Marriage Divorce and
Remarriage
Part 5
1 Corinthians 7:1-15.
Introduction:
a. It is abundantly clear
from Jesus' teaching in Matthew
b. Basically 1 Corinthians
is:
i. A response to
reports about problems in the church at
ii A response to a
letter from the church containing a number of questions. A formulaic expression
introduces his responses to these questions: “Now concerning the things about
which you wrote …” (7:1); “Now concerning virgins …” (7:25); “Now concerning
things sacrificed to idols …” (8:1); “Now concerning spiritual gifts …” (12:1);
“Now concerning the collection for the saints …” (16:1); “But concerning
Apollos…” (
iii. Paul's attempt to clear
up a misunderstanding which had arisen from a previous letter which he had
written (5:9).
iv. A defense by
Paul of himself against those who are calling his authority and spirituality (as they understand this
term) into question.
Evidently the
first six chpts deal with matters raised by the reports, and they also correct
the misunderstanding of Paul's earlier letter. Chapters 7-16 contain Paul's
response to the questions put to him.
c. Various
problems have arisen in the church at
d. The tendency
to disregard moral law is evident from the fact that the church was
tolerating an open immoral relationship ("someone has his father's
wife" [5:1]). They had "become
arrogant" (5:2) and not mourned over this sin. Perhaps their
"boasting" (5:6) is to be understood in terms of their having become
proud of their enlightenment, a
superior understanding of spiritual matters which permitted them to view sexual
immorality as a matter of indifference. "Being people of the Spirit, they
imply, has moved them to a higher plane, the realm of spirit, where they are
unaffected by behaviour that has merely to do with the body" (Fee). Paul's response is that
Christians have been called to holiness and that the leaven of sin must be
removed from the church lest it corrupt the entire body (5:7). His language is
uncompromising:
"I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan
for the destruction of his flesh..."(5:4); "Clean out the old
leaven..." (5:7); "I wrote you not to associate
with immoral (Christian) people..." (5:9); "not even to eat
with such a one" (
e. Astonishingly it appears from
f. Dualism also
led to asceticism in some cases (“c”
above) since deprecation of the body encouraged the belief that the physical
appetites are to be denied. Clearly the early church did have a problem with
asceticism masquerading as spirituality (e.g.
1 Corinthians 7 and MDR.
Vv 1-7
1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things about which
you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 1Co 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man
is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 1Co 7:3 The husband must fulfil his duty to his wife, and likewise
also the wife to her husband. 1Co 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the
husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over
his own body, but the wife does.
1Co 7:5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so
that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan
will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 1Co 7:6 But this I
say by way of concession, not of command.
1Co 7:7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I
myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and
another in that.
a. Likely the ESV
accurately punctuates v 1 by treating the closing words as a quotation from the
letter which the Corinthians hade sent to Paul. Translators of the ERV render v
1: “Now
concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is good for a man not to have
sexual relations with a woman.’” Likely this represents the position of some at
b. Paul responds to this misguided view by
warning marriage partners against defrauding each other sexually,
emphasizing that each is obliged to help his or her mate avoid temptation. He
insists that any abstinence must be by mutual consent and then only for a
limited period of time. Jerome was
quite wrong to conclude that:
“If it is good for a man not to touch a woman, it must be bad to do so,
and therefore celibacy is a holier state than marriage.”
c. It is important to notice that here and
elsewhere in this chapter some of Paul’s comments take the form of
recommendations rather than commands e.g. “but I say this by way of concession”
(v 6 c.f. v 25). We
must be careful to distinguish between non-binding judgments and the Lord’s
binding commands.
d. Many take the words “Yet
I wish that all men were even as I myself am” (v 7) to mean that Paul’s
personal preference is that all remain single, but more likely his wish is that
all men, single or married, possess freedom from the urgent need for sexual
fulfilment. Such freedom is one kind “gift” from God, while sexual fulfilment
in marriage is “another” gift (v 7).
Vv 8, 9
1Co 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for
them if they remain even as I. 1Co 7:9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it
is better to marry than to burn with passion.
a. “But I say to the unmarried (agamos) and
to widows …” Some (e.g. Fee) incline
to the view that "unmarried" here refers to widowers, and that Paul is responding to questions about “widows
and widowers.” According to Fee agamos could
convey this meaning in the Koine period. On the other hand in A. T. Robertson’s view “It is hardly likely that Paul means only
widowers and widows and means to call himself a widower by (even
as I)” (Word Pictures). However our
decision on this matter does not materially affect the present discussion.
b. The words “But I say” signal that as in v 6, Paul is offering
non-binding advice. The words “if they do not have self-control, let them
marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” need not suggest a grudging concession to
those who lack self control. Paul has in mind “the present (or impending)
distress” (v 26 c.f. vv 32-35) and is mindful that in such circumstances
married life can bring added difficulties (v 28). Paul is not disparaging
marriage and elsewhere advises younger widows to remarry (1 Tim
Vv 10, 11
1Co
a. Paul now gives
instructions to "the married." Who are “the married”? Later in v 12
Paul addresses “the rest” and goes on to discuss the situation of a believer married to an unbeliever, dealing
with the same matter which was the subject of vv 10, 11. This suggests that by
“the rest” (v 12) Paul means believers
married to unbelievers, and this being the case it is most natural to
conclude that vv 10, 11 are addresses to married
Christians.
b. Evidently ascetic
tendencies have fostered the belief that strict self denial is a means of
encouraging spiritual growth, and the Corinthians have asked Paul if married
Christians should “leave” (vv 10, 11) or “send …away” (v 11) a spouse, thereby
surrendering their conjugal
rights to achieve greater piety. The question of whether the words “leave” (chōrizō)
and “send … away” speak of separation
or divorce has received a great deal
of attention.
In Matt 19:6 and Mk 10:9 Jesus responds to
questions about divorce by warning that man must not “separate” (chōrizō) what God has joined together. Strong, Thayer,
Arndt and Gingrich, Abbott-Smith tell us that chōrizo is used of divorce, while Lusk (pp
103-105) provides evidence that the word can carry this meaning in the papyri.
On the other hand the word can
simply mean “separate” or “leave” and such like (e.g. Acts 1:4; 18:1, 2; Rom
8:35, 39; Phile 1:15; Heb 7:26).
c. Fee points out that our attempts to make a clear
cut distinction between divorce and separation “probably reflects our own
urgencies for greater precision” adding:
“Divorce in Greco-Roman culture could be
‘legalized’ by means of documents; but more often it simply happened. In this
culture divorce was divorce, whether established by document or not.”
What’s more, Jesus used apoluo to speak of divorce which carried with it the right of
remarriage and divorce which carried no such right, reinforcing the point that
context is decisive.
d. It is Paul’s response to the question (“b”) which
is significant. The wife “should not leave
(“depart from” [KJV; ASV; NKJV]; “separate from” [RSV; NIV; ESV; YLT]) her
husband (v 10). Should she do so she has
but two options:
(1) Remain unmarried (to
anyone else)
or
(2) Be reconciled to her
husband.
Clearly then the marriage bond remains intact.
Similarly, the husband is not to “send his wife away” (aphiemi) (NASB; YLT) or
“divorce his wife” (NIV; RSV; NKJV; ESV) “put away his wife” (KJV) “leaves his
wife” (ASV). Clearly Paul’s instructions in1 Cor
e. The words “I give instructions, not I but the Lord”
tell us that the “instructions” which Paul has issued concerning the “married”
in vv 10, 11 are authoritative
decrees emanating from God rather than “non-binding advice” from the
apostle as in v 8. We have left the realm of advice and entered the realm of divine
law. Whole books have been written on the relationship of vv 10, 11 to
verses 12-15 and about the significance of the words “I give instructions, not I
but the Lord” (v 10) and the words “But to the rest I say not the Lord” (v 12).
Vv 12-15.
1Co
a. With the words “But to the rest I say, not the Lord …” (v 12) Paul
now responds to questions relating to another situation. In view of the fact
that the apostle now speaks to the situation of the brother or sister married
to an unbeliever, it is likely that by “the rest” Paul means Christians who are married to the
non-Christians. However perhaps by “the rest” Paul means the
rest “of the things that they had (written) to him about” (John Gill, Exposition of the Entire Bible).
b. Anyway it is clear that the Christians with pagan spouses have
concerns which do not affect those involved in Christian unions. The nature of
those concerns is evident from v 14 which is connected to Paul’s instructions
(vv 12, 13) by the explanatory "For." Paul explains that the unbelieving partner
to a mixed marriage is “sanctified” by the believer (v 14). Of course this does
not mean that the unbeliever is saved, and
this is clear from verse 16: “how do you know whether you will save your ...
[partner]?” Paul is simply assuring these brethren that instead of the union
being defiled by the unbeliever, it
is sanctified (consecrated to God) by the involvement of the believer. Paul uses this
same reasoning elsewhere in a different context when he affirms that “If the first piece of dough
is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too” (Rom
c. It is clear from “b” above that Paul is responding to questions about
the status of mixed marriages and to the suggestion that such marriages are
defiled and therefore must be renounced by the Christian spouse. Certainly the
Corinthians have misunderstood Paul's instructions concerning association with
"immoral people of the world" (1 Cor
d. Earlier Paul
prefaced his instructions to “the married” (i.e. those in Christians unions)
with the words “I give instructions, not I but the Lord.” Perhaps Paul means that the authoritative decrees from God
in vv 10, 11 are grounded in the teaching of Jesus recorded in the Gospels
(e.g. Matt
e. The words “But to the rest I say not the Lord” (v 12) do not signify that Paul is
disclaiming inspiration here, or that his instructions to those in mixed marriages originate with him
rather than with God. The apostle is simply pointing out that during His
earthly ministry Jesus did not discuss the status of mixed marriages. Are they defiled or sanctified, are children of such unions clean or unclean? Jesus did not address these questions
while upon the earth, but now Paul does so (v 14), and his words are the words
of the Holy Spirit (v 40).
f. Because existing mixed marriages are
God-sanctioned, “sanctified” unions, the believing husband and believing wife
are forbidden to “send …away” (aphiemi)
the pagan spouse who “consents to live with him/her” (vv 12, 13). The
believer is not to separate from the non-believer in the mistaken belief that
the union is not sanctified. On the grounds that the union is legitimate Paul
issues instructions which are completely in harmony with Jesus’ teaching in the
Gospels and with Paul’s teaching throughout this chapter.
g. In v 15 Paul legislates on the case of the believer who has been deserted by an
unbelieving spouse. In this much discussed verse Paul writes:
“Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him
leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but
God has called us to peace.”
h. Many understand the expression “not under bondage in such cases" to
mean that a Christian brother or sister deserted by an unbeliever is no longer bound in marriage to the
pagan deserter and is therefore free to
marry again. Chrysostom opined
that if the unbeliever departed “the matter is no longer fornication” (Homily xix). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“These words of the Apostle tell us that in
all cases when one of the married parties have received the Christian Faith, and the
other remains an infidel and is not willing to live in peace with the Christian, the
believer is not bound but is free. The Apostle does not indeed say
expressly and formally that the marriage bond has been dissolved, but if it
were not at least in the power of the Christian to dissolve the
previous bond and to enter upon another marriage, the words would not have
their full truth. Hence the Church has understood the words in this sense, and
at the same time has fixed more exactly how and under what conditions this
so-called Pauline privilege may be exercised.”
i. Although there was no unanimity among the reformers
on the meaning of 1 Cor
j. Turning to the Restoration Movement we find the
following comment on 1 Cor
“The marriage covenant is broken, and the believing
party is free. This permission being granted
by the Apostle, and in accordance with the Spirit of God in reference to such
cases, it seems to me that in all cases of voluntary desertion on the side of
the unbelieving party, the marriage covenant is made void, and the believing
party is to the deserter as though they had never been married.”
Frequently quoted today is brother Foy Wallace’s view that according to 1
Cor 7:15 “in the
case of the abandonment of the believer by the unbeliever, whereby the believer
is ‘not under bondage’ and is therefore set free. If the bondage here
does not refer to the marriage bond, then the believer would still be in the
bondage of it…” Wallace adds:
“It appears evident that when the unbeliever so departs it
presupposes a state of adultery which exists in the principle previously
discussed, and here the apostle’s inspired teaching is again projected beyond
the Lord’s own strictures and declares the abandoned believer ‘not under
bondage.’ If that does not mean that the believer in these circumstances
is free to marry, then it cannot mean anything, for if the one involved is not
altogether free the bondage would still exist” (The Sermon on the
Mount and the Civil State).
In his widely-read Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments brother James Burton Coffman echoed Wallace’s view
saying:
“Some
question whether or not such a brother or sister might remarry; but the view
here is that, if not, then the brother or sister would still be in bondage.
This is another exception, distinguished from the "adultery"
mentioned by the Lord Matthew
19:9, but the desertion of a Christian partner by an unbeliever is thought
by some to be presumptive proof of adultery also. Besides that, Paul was
dealing with mixed marriages, which were not in the purview of Jesus' teaching
at all.”
In more recent years brother James D. Bales has become one of the most influential advocates of
this position. His book Not Under Bondage has evoked both fulsome praise and strong
criticism from all over the brotherhood
k. However there are
good reasons for rejecting this argument that the deserted Christian spouse is
“not under bondage” in the sense that he or she is freed from the original
marriage bond and eligible to enter into another marriage union. First,
consider the evidence from v 15 itself.
- The
word translated bondage is from douloo, and some form of this word,
noun and verb, occurs another 132 times in the Greek New Testament. In not one of these instances does it
refer to the marriage bond. On the other hand, when, in this chapter, Paul
makes two undoubted references to the marriage bond (verses 27 and 39) he
employs a form of the word deo
which he also uses of marriage in Rom 7:2. Clearly the change is
deliberate and significant. Basically douloo
describes "the status of a slave or an attitude corresponding to that
of a slave" (Rengstorf, Carl Heinreich TDNT). Liddell-Scott (Abridged) has “to
make a slave of, enslave, Hdt., Att.:-Pass.
to be enslaved, Hdt.,
Thuc.:-Med.,
with pf. pass. to make one's
slave, make subject to oneself, enslave.” Thayer has “(To) become servant 2,
bring into bondage 2, be under
bondage 1, given 1, make servant 1,
in bondage 1; 8 1) to make a slave
of, reduce to bondage 2) metaph. give myself
wholly to one's needs and service,
make myself a bondman to him.” Clearly this is hardly an
appropriate word to describe the marriage bond.
- In the expression "not under bondage"
(ou dedoulotai) the verb is in
the perfect tense, and the reference of this tense is double, meaning that
“it implies a past action and affirms an existing result" (Ernest De Witt
l. Thus “Paul has
not said in that verse or anywhere else that a Christian partner deserted by a
heathen may be married to someone else. All he said is: 'If
the unbelieving depart: the brother or sister is not under bondage (dedoulotai)
in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.' To say that
a deserted partner 'hath not been enslaved' is not to say that he or she may be
remarried"(C. Caverno, ISBE).
According to Robertson and Plummer
“All that ou dedoulotai clearly means is that he
or she is not so bound by Christ’s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to
depart when the heathen partner insists on separation” (I Corinthians, International Critical Commentary).
In similar vein Barnes has:
“Many have
supposed that this means that they would be at liberty to marry again when the
unbelieving wife or husband had gone away … But this is contrary to the strain
of the argument of the apostle. The sense of the expression ‘is not bound,’
etc. is, that if they forcibly depart, the one that is left is not bound by the
marriage tie to make provision for the one that departed; to do acts that might
be prejudicial to religion by a violent effort to compel the departing husband
or wife to live with the one that is forsaken; but is at liberty to live
separate, and should regard it as proper so to do.”
No, 1 Cor
m. Likely by "not under
bondage" Paul means something to the effect that the Christian "...
is not bound to renounce the faith for the sake of retaining her husband. (So Deut.xiii 6; Matt x. 35-27; Luke
xiv.26)" (Fausset, Andrew Robert et
al, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New
Testaments). (This would be slavery indeed). As F.W. Grosheide puts it
“If the believing
party were under obligation to prevent the departure he would be subject to the
unbeliever and would virtually be forced to abandon his or her faith since only
by doing that could a divorce be prevented. That price would be too high” (Commentary on First Corinthians).
This or something similar is
meant, but certainly the expression does not teach either explicitly or
implicitly that the deserted party is free to form another union. Moreover how
could Paul give this privilege to the one deserted by an unbeliever, while
denying it to the Christian deserted by a Christian spouse (1 Cor
n. Next, looking at the
total context of scripture, consider the force of the exceptive clause in Matt
19:9. Treating Matthew 19:9 as
we would treat any other exceptive proposition leads us to the conclusion that
every man who divorces a wife and marries another woman “commits adultery” with
but one exception. That exception is the case of the man who divorces his wife
for her sexual immorality. Given the unambiguous, unequivocal teaching of Jesus in
this verse, the “high view” of
scripture rules out any interpretation
of 1 Cor 7:15 which would contradict this teaching. True revelation is
progressive, and some passages are illuminated by other passages, but scripture
never contradicts itself.
o. Some have attempted to evade the
force of Matt 19:9 by arguing that Jesus’ teaching in this verse is covenant legislation or legislation to which only the Christian is amenable.
Allegedly, Jesus’ rule that the only ground for scriptural divorce is sexual
infidelity, does not apply to those who are not
in a covenant relationship with God. In the words of James D. Bales, an influential proponent of this position:
"There are at least three categories
of marriages. First, marriage between two Christians. Second, marriage between two people outside the covenant. Third, marriage between a person inside the covenant, and a person
outside the covenant. One can summarize my book by saying, First, Christ
in his personal ministry legislated on marriage, divorce, and remarriage for
two Christians, 1 Cor 7:10-11” (Not
Under Bondage).
According
to Bales, Jesus’ instruction to married Christians in 1 Cor
p. Bales continues:
“Second, Paul legislated on marriage,
divorce, and remarriage for the Christian married to a non-Christian, 1 Cor
7:12-15. The two legislations differ but they do not contradict one another
because they apply to two different categories.”
Accordingly our
brother insists that while v 15 gives the deserted Christian the right to
remarry, this does not conflict with Matt 19:9 because Jesus and Paul are
addressing two different situations.
What’s more
“(Neither) Paul nor Christ legislated on
marriage, divorce, and remarriage for two unbelievers. Therefore, we have no
right to bind on people in the world the law of Christ, which he bound on two
people who are in his covenant. Once they obey the gospel they come under
Christ's law in this matter and they are not to divorce and remarry except for
fornication. However, the law of Christ is not retroactive and they do not have
to break up their second marriage when they come into Christ even though they
had been divorced for some reason other than fornication."
Among other things such reasoning sanctions the second
(or third or fourth) marriage of a divorced non Christian who has not put away
his or her first spouse for sexual immorality.
q. Like others who argue (for various
reasons) that the non-Christian is not amenable to the law of Christ, brother
Bales asserts that the unbeliever is subject to some
other kind of law. It is this law (rather than the law of
Christ) which the non-Christian violates when he sins. In brother Bales scheme
of things, the inherent universal law governing unbelievers is the so called
“law of the heart” which Paul purportedly alludes to in Rom 2:14, 15. In fact
Paul makes no reference to some kind of separate, innate moral law in these
verses, and Bales’ attