Bible Difficulties (89 page)

But what it is that causes a sinner to open his heart to God's truth and become willing to believe is not really spelled out in Scripture. All we can be sure of is that God, "who is 404

not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9), has not made their choice for them. Each man bears full responsibility for his own choice; and as one created in the image of God (and therefore invested with moral responsibility), and as one wrought upon by the Holy Spirit of God (who alone can evoke a true and saving faith), he must decide for himself between life and death, between blessing and cursing-- "So choose life, so that you may live!" (Deut. 30:19).

405

1 Corinthians

Was Eliphaz inspired when he spoke Job 5:13?

In 1 Corinthians 3:19, Paul quotes a statement made by Eliphaz in Job 5:13: "He [God]

catches the wise in their own craftiness." This raises an interesting problem, since Job 42:7 quotes Yahweh as saying to Eliphaz, "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has." This suggests that the sentiments expressed by Job's "comforters" fall short of trustworthiness in theological teaching. One critic, Dewey Beegle, puts the problem this way: "Traditionally speaking, Eliphaz has never been considered as inspired. Job, so it is claimed, was the inspired one....Apparently Paul did not care who said it, nor whether he was inspired. The statement was true as far as he was concerned, and so he used it in his argument" (
Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973], p.

194).

What this comment fails to reckon with is that Paul really does treat Eliphaz's comment as inspired, for he introduces it with the phrase "It is written." Through the New Testament, Christ, the apostles, and the Evangelists Mark and Luke all use the formula "It is written" to cite authoritative Scripture in proving a point of truth. It is only fair to conclude that in this instance, too, the passage cited is considered inerrantly trustworthy and authoritative. This serves as a reminder that many of the general principles the comforters brought up in their dialogue with Job were quite true in themselves, even though they may not have been appropriate to Job's situation, and may by inference have been grossly unfair to him. But we should remember that Job himself declared to them,

"Who does not know such things as these?" (Job 12:3)--i.e., those religious platitudes that they had been preaching to him.

In point of fact, Job in some of his own speeches expresses sentiments very similar to those that the "comforters" had directed at him. Insofar as they recognized the righteousness of God and His willingness to receive the penitent sinner back into His favor, what they spoke was God's truth. But their insistence on the point that God would not possibly allow misfortune to overtake Job unless he had been guilty of some heinous, unconfessed sin was a serious misrepresentation of God's providential dealings. In effect, they demoted Him to their own salvation-by-works mentality, making Him a patron of their own self-justification.

It should also be pointed out that not everything Job said about God in his state of resentment and frustration was true. For instance, in Job 10:3 Job complains to God,

"Does it please you to oppress me, to spurn the work of your hands, while you smile on the schemes of the wicked?" (NIV). Also, in Job 16:12-13 he accuses God of heartless cruelty toward him. It should also be observed that even a normally uninspired sinner like Caiaphas could on occasion express a sentiment such as John 11:50: "It is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." John 406

goes on to comment: "But he did not say this on his own, but rather being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus die for the nation" (v.51).

In any book of the Bible, it is necessary to study with discrimination the setting of each statement, to see whether the author himself intends it as authoritative and inspired, or whether it simply gives an accurate report of the uninspired utterances of misguided unbelievers or even of Satan himself. All these distinctions are involved in the doctrine of Inerrancy.

Does 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 authorize divorce for desertion?

1 Corinthians 7:10-16 deals primarily with the situation arising after one partner in a marriage relationship becomes a convert to the Christian faith but the other does not.

Because of the complete change in outlook and ideals on the part of the newly saved spouse, sharp differences of opinion with the unsaved mate are bound to arise. Because of a desire to lead a holy life, the new Christian may be tempted to feel that it would be better to split up with his or her spouse and thus terminate the problems arising from disagreements and misunderstanding that divide the home.

It is in this light that we are to understand vv. 10-13, which direct the Christian husband not to send away (
aphienai
) his unconverted wife and the Christian wife not to "leave"

(
choristhenai apo
, lit., "be separated from") her unbelieving husband. In other words, the initiative for separation must always come from the unsaved mate, not from the Christian.

The apostle points out that the unbeliever comes under the special influence of the Holy Spirit as long as they both live under the same roof; in that sense the pagan mate is

"sanctified" by the Christian partner. 1 Peter 3:1-2 suggests how this pressure is exerted on the conscience of the unbeliever by the new walk or the transformed life of the believer: "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior" (NASB).

Second, the apostle points out that if the children of this spiritually divided home have even one parent who is a true believer, they come into a special relationship with God that constitutes them as "holy" (
hagia
), instead of defiled or unclean (
akatharta
), as the children of unbelievers necessarily are (1 Cor. 7:15). In other words, they are eligible to be received into a covenant relationship with God (through dedication or infant baptism) as already belonging to Him. Not that such children are already born again, but they belong to the Lord in the same way that Isaac belonged to the Lord when Abraham had him circumcised one week after he was born (Gen. 17:12; 21:4). (Note that Ishmael also was circumcised as a thirteen year old, but he seems to have wandered away from the Lord when he grew up and may possibly have forfeited the benefits of the covenant; cf.

Gen. 16:12).

What 1 Corinthians 7 teaches is that a spiritually divided household is not obliged to remain together under the same roof if there is such alienation or bitterness that the unsaved spouse no longer is willing to stick it out with his Christian mate. Verse 15 says, 407

"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister [i.e., the Christian spouse] is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace"

(NASB). In the following verse Paul points out that there is no ironclad guarantee that things will get better if the Christian partner elects to stay on and endure the persecution and abuse of the recalcitrant unbeliever. Even such self-sacrificial devotion may turn out to be completely unavailing, so far as the conversion of the unsaved mate is concerned.

This passage has given rise to much discussion in regard to the matter of divorce.

Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 clearly establish "unchastity" (
porneia
) as a valid ground for divorce, for a marriage is dealt a deadly wound by adulterous relations with an outsider.

But does 1 Corinthians 7 refer to divorce at all? Apparently not. The Matthew passages speak of remarriage after the original couple has broken up (under the law of Moses, the guilty party in such a case was to be executed by stoning, along with the paramour; cf.

Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:24). But 1 Corinthians 7 makes no reference to a second marriage on the part of the innocent partner. On the contrary, it says quite specifically in v.11: "But if she [the separated wife who is a Christian] does leave, let her
remain unmarried
or else be reconciled to her husband" (italics mine, NASB). Unquestionably the same would be true of a husband who was compelled by his unconverted wife to leave her.

But the requirement to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to the same spouse again does not amount to a ground for divorce, at least not according to the law of Christ--

which is of course final and binding for every practicing Christian. Separation is permitted, if the two cannot live together in harmony; but divorce is definitely not permitted on the ground of desertion alone. It will normally happen that when such a separation has occurred and continues for a lengthy period of time, the unbelieving mate will obtain some sort of divorce under the provisions of the civil courts and will marry someone else. That, of course, would constitute adultery under the rule of Matthew 5:32

and 19:9; and the innocent party would then be free to marry again. But until that happens, no second marriage is possible without rejection of the authority of Christ. Mere desertion, by itself, is not a ground for divorce.

Two questions remain to be discussed in this connection. Suppose the unconverted spouse goes on for years without sexual involvement with another partner? Must the Christian husband or wife remain in a separated state? Suppose the children are at an age when they very much need a two-parent home in order to develop in a normal and healthy way? Such situations frequently occur, and they raise severe and anguishing problems. Often the option of marrying someone else who will be more congenial, or who is perhaps even a fellow believer, seems to be very attractive. Would it not result in more good than harm to take this easier way out, and thus benefit the children in their growth and development? The answer to this question is the same as in every other situation where it seems easier to solve a problem by doing what any unbeliever would do under the circumstances. The issue of full submission to the revealed will of God and complete trust in the faithfulness of God is really at stake here. Even more important than our achieving and maintaining the so-called happiness that worldlings consider to be the final yardstick of value is the test of faith and faithfulness to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

408

God has not called us to be happy, but He has called us to follow Him, with all integrity and devotion. Hebrews 11:35 honors the memory of those Old Testament believers who

"were tortured, not accepting their release, in order that they might obtain a better resurrection." Verses 36-38 refer to the terrible persecution and hardship that they had to endure for the Lord's sake; then v.39 states that "all these gained approval through their faith." None of them enjoyed what the world would call "happiness," but they did obtain something far more important: the "approval" of God. Surely this applies to living with the dismal disappointment and frustration of an unhappy marriage. The husband or wife who makes the best of a single-parent situation may be forfeiting happiness, but the favor and approval of Christ will in the end mean far more both to the believing parent--and even to the children as well--than resorting to a second-marriage alliance without scriptural grounds for divorce.

The second question has to do with a couple who were married and divorced before either came to know the Lord. If the divorce was not on the ground of adultery, or if both of them were involved in violation of their marriage vows, what then? Suppose one--or both--of them gets married to a second partner and then becomes a born-again believer?

What should the new convert do? Should he or she endeavor to terminate the second marriage and persuade the original mate to patch up the first marriage once more?

Suppose the original spouse will not consent to this, will the new Christian have to remain under a cloud of guilt the rest of his life? Not if he (or she) has made every effort to achieve restitution. (A converted robber would certainly be expected to repay his victim the full amount of his theft; likewise, a slanderer would certainly have to confess his lie and beg the forgiveness of the one he wronged prior to his conversion.) In some instances, it appears that restitution might result in even greater wrong than the original offense. For example, if children have been born as a result of the second marriage, it would seem to work a grave injustice to them if a reversion to the original marriage partner were attempted. This would surely result in more harm than good. The only honorable option under such circumstances would seem to be faithfulness to the second marriage partner and an honest endeavor to bring up the children of the second marriage in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord." Yet those children would have to be informed sooner or later of the past mistakes of their parents and would need to be carefully instructed in Christ's own standards for marriage.

Even if the second marriage is preserved intact, however, the clear teaching of 1

Timothy 3:2 and 3:12 is that church officers, such as elders and deacons, must not be chosen from the ranks of believers who do not meet the test of "husband of one wife," for anyone appointed to such an office "must be above reproach." (Of course there is no reproach attached to the widower who marries again, provided he marries a widow or woman who is not divorced. Hence the requirement of being "husband of one wife" must be intended to exclude only men who have been divorced or who are polygamists.) Whereas a sincere Christian believer who has been remarried does not necessarily have a prescriptive right to church office as a minister, elder, or deacon, yet he may have a very worthy role of service to play in other area of endeavor as a true follower of Christ.

409

Churches or denominations that overlook this restriction (including all the other positive and negative requirements outlined in 1 Tim. 3:2-12) do so in disobedience to the Word of God and will therefore have to forfeit His favor until the matter is properly rectified.