The Macedonians Had Names

Recollections

     What comes to mind when you hear the words “New Zealand”? Kiwi birds? Rugby? The Hobbit? I immediately think of Gauntlett Lotter, Jill Anderson, Peter Gray, Jane O’Donnell, Shirley Loveridge, Mac de Thierry, and a host of other special friends. Having been involved in the Lord’s work in New Zealand the past three decades, I have been blessed by close relationships with some of the finest people I know. 

     Starting at the Lower North Island, I’m thinking of Joan, Trish, Leigh, the Batemans, Arulandus, Raines, Toas, Phillips, Bannister clan, Robinsons, Zous, Angs, Jacobs, and so many others. Further up the highway are June, Janny, Paul, Beverly, Rodger, the Copelands, Gawes, Van der Ventels, and more. So many fond memories of the McGraths, Piersons, Andersons, and Walkers, as well as Lara, Tessa, Julie, Robbie, Lucy, Halligan twins, and Daniel. There are the O’Donnells, Kyles, Grays, Paynes, Townsends, Pakis, Pauls, Nealls, Spicers, Paikeas, and dear Ms. Betty, Gayna, and Glenys. Words like “love” and “family” just don’t seem strong enough for Michelle, Janette, Sophie, Carolyn, Nona, Ma, and their families. And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of the Pipers, Fowells, Blackmans, Jensens, Fentons, Van Kuyks, Basons, Stanfords, Banks, Whitakers, Cranstons, Cammocks, not to mention the Parrs, Cumings, Leotas, Timotis, Heathers, Hodgmans, Hansells, Woodrows, De Freres, ad infinitum.

What's the Point?

     With a sizeable lump in my throat as I write these words, I’m trying to make a point. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only missionary who feels this way, and I’m almost certain that the apostle Paul could relate. He confesses, “what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches” (2 Cor. 11:28), and his prayer life bears resounding testimony to this (Rom. 1:9; Eph. 1:16; Phil. 1:3-4; 1 Thess. 1:2; 3:10). Just read the last three verses of Acts 20 or the first chapter of Philippians, and you will have some idea of the intimate connection he shared with these people. In the final chapter of Romans, after mentioning no less than 35 individuals by name, you get the impression that Paul could have easily continued to list a multitude of others had he not reached the end of the papyrus scroll.

     Throughout his letters the apostle makes numerous references to the Roman provinces of Macedonia, Achaia, Asia, and Galatia.¹ I can pretty much guarantee that in every reference he is recalling the names and faces and stories of those he dearly loved in these places. When he speaks of Macedonia (1 Cor. 16:5), it is not the provincial or geographical locality that interests or concerns him, but the Macedonians themselves (2 Cor. 9:2, 4) and the churches of Macedonia in particular (2 Cor. 8:1). These congregations were comprised of individuals whom Paul knew personally and cared for deeply.

Paul's Recollections

     Macedonia incorporated the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea. For Paul, Philippi meant Lydia and her household, the local jailer and his family, a slave girl, Epaphroditus, Euodia, Syntyche, and Clement.² Other Macedonian friends were Jason, Gaius, Aristarchus, Secundus, and Sopater.³ When the apostle writes of Asia, he has in mind fellow-Christians in Ephesus, including Tychicus, Trophimus, Onesiphorus’ family, and at times Timothy, Aquila and Priscilla.⁴ Elsewhere in the region he was mindful of Epaphras, Onesimus, Archippus, Philemon, Apphia, Nymphas, Carpus, and Eutychus.⁵

     Galatia was the home of Lois, Eunice, Timothy, Gaius of Derbe, and Crescens.⁶ Achaia is where Paul had developed a close bond with Crispus and Stephanas and their respective households, Sosthenes, hospitable Gaius, Fortunatus, Achaicus, Erastus, Quartus, Dionysius, Damaris, and servant-minded Phoebe.⁷ And there were many other places and many other persons firmly embedded in the apostle’s heart, though not enough ink and papyrus and time to record them all. 

