Thursday, July 31, 2014

Matthew 20:1-34

What is the theme of this chapter?

Recognition and rank in the kingdom.

What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 16

So the last will be first, and the first last.

What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?

There is a timeless principle in this chapter that I need to take it to heart.  My responsibility is to labor faithfully for Him, not with a view to a reward, but to please Him. I am also to trust His graciousness to be fair in the rewards given.

Matthew 20:29-34

And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, there were two blind men sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent, but they cried out all the more, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” And stopping, Jesus called them and said, “What do you want me to do for you?” They said to him, “Lord, let our eyes be opened.” And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they recovered their sight and followed him.


This account also appears in Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43. Luke says this happened while Jesus approached Jericho, Mark and Matthew while He was leaving.

"In actuality there were two Jerichos, The Roman city lay about a mile east of Herod’s winter headquarters (also called Jericho) where the wealthy friends of the Herodian family lived near the palace and fortress. The healing of the blind man, evidently, took place while Jesus was going from one city to the other. Luke’s attention would be on the Herodian city, for his next recorded event, the calling of Zacchaeus, took place there." (KJV Commentary)

"The differences in this account (which speaks of two blind men and of the miracle being done as Jesus left Jericho) and the accounts in Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 (which mention only one blind man and the miracle performed as they entered Jericho) are explained thus: (1) there were actually two men involved, but Bartimaeus, being more aggressive, takes the place of prominence; and (2) the men pled with Jesus as He entered Jericho but were not healed until He was leaving.  It is also possible that the healing took place after Jesus left old Jericho and was nearing new Jericho." (Ryrie)

Son of David - "The specific messianic title (Ps 72; Isa 9:7)." (Ryrie)

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Matthew 20:20-28

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, “What do you want?”She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”


mother - Mark 10:35 makes it clear that it was really James and John who were asking. They just used their mother, probably to gain sympathy.

sons - James and John (Matt 4:21)

The disciples believed He was the Messiah who would reign. They had faith. But they didn’t understand that He would first have to suffer.

right hand - The position next to His throne. They’d been told they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt 19:28)

cup - His suffering and death

You will drink my cup - James was beheaded (Acts 12:2) and John was exiled to Patmos (Rev 1:9)

it is for those - These words were added by the translators. He wasn’t saying that He couldn’t give the positions, but that He could only give them to those for whom it was prepared.

life (v 28) = soul

Christ was contrasting the measure of greatness in earthly kingdoms with that in His kingdom. Among Gentiles, the rulers are considered greater than others. In His kingdom, it is the servants who are considered great. Of course, in a kingdom where all seek to serve, this will look far different than our idea of menial service.

"Christ said it was characteristic of Gentiles to promote themselves and put themselves in positions of authority over other people. The Twelve were acting just like the hard-hearted Gentiles. To correct this attitude Christ taught that if one would be great, he must attain that greatness by becoming a servant to those over whom he would rule. The on who wanted to be in a position of prominence must gain it by becoming a slave. He Himself was an example of that teaching, for although the Son of Man was destined by God to rule over the earth in the millennial kingdom, God’s Son came into the world as a Servant, not as a Master. As a Servant obedient tot he will of His Father, He would give His life a ransom for many." (Pentecost)

ransom for many - "The word 'for' undebatably means 'in the place of.'  Christ here clearly interprets the meaning of His sacrifice as a substitution for sinners." (Ryrie)

Matthew 20:17-19

And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”


This conversation also appears in Mark 10:32-34 and Luke 18:31-34 (in which we learn that the twelve understood none of what He said).

Jesus also foretold His death in Matthew 12:38-42; 16:21-28; 17:22-23. He knew exactly what was about to happen, but He never wavered from His determination to do His Father’s will.

Jesus never mentioned the cross to His disciples without also mentioning the resurrection.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Matthew 20:1-16

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ So the last will be first, and the first last.”


