but not commanded)
See http://www.gty.org/resources/Bible+Q&A/BQ32811_Marriage-or-Divorce for more thoughts.
hmmm... not sure I totally agree with the author but something to think about for sure.
Which part in particular Pam?
Post a Comment