Foreign Wives

In Ezra chapter 10 there is much to do about putting away their 'foreign wives' even their children.

Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have been unfaithful and have married foreign wives adding to the guilt of Israel. "Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives." Then all the assembly replied with a loud voice, "That's right! As you have said, so it is our duty to do.
(Ezr 10:10-12)

"So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
(Ezr 10:3)

Yet in 1Cor7 it is the woman who is told not to leave her unbelieving husband (if he consents to stay), no mention if the man has an unbelieving wife (as in Ezra). It appears the children are 'sanctified-set apart' when there is at least one believer in the family.

And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
(1Co 7:13-14)


So how do we reconcile these passages...or should we, being under different Covenants?

1 Corinthians 7:12-16 King James Version (KJV)
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

In 1 Corinthians 7:12 the man is told to not put away his unbelieving wife. Not sure how you missed that one, lol. 😅 Both are advised to not do this (put away their spouse) because neither the believing husband or wife know whether their obedience to God will draw their unbelieving spouse to God.

Do notice that this isn’t a must command, as if it is law (such as the version you shared, “she must not send her husband away”). The verse itself says “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.”

If we really want to get to the bottom of it, and while the writer was hopeful for the repentance of the unbelieving spouse, let’s not forget scripture says to not be unequally yoked. Which word takes precedence? Also, we see validation for people to leave. Of course people also reconcile, practicing forgiveness and reconciliation. My point is, I don’t see a command here of absolute law in the New Testament being contrary to the Old Testament in this particular verse you shared. Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of Israel’s heart, and we know the NT speaks against divorce, but lays parameters of justified divorce for unfaithfulness.

What’s interesting to me, is when we find verses of advice as opposed to an absolute must. We see it a couple times, like when we see the verse that says people should be celibate, in his own opinion, but it is better for the widow to marry than to burn (with desire).

So here, based upon verse 12, it is a hopeful encouragement for the believer to stick around for the sake of their spouse. Maybe they will see the light? The fact that it is a question being addressed means people were wondering what to do with unbelieving spouses. If the spouse is not a believer and cannot maintain peace, is abusive, breaking covenant promises under what obligation must the believer stay, being unequally yoked, and their vows being broken? It is a covenant after all.

A lot of questions to consider, but I don’t think we can take this verse as a command, because he said it was from him and not the Lord. It may have wisdom in it for example, but not an absolute mandate.

This is consistent with the Law of Moses, and it is not the foreignness but the idolatry that is the issue. In order to maintain their separation unto God, the Israelites were commanded to abstain from intermarriage with the surrounding heathen idolaters (all the Canaanite nations), and the reason is clearly spelled out.

DEUTERONOMY 7: NO INTERMARRIAGE WITH IDOLATERS
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Under the New Covenant, Christians are given a similar commandment:

2 CORINTHIANS 6: NO INTERMARRIAGE WITH IDOLATERS
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

This passage in 2 Corinthians has more than one application.

This seems to outright forbid marriage with unbelievers, but I thought this passage below from 1Cor 7 was a bit akin to Ezra where the marriage had already taken place...

And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
(1Co 7:13-14)

Consider if two atheists get married and one becomes a believer after marriage.

Yes, that would be similar to 1Cor 7 but unlike Ezra 10.

These words of Paul's are often misunderstood to mean something completely different than what Paul intended.
When Paul says this command we have from the Lord and that the Lord said this not him he is referring to what Jesus said about divorce which you can read about in the Gospels. Jesus specifically taught about this.
However Jesus did not speak about the other things Paul mentions when he say I say not the Lord. He does not mean that the Lord is not in agreement with him. He does not mean that if you dont like what Paul says you dont have to follow it, LOL He says he is confident that he has the Spirit of the Lord and therefore he is saying that we do not have a commandment by Jesus on this but Paul is telling you this and Paul has the Holy Spirit inspiring him and so you can take it as a thing that would please the Lord even though we have no example in the Gospels of Jesus talking about this particular issue. Now do you get it? I know. Once you see it you wonder how you ever missed it.

The passage from 1 Corinthians is AFTER THE FACT (just like the actions of Ezra are after the fact). We need to focus on the principle itself.

After what fact? What principle?
The principle of converts finding themselves married with unbelievers (as in 1Cor 7) or going ahead and marrying an unbeliever as they did in Ezra?

This is an interesting Verse here.
Saul was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin.
Members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married.
But your verse is Paul claiming not to be married.

Does this mean when Saul converted to Paul that his wife left him?
Historical records show a vast number of divorces between the Jews where 1 converted to Christ and the other remained under the Law in the first Century.
I wonder if Paul fits this category?

I think so too!

......and therein lies the problem for more than a few believers....... They are unable to discern the teachings of the Apostle Paul. He taught in 2 distinct ways:

Thus sayeth the Lord
It would be better that, I would rather that

The First is a Commandment from God and must be obeyed.
The Second is his advice on how to live a more peaceful life as a believer with as little stress as possible.

There are groups of believers who have taken Scriptures where Paul was giving his advice and turned them into Denominational Theology as if they were Commandments from God.

Regarding the OP:

I wonder why it is that so many people here argue against Law Keeping, but then turn to it when trying to reconcile Scriptures that in one instance speak of the Law, and in the other are spoken of through the New Covenant, Grace? I don't see why any of these should present an enigma for any Believers.

my thoughts

He qualifies his comment because it isn’t a command from God about an issue. He leaves it in the will of men to make the choice themselves. If a widow, for example, desires to marry again, she can. But she could equally choose to remain in celibacy. As I said, there can be wisdom found in what Paul is saying, but such wisdom is only applicable to the person who shares Paul’s evangelistic focus. But not everyone, hardly anyone, is called to celibacy as far as life reveals. I think Paul even describes it as “every man has his proper gift from God (for marriage or celibacy; 1 Corinthians 7:7).