Matthew 19:30 and 20:16 bookend the parable with the principle that the last will be first and first last. The parable itself explains what this means — that God will reward based on His own criteria and not based on those we think He should use.

a denarius a day - "A good and normal wage for a rural worker.  Additional workers were hired at about 9 a.m., noon, 3 p.m., and 5 p.m." (Ryrie)

Christ now proceeded to teach through a parable the basis on which rewards will be apportioned in the millennial kingdom.

do you begrudge my generosity? - "This is the point of the parable: God's grace and generosity know no bounds, and man's ideas of merit and earned rewards are irrelevant." (Ryrie)

"We would have to acknowledge that he [the householder] was both fair and gracious. He had a right to do what he had so graciously done. By this parable the Lord desired those who had asked what they would receive to learn the lesson that they were to work in the vineyard and leave their reward to Him. He would be just and fair, and He could also be counted on to be gracious. he had a right to do as He chose in dispensing the rewards. Their responsibility was to labor faithfully for Him, not with a view to the reward, but to please the One who had sent them to labor in the vineyard. They were also to trust the graciousness of the One who had commissioned them to be fair in the reward." (Pentecost)

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Matthew 19:1-30

What is the theme of this chapter?

Human Problems and the Kingdom — physical problems, divorce and remarriage, children, wealth, rewards in the kingdom.

What is the key verse(s) of this chapter? Verses 28-29

Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life."

What can I apply to my life from this chapter (things to do/avoid)?

I believe a divorced person can find grace and forgiveness in Christ. But I also believe that divorce is wrong because it is a violation of God’s plan, and that no justification for it can be found in Scripture.


Matthew 19:27-30

Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.


 in the new world [regeneration] - the Millennial kingdom, when Israel is brought back into God’s favor

"In the new age, the Millennium, when the earth will be made new, during which time the disciples will judge Israel.  The only other use of the word 'regeneration' in the NT speaks of people being made new in the present age (Titus3:5)." (Ryrie)

left … brothers … or mother (v 29) — See Matthew 12:46-50

The young man had just been told to sell all and follow Jesus. Peter then said, “We’ve done just that. What about us? What good did it do us?” The Lord’s response shows that the question was not out of line. He tells the apostles what their future will be. He then makes a promise to all who follow Him. But He also adds a warning (continued in the parable in Matthew 20:1-16) to those who think they will be rewarded for their own efforts or merit.

Matthew 19:16-26

And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him,“All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”


This account also appears in Mark 10:17-27 (where it says that Jesus loved the young man) and in Luke 18:18-27 (where we learn that the young man was a ruler, perhaps a Pharisee)

good deed - trying to enter the kingdom by his own merit

"Jews of the time believed that performing some single good act would guarantee salvation." (Ryrie)

Why do you ask me about what is good? - As if to ask, 'Have you really thought this through?' Jesus was making the point that only God is good. If the young man thought Him good, that mean he was referring to Jesus as God. Was he ready for that?

"In addressing Jesus Christ as 'Good Master,' the young man evidently meant to do Him honor, but Jesus points out the fact that only God is good. All men are sinners (Romans 3:12). Therefore, if Jesus were only a man, He would not be good, in this absolute sense. If truly good, then He is God. After this solemn declaration, the Lord Jesus took the inquirer up on his own ground. The law promised life to those who kept it (Leviticus 18:5; Galatians 3:12). So the Lord answered, 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' This declaration was designed to show the man his inability to obtain life on that ground, for if conscience were active, he would realize he had already violated the law. He saith unto Him, 'Which?' This was clearly an attempt to evade the full force of the Lord’s words. In reply, Jesus quoted five of the principal commandments and concluded by summing up all of those that refer to our duties to our fellow-men by quoting from Leviticus 19:18, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' It would indicate an unawakened condition of soul if one could face all these and now plead guilty." (Ironside)

Jesus listed the commandments (vs 18-19) that were displayed outwardly. The young man claimed to have kept those.

sell what you possess and give to the poor - Jesus showed that the young man hadn’t kept the commandments to love God with all his heart or to love his neighbor as himself.

"The man was being asked to prove his claim to have kept the commandments, especially the one that says 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' (v. 19).  His unwillingness to do so belied his claim (v. 20) and showed him as a sinner in need of salvation." (Ryrie)

"The man’s response demonstrated that he was not righteous, for he was unwilling to fulfill the second table of the law and love his neighbor as himself. His response also revealed that he did not fulfill the first table of the law that forbade one to have gods above the true God. One’s god is what he serves, and this man loved and served his wealth." (Pentecost)

a camel to go through the eye of a needle - "Christ’s use of the word for a surgeon’s suturing needle indicated that His references to a camel and a needle were to be taken literally. The popular explanation that the eye of a needle referred to a small gate within the large city gate has no historical basis. Christ was not teaching that it is difficult for one who trusts in riches to enter the kingdom. He was showing that it was utterly impossible for one who trusts in riches to enter the kingdom. Such a teaching seemed inconceivable to the disciples who had been brought up on the philosophy that riches were a sure sign of divine pleasure and an evidence of God’s blessing. If the rich whom God loved and blessed and with whom He was pleased could not enter the kingdom, what chance was there for the multitudes? Christ responded, 'With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God' (Mark 10:27)." (Pentecost).

"In this proverbial expression, Christ does not say that a rich man could not be saved (v. 26), but only that, for him, it is more difficult, since such a person seldom senses his personal need as readily as a poorer man does." (Ryrie)

rich person - not necessarily one who has riches, but one who trusts in riches

The Lord’s point was that no man can gain eternity by his own merit or effort (v 26). It is impossible. But he can gain it through God.

Matthew 19:13-15

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” And he laid his hands on them and went away.


This account also is recorded in Mark 10:13-16 and Luke 18:15-17.

The disciples tried to stop the children from seeing Jesus (v 13). They must not have learned much from the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 18:2-10.

"He demanded that the children be permitted to come to Him. They were not to be refused. His reason was that 'the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these' (Matthew 19:14). The faith that had brought the children to Jesus was a sign of the faith that would admit one into the kingdom. Christ said, 'Anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it' (Mark 10:15). If Christ turned away these who believed in Him, there would be no assurance that He would accept others who tried to enter His kingdom by faith. Jesus tenderly took the children in His arms, put His hands on them, and blessed them. The fact that the children were small enough to be taken into His arms indicates that they were too small to exercise faith in His person. Therefore the faith referred to must have been that of the parents. Thus Jesus gave the disciples an illustration of the necessity of faith for entrance into the kingdom and the validity of faith as a basis for such an entrance." (Pentecost)

I agree with Pentecost that the chief point the Lord was making here was that those who came to Him with faith for salvation, the way the children came to Him with faith here, would enter the kingdom. The emphasis is on the faith, not on the children. It may be that He was also teaching that children too young to exercise saving faith would get into the kingdom because of their simple faith. But that’s just surmise.

Matthew 19:1-12

Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”


This account is also found in Mark 10:1-12.

Judea beyond the Jordan - Perea, east of the river, is not part of Judea but with the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, which extended from the Sea of Galilee almost to the Dead Sea.  The events of this chapter took place during the Lord’s final journey to Jerusalem for His death.

for any cause - "The rabbis were divided on what were legitimate grounds for divorce.  The followers of Shammai held that a man could not divorce his wife unless he found her guilty of sexual immorality.  The followers of Hillel were more lax, allowing divorce for many, including trivial, reasons." (Ryrie)

The Lord responds (vs 4-6) to the Pharisees’ question (v 3) by going back to Genesis 1:27 and 2:-23-24 and showing God’s intent for marriage.

"Rather than aligning Himself with either rabbinical position, Jesus cites the purpose of God in creation that husband and wife should be one flesh—oneness of kinship or fellowship with the body as the medium, causing marriage to be the deepest physical and spiritual unity." (Ryrie)

Have you not read (v 4) — They should have known the answer (and probably did, but didn’t want it).

"The Mosaic Law permitted divorce when a wife proved faithless; but the Rabbinical interpreters after their wont disputed over this enactment. The school of Shammai, adhering to the letter of the Law, held that a wife should not be divorced except for unfaithfulness; whereas the school of Hillel, with a laxity very agreeable to the general inclination, allowed a husband to put away his wife "for every cause" — if he disliked her, if he fancied another woman more, if her cookery were not to his taste. The Pharisees would force Jesus to line up with one side or the other of the theological factions and so alienate a part of the crowd. Or perhaps, knowing already what Jesus thought about such questions, they wished to bring Him again into direct conflict with Herod Antipas. That wicked ruler was living with Herodias in open adultery. John had denounced their sin and lost his own head. If they could get Jesus to denounce openly this Herod and the wicked Herodias, they might succeed in doing away with Him soon. The Mosaic law really permitted divorce only for the cause of unfaithfulness, but the popular conception among the Jews at the time of Jesus was that of the Rabbinical interpreters of the school of Hillel. Woman had become a mere chattel of man, subject to his inhuman and cruel treatment. The Pharisees understood well that if Jesus took the side of Shammai or the stricter view of divorce, He would alienate a greater part of the multitude." (Pentecost)

command - Moses didn’t "command" divorce, he permitted it.

your hardness of heart - "Because the Israelites had disobeyed God’s law of marriage and had married Gentile wives, the line would have been corrupted. If the line were corrupted, Messiah could not come in Abraham’s line. It became necessary then to purify the nation to prevent the corruption of the line. There divorce was permitted. This principle is well illustrated in Ezra 10:2-3, 11-14. Christ thus showed that divorce was not a part of God’s original law of marriage but was introduced because of Israel’s disobedience to the law. Thus the uncleanness of Deuteronomy 24:1 had to do with a corrupted bloodline." (Pentecost)

sexual immorality - Pentecost has an interesting take on this which I think is worth considering (see below). It’s hard to say whether the passage leads to this conclusion because it’s hard to say whether this is what the Lord’s audience would have naturally understood, but in light of other teaching the Bible about divorce, it makes sense to me.

"The Greek word translated 'marital unfaithfulness' [sexual immorality in the NKJV] is not the word for adultery but is the general word for immorality. Christ was referring to the Jewish marriage customs of His day. Marriage was begun by drawing a legal contract between the father of a man and the father of a woman, pledging them to each other. This marriage contract was called a betrothal. The couple were called husband and wife by virtue of that marriage contract. The marriage itself was not completed until at least twelve months after the betrothal contract was drawn up. But they were still referred to as husband and wife. Such was the relationship between Joseph and Mary when the angel announced that Mary would conceive a child. The twelve-month waiting period was deemed necessary because of the low state of morals of that day. That period gave sufficient time to reveal whether the woman was pregnant when the contract was drawn up. The interval also allowed time to see if she would become pregnant by an unfaithful act after being joined by contract to her husband. If the wife proved to be immoral, the marriage need not be completed; the contract could be broken by a divorce. However, so binding was the betrothal contract that it could be broken only by the husband appearing before the judges to accuse the woman of immorality. Thus the contract could be broken. Such was Joseph’s decision when he discovered Mary’s pregnancy (Matthew 1:19). It was in light of this context that Christ granted the exception (Matthew 19:9). If one who was betrothed to a wife found in the betrothal period that she was guilty of fornication, that is, that she was an immoral woman, the marriage need not be consummated; but it had to be dissolved by a divorce. Since the marriage had not been completed, the man was free to marry without becoming an adulterer. Thus Christ utterly repudiated the Pharisaic interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and He denied the right of divorce. He appealed to God’s original law of marriage by which a man and woman were inseparably united until that marriage was dissolved by death. Thus the only possibility of divorce allowed by Christ was a cancellation of a marriage contract during the Jewish betrothal period before the marriage had been completed. This evidently was the way the disciples understood our Lord’s instruction. They replied, 'If this is the situation,' that is, if it is not possible for a man to put away his wife after marriage even though she proved to be an immoral and faithless wife, then 'it is better not to marry' (Matthew 19:10). Clearly the disciples saw no possibility of obtaining a divorce with divine approval after marriage had been completed. Because the disciples recognized the low state of society and since it was utterly repugnant to them to be inseparably united to a faithless wife, they concluded it was best not to marry at all. Such a conclusion would not have been drawn if they had understood Christ to permit divorce after marriage." (Pentecost)

adultery - "The Greek word translated 'adultery' refers to the sin of a married individual against his partner. If divorce could dissolve a marriage, a remarriage could not be considered adultery. But since Christ proclaimed it to be adultery, the first marriage must be viewed as still standing in the sight of God." (Pentecost)

it is better not to marry - "The disciples seemed to have understood that Christ was teaching a very restricted meaning of 'immorality' and that He completely disallowed divorce of married persons.  In turn, Christ acknowledges that the saying 'it is better not to marry' is valid in some cases, and these are enumerated in verse 12—those congenitally incapable, those made incapable, and those who wish to devote themselves more completely to the service of God (1 Cor 7:7, 8, 26, 32-35).  Celibacy is an acceptable option." (Ryrie)

eunuch - broadly, a man who doesn’t have sex. This can be because of a birth defect (first clause); because of surgery (second clause); or, by choice (third clause).

The Lord also spoke on divorce in Matthew 5:31-32. Here is Stam on divorce:

"Few people are aware of the fact that the subject of marriage, divorce and re-marriage also has a dispensational aspect. God’s original instructions regarding marriage (Genesis 2:24) were amended — by God — as time passed and circumstances changed.

Under the Law

"Under the Mosaic Law it was comparatively easy for a man to procure a divorce. In certain cases if he merely did not 'delight' in his wife he could dismiss her (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). Indeed, under the Law it was possible for any man to divorce his wife merely because she found 'no favor in his eyes' because he had found some 'uncleanness' (Lit., something offensive) in her (Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In that case the husband merely had to write 'a bill of divorcement' (stating the reasons why he did not wish to keep her) and then 'give it unto her hand and send her out of his house.'

"It must not be overlooked, however, that the reason for these laws on divorce is clearly given by our Lord in response to the Pharisees’ question, 'Why did Moses then command to give her a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?'

"'He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so' (Matthew 19:8).

Under the Kingdom Program

"Under the program of the kingdom there was only one justification recognized for divorce. This was adultery:  'And I say unto you. Whosoever shall put away his wife,except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery' (Matthew 19:9).


"Unquestionably this has a dispensational significance, for Jehovah was about to divorce His wife, Israel, for adultery, and call her 'Lo-ammi,' 'not My people' (Hosea 1:2, 9). In the light of much Old Testament prophecy and the record of the book of Acts, Jehovah and Israel are now divorced and estranged. But they will be reconciled and reunited when He returns to earth as Israel’s Deliverer at the close of the Great Tribulation (see Isaiah 62:4-5; Zephaniah 3:17; Romans 11:26-27).

Under Grace

"Under the present 'dispensation of the grace of God,' however, there is no Scriptural ground for obtaining a divorce. The command is: 'Let not the wife depart from her husband' (1 Corinthians 7:10), and conversely the husband from his wife (v.11). Realizing the great pressures that sometimes bring on divorces, and recognizing the fact that some will depart from their mates regardless of the Scriptures involved, he continues: 'But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And [i.e., and likewise] let not the husband put away his wife' (1 Corinthians 7:11).

"Thus the married person who is unhappy and seeking a divorce, should ponder the consequences a thousand times, for the person who obtains a divorce is prohibited by Scripture from ever marrying again.

"We realize that there are technicalities involved as to which party did the 'departing' (i.e., who was really responsible for the divorce), the matter of contesting the divorce suit, the question of the unsaved mate, etc. 1 Corinthians 7 sensibly answers these and other questions, but the basic imperative for the dispensation of grace is clear: Nowhere in Paul’s epistles do we find any justification for departing from one’s mate or for obtaining a divorce. Grace will forgive the erring partner and show him the love of Christ." (Stam)