A Missionary's Perspective

     Reading the New Testament through the eyes of a missionary makes a big difference. Potentially boring geographical details take on new life and meaning as one recognizes the precious souls these places represent. Providing everlasting significance to our sometimes underappreciated maps and geography studies is the simple reminder that the Macedonians had names.⁸ “For God so loved the world …” 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Macedonia (Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:5; 2 Cor. 1:16; 2:13; 7:5; 8:1; 9:2, 4; 11:9; Phil. 4:15; 1 Thess. 1:7, 8; 4:10; 1 Tim. 1:3; cf. Acts 16:10; 19:21; 20:1, 3); Achaia (Rom. 15:26; 16:5 [KJV]; 1 Cor. 16:15; 2 Cor. 1:1; 9:2; 11:10; 1 Thess. 1:7, 8; cf. Acts 18:12, 27; 19:21); Asia (Rom. 16:5 [ESV]; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:8; cf. Acts 19:10, 22, 26; 20:4, 16, 18); Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1; Gal. 1:2; 2 Tim. 4:10; cf. Acts 16:6; 18:23). We could also add Cilicia and Syria (Gal. 1:21; cf. Acts 15:41; 18:18; 21:3, 39; 22:3; 23:34), Judea (Rom. 15:31; 2 Cor. 1:16; Gal. 1:22; 1 Thess. 2:14; cf. Acts 26:20), and even Rome (Rom. 1:7; cf. Acts 19:21; 28:16; 2 Tim. 1:17).

     ² Acts 16:14-16, 27-34; Philippians 2:25; 4:2, 3.

     ³ Acts 17:5-9; 19:29; 20:4; cf. Acts 27:2; Col. 4:10; Philem. 24. It is possible that Sopater of Acts 20:4 is Sosipater of Rom. 16:21.

     ⁴ Acts 18:18-26; 20:4; 21:29; 1 Tim. 1:3; 2 Tim. 4:12, 13, 19, 20.

     ⁵ Acts 20:9; Col. 1:7; 4:9, 12, 15, 17; Philem. 1. According to Rom. 16:5 in the Alexandrian Greek text and the Latin Vulgate, Epaenetus was among the earliest converts in Asia; cf. ESV, HCSB, ISV, N/ASV, NIV, N/RSV.

     ⁶ Acts 16:1; 20:4; 2 Timothy 1:5; 4:10.

     ⁷ Acts 17:34; 18:8, 17; Rom. 16:1, 23; 1 Cor. 1:1, 14, 16; 16:17; 2 Tim. 4:20. According to Rom. 16:5 in the Byzantine Greek text, Epaenetus was among the earliest converts in Achaia and thus conceivably a member of Stephanus’ household (1 Cor. 16:15); cf. N/KJV, RAV.

     ⁸ Wayne Stiles observes: “Those of us who seek to understand the meaning of the Bible strongly believe in interpreting a passage in its context. But context is more than words. When one reads the Bible, it becomes clear how geography is the stage on which the redemptive narrative takes place” (“What Biblical Geography Can Do for Your Spiritual Life,” <Link>).

Related Posts: The 1st Missionary Journey, Around the World in Three Decades, Romans 16

Image credit: Claude Vignon’s St. Paul the Apostle, <http://www.copia-di-arte.com/kunst/claude_vignon/paul_apostle_alg155432_hi.jpg>.

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 3 of 3

Relevant Scriptures continued:

9. 1 Corinthians 7:10-16. Paul responds to a letter the Corinthians had written, asking for his advice on various matters including marriage (v. 1). He states in v. 2 that marriage is to be monogamous, between a man and a woman; sexual relations are confined to the marriage relationship, and sexual activity in any other context constitutes immorality. He further affirms that the marriage bond is for life (v. 39). “Now to the married…” (vv. 10-11) is in contrast to the unmarried (v. 8), applicable to the general state of marriage.¹ Paul can give an apostolic directive (paraggéllō) because the Lord himself gave general marriage instruction during his earthly ministry (see Part 2). A wife is not to chōrízō = “depart from” (NKJ), “separate from” (RSV) or “leave” (NAS) her husband (v. 10b). This could be synonymous with divorce,² as the separated state is described as “unmarried” (v. 11). The parallel admonition to the husband is to not “send away” or “divorce” (aphíēmi) his wife (v. 11), while “abandon” is also a possible nuance (cf. Mark 14:50). “But even if she does depart” (i.e. ignore the injunction) or ‘if she is separated’ (i.e. already in this state), there are only two scriptural options: (a) remain unmarried, or (b) be reconciled to her husband (v. 11, cf. v. 39). The husband likewise is not to “send away” or “divorce” or “abandon” his wife (v. 11c).

     “But to the rest [loipós, cf. 11:34],” i.e. the rest of the situations the Corinthians were asking about, viz. specific cases of believers married to unbelievers (vv. 12-16). “I, not the Lord, say…” Jesus did not specifically address religiously-mixed marriages, about which the Corinthians had particular concern, so Paul does. They had misunderstood Paul’s teaching about not associating with immoral people (5:9-10), so some were probably wondering if a Christian married to a non-Christian should get out of this marriage; after all, the Law of Moses forbad religiously-mixed marriages (Ex. 34:11-16; Deut. 7:1-4). Paul says that a Christian is not to “divorce” or “abandon” (aphíēmi) an unbelieving spouse, assuming the unbeliever is willing to remain in the marriage (vv. 12-14). The unbeliever is ‘sanctified’ by his/her spouse (in the context of the marriage), i.e. the unbeliever is set apart from other worldly persons (e.g. fornicators) by the simple fact that he/she is married and is thus not committing immorality in this relationship (v. 14a). Paul gives reassurance that this union is sanctioned by God by the simple fact that your children are ‘clean,’ ‘holy,’ i.e. not illegitimate or born out of wedlock (v. 14b).

     “But if the unbeliever departs” (NKJ) or “leaves” (NAS, NIV) or “separates” (ESV) [chōrízō, cf. vv. 10, 11] (vv. 15-16), let him go, assuming that he is taking the initiative and is determined to leave (cf. vv. 10-13); “the brother or the sister is not [ou] under bondage³ [dedoúlōtai, from doulóō = to ‘enslave’] in such [cases/matters]”; “In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved …” (ESV). The word doulóō occurs 133 times in the NT and is never used with reference to the marriage bond; it refers to the bondage of slavery (cf. v. 23). The word for marriage bond, used twice in this chapter (vv. 27, 39), is déō (cf. Rom. 7:2). The perfect tense of ou dedoúlōtai conveys the sense of a past action with continuing results = the brother or sister ‘stands in a position of not having been enslaved,’ i.e., he/she is not now nor has he/she ever been in the bondage of slavery (to this spouse).

     This verse does not say that a deserted Christian spouse is automatically loosed from the marriage bond and is therefore free to marry someone else. This common misinterpretation is known as “the Pauline privilege,” i.e., Paul supposedly gives an additional reason, to what Jesus had specified (Matt. 5:32; 19:9), for the acceptable dissolution of marriage. But this is incompatible with the following: (a) remarriage is never considered in this chapter except in the case of a widow (vv. 8-9, 39); (b) if Paul is giving another exception, he is at variance with Jesus; (c) Paul never says the marriage bond is dissolved (N.B. v. 39, “a wife is bound [déō] by law as long as her husband lives”); (d) the divine rule for marriage is no severance at all, but if it happens anyway the only scriptural options are to remain unmarried or be reconciled (vv. 10-11); (e) the perfect tense of ou dedoúlōtai shows that enslavement to the spouse is a state the abandoned Christian has never been in; but this person has been married, therefore ou dedoúlōtai cannot be a reference to the termination of the marriage bond.

     This verse does say that a Christian who is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse is not enslaved as in a master-slave relationship; i.e. you are not obligated to keep your spouse from leaving no matter what the cost. “But God has called us/you to peace” = the Christian is to gracefully accept his/her situation even if he/she has been abandoned by an unbelieving spouse (cf. Rom. 12:18). ‘How do you know whether you will save your spouse?’ (v. 16). In view of v. 15, Paul may be suggesting here that instead of trying to force an unbelieving spouse to stay with you, it is better to keep the peace by letting him/her leave, since it is unlikely that you will save him/her. In view of vv. 12-14, Paul may be suggesting here that if possible one should stay with an unbelieving spouse in the hopes of saving him/her (cf. Heb. 12:14; 1 Pet. 3:1), but v. 15 shows that it is not always possible. This could be a double nuance, to be applied to whatever situation is relevant.

Concluding Statement:

     If for sexual infidelity, divorce is a divinely-granted dissolution of marital obligations for the one who has been cheated on, thus freeing him/her to marry another eligible person. On the other hand, divorce is a human innovation if for any reason other than sexual unfaithfulness; it is void of divine sanction and therefore terminates none of the marital responsibilities of either husband or wife.⁴ The sexual sin of adultery is therefore committed when one so divorced enters into a marital union with someone else.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Because of what follows, many commentators try to limit this instruction to a marriage in which both partners are Christians. However, to reach that conclusion one must read further down in the text, draw this conclusion, then go back to vv. 10-11 and make that application (no doubt very confusing to those who first heard this passage publicly read!). Since it would be more natural for a writer to specify a particular type of marriage if that were his point (as in vv. 12 ff.), the general phrase “to the married” is most obviously inclusive of all marriages.

     ² In Mark’s account of the Lord’s teaching, the woman as well as the man may initiate the divorce (10:11-12), which is consistent with Roman law. At Corinth some may have been considering divorcing their spouses in order to live a celibate life.

     ³ Or “bound” (NIV, N/RSV, REB), “under no compulsion” (NEB) or “obligation” (McCord).

     ⁴ Edwin S. Jones, “The Biblical Definition of Divorce,” in Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, ed. Jim Laws (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ, 1992): 254-67.

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 1, Part 2, Preventing Divorce, Premarital Decisions About Non-optional Matters 

Related articles: Patrick Swayne, Did Paul Provide Grounds for Divorce?

Image credit: http://www.mccartylawoffices.net/sites/default/files/pictures/FamilyLawDivorce.jpg

The Biblical Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage: Part 2 of 3

Relevant Scriptures continued:

4. Matthew 5:31-32. This is a portion of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, in the context of “preaching the gospel of the kingdom” (4:23), wherein Jesus opposes the lax attitudes of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees toward the divine will (5:20).¹ The Lord’s contrasting statement in 5:32 is in response to what had been “said” (and heard) about divorce among these Jews. While it was not the time to teach exclusively Christian doctrine or set aside the Mosaic Law (5:17-29; 7:12), it was necessary to address the fallacies of their hypocritical leaders (5:20; 6:2, 5, 16; 7:15-20, 29) and prepare the way for the coming kingdom (cf. 6:10, 33; 7:21). Jesus is contrasting the traditional misinterpretations of the Law vs. the loftier conduct expected in God’s kingdom. The Law did not justify unrighteous anger, or lust, or divorce for any or no reason, or questionable oaths, or senseless retribution, or hatred, irrespective of what others had “said” to the contrary. The current Jewish attitude toward divorce (succinctly stated in 5:31) had apparently become as lax as their attitude toward other moral issues discussed in this chapter. Jesus affirms that adultery (illegitimate sex) is committed in a second marriage following a divorce for any reason other than sexual infidelity. Divorce and subsequent marriage is implicitly allowed to the one betrayed by the other who violates the very heart of marriage (cf. Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-9).

5. Matthew 19:1-10; Mark 10:1-10 [parallel accounts]. The Lord’s directives were prompted by hostile questions within the circle of Judaism. Matthew’s Gospel was written with a Jewish audience in mind,² whereas Mark’s account was recorded for a Roman audience,³ which helps explain why Mark incorporates into his record certain parts of the Lord’s discourse that are omitted in Matthew, and vice versa.⁴ Jesus affirms that while it is sinful for a man to divorce his wife, it is not adultery; the sin of adultery is added to the sin of divorce if the man goes on to marry someone else (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11). The words "except for sexual immorality [fornication]" in Matthew’s account (19:9; cf. 5:32) are absent from Mark. The exceptive phrase would have had greater significance to Matthew’s audience, seeing that in Judaism infidelity warranted the death penalty (cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) and had become a cruel weapon of ruthless men in their mistreatment of women (cf. John 8:3-5). Among the Romans this was already understood as sufficient grounds for divorce.

     Mark’s inclusion of the phrase “against her” (10:11b) is intriguing. Both the Jews and the Romans understood adultery as sexual intercourse with a married woman. Accordingly, when a woman committed adultery it was against her own husband, and when a man committed adultery it was against the woman’s husband. Jesus, however, informs his Jewish listeners, and Mark in turn informs his Roman readers, that from the divine perspective adultery is also committed against the innocent wife.

     Matthew omits the following words that Mark has recorded in 10:12, “and if she, having divorced her husband, marries another, she is committing adultery.” Within the context of Judaism, since only the husband could initiate a divorce and not the wife, the applicability of this statement would have been lost among Matthew’s readers. On the other hand, under Roman law the marriage could be terminated by either party, so Mark’s inclusion of the statement is most relevant.

     Adultery (moichaō) involves voluntary sex between a married person and someone other than his/her lawful spouse. The two verbs “divorces” (apolusē) and “marries” (gamēsē) are in the AORIST tense and therefore naturally describe punctiliar (completed) action. In contrast, the verbal tense is changed to the PRESENT when “commits adultery” is mentioned, suggesting a different (incomplete/ongoing) time reference. As long as sexual activity continues in the second relationship, the adultery continues.

6. Mark 6:17-19. Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4 BC to AD 39). John the baptizer had confronted the tetrarch about his unlawful marriage to Herodias, resulting in John’s execution (Matt. 14:3-12; cf. Luke 3:19-20; 9:9). Antipas had divorced his wife Phasaelis, the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas IV, in order to marry Herodias, who had previously been married to his half-brother Philip I (see Josephus, Ant. 18.5.1, 4).⁵ When Jesus is later asked whether it is “lawful” for a man to divorce his wife, he is “across the Jordan” in the region governed by Herod Antipas (Matt. 19:1; Mark 10:1), i.e., a divorced man married to a divorced woman, a union deemed “unlawful” by John.

7. Luke 16:18. Jesus is speaking to antagonistic Pharisees, and his directives are in opposition to their lax attitudes toward the divine will (vv. 14-15; cf. Matt. 5:20, 31-32; 15:1-3). Once again Jesus affirms that adultery is committed in the second marriage following a divorce. The “except for fornication” phrase (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) is omitted here, probably because those to whom Jesus was speaking on this occasion were teaching, condoning, or practicing divorce for other reasons.

8. Romans 7:2-3. To the saints at Rome Paul affirms that marriage is for life, whereas the marriage bond is broken when a spouse dies. If a woman marries another man while her husband is still living, “she will be called an adulteress.” But if her husband is dead, adultery is not committed in a second marriage.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Jesus is not taking issue with or negating the Mosaic Law but rather opposing wrongful interpretations of it. Note, “You have heard that it was said ...” (vv. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), NOT “It is written …” For example, the Law never states, “… hate your enemy” (v. 43b), but apparently that’s what these Jews had heard from their teachers (cf. 15:1-3).

     ² See K. L. Moore, Matthew's Audience.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, Mark's Audience.

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage.

     ⁵ Josephus: “Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas; and had lived with her a great while …. However he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod’s [Philip’s] wife …. One article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas’s daughter…. But Herodias, their [Aristobulus & Agrippa’s] sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great …. Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced her self from her husband, while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband’s brother by the father’s side. He was tetrarch of Galilee” (Ant. 18.5.1, 4). 

Related Posts: Divorce & Remarriage Part 1, Part 3,  Preventing Divorce, Why was Herod's marriage unlawful?

Image credit: http://jmmwealthmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Divorce-Planning_services-2.jpg