I am not dismissing the authority of God’s word on matters, but when Paul clearly says he is sharing his opinion on something and not a command from the Lord, it can be received as godly advice or sound wisdom, depending upon the person and their aim in life and their desires. Obviously the message of celibacy wasn’t for the mother and father who birthed, let’s say, Billy Graham. Marriage is a part of God’s plan. Be fruitful and multiply. Paul’s desire for men to remain celibate was for them to be solely focused on pleasing God and focusing on His Kingdom, without any so called distractions (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). Again, this is an evangelistic mindset, but as I am sure he would agree, not practical with the desires of men and women. Hence, him saying it is better to marry than to burn with desire or passion. Paul wasn’t naive to think that God wanted all men to be celibate for efficacy in evangelism. He just simply expressed an observation or an argument for its case, whilst remaining realistic.

What I didn’t see but someone pointed out, was that you had two separate cases (nothing to do with law vs grace) where one group were beforehand told not to marry foreign spouses (pagan) and the other group consisting of a married couple (both pagan) and one converts, the other doesn’t. -Apples/Oranges.

Israelites were forbidden to marry certain ethnic groups. Priests could only marry Israelite virgins or other priest's widows.

Some of the ethnicities listed in Ezra were not from forbidden people-groups for Israelites. One way I thought to reconcile it with the Torah is that maybe the wives from non-forbidden people-groups that were expelled were married to priests.

During the intertestamental period, the concept of conversion to Judaism evolved, even to the point where they would accept marriages with Canaanites if the woman had converted. I don't really see this in the Torah. If I were an ethnically Jewish Messianic Jew, and I were single, I might avoid marrying a Lebanese woman, for example.

I don't like to be the type to look at heroes of the faith and pick apart what they do. I read where one guy thought the apostles were wrong for appointing the seven, as if they were not humble enough to wait tables. I do not agree with that type of thinking, but when we read about kings worshipping idols, we know that is wrong. I do wonder if Ezra might have over-reached with expelling Egyptian wives. I understand expelling those of Canaanite descent.

They may have viewed the marriages like you'd view a marriage between brother and sister. I heard of two people who were adopted who had the same birthday who married. It turned out, they were faternal twins. Such a marriage might be considered not legally valid, and the state would not recognize it after it is discovered. Or they might divorce. Churches would probably not be okay with them continuing to live together as man and wife, either. It is a forbidden marriage. Israelites were forbidden from marrying Canaanites.

I Corinthians 12 addresses the readers as former idol worshippers, so I think we are dealing with a predominantly Gentile audience. So the issue is Christians married to unbelievers not Jews married to Gentiles. I would not be surprised if some in the congregation had argued for ending marriages with unbelievers based on the examle of Ezra.

I think one of the factors involved was that the Torah had been ‘lost’ for many years and hence much of it’s practice been dropped...

2 Chronicles 34:14-21 NASBS
[14] When they were bringing out the money which had been brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found the book of the law of the LORD given by Moses. [15] Hilkiah responded and said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan. [16] Then Shaphan brought the book to the king and reported further word to the king, saying, "Everything that was entrusted to your servants they are doing. [17] They have also emptied out the money which was found in the house of the LORD, and have delivered it into the hands of the supervisors and the workmen." [18] Moreover, Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, "Hilkiah the priest gave me a book." And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king. [19] When the king heard the words of the law, he tore his clothes. [20] Then the king commanded Hilkiah, Ahikam the son of Shaphan, Abdon the son of Micah, Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king's servant, saying, [21] "Go, inquire of the LORD for me and for those who are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book which has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD which is poured out on us because our fathers have not observed the word of the LORD, to do according to all that is written in this book."

I have often heard the conjecture that Paul was perhaps a widower - that his wife had died.
I would not expect that he would initiate a divorce himself, and do not know whether it was culturally allowed that a wife could initiate a divorce...? Particularly in the case of a highly regarded pharisee as Saul/Paul was. I would think that would be quite a stir, of course Paul's conversion itself must have been one!

We know for certain that he was a Pharisee. Not all Pharisees were married. Marriage was encouraged for Pharisees but not required to be a Pharisse. The 70 sanhedrin were required to be married. We know that Paul was trained by Gamelial who was a member of the Sanhedrin (extra biblical documentation also confirms that if I remember correctly) Most likely Paul was being groomed to be a member of the Sanhedrin but there is not a shred of evidence that he was a member of the 70. I am of the opinion that he was very close to be elected and was being sent with thier authority in matters like arresting christians and giving assent for their death but I think he was saved before he was actually made a member. Now I know that I cannot prove that, but I believe that this is as close as anyone else can conjecture either. There is no proof that he was a member of the sanhedrin and all the evidence presented is what I have just mentioned, such as giving assent to their deaths (casting vote one shade of meaning of the greek is not conclusive of being a member of the Sanhedrin if he has been given letters from them to act in their authority as he says we was when he arrested christians that in itself suggest his vote or assent was in their name not that he was one of them yet) If he was a Pharisee but not yet a member of the Sanhedrin 70 then it is not true to say HE HAD to have been married. I don't really care if he had been married in the past or not. If she died, or left him because he was saved does not really matter to me but I do not agree that anyone can say they know he was for sure and preach and teach it as undisputable fact based on thier theory that he was one of the 12 even though history is silent on that. He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees and that can mean he was on the cusp of getting that brass ring of the pinnacle of success to become one of the 70 having been groomed by Gamelial and if that is true and he walked away from it all for the sake of knowing Jesus Christ we can appreciate the following statements:

If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. 16Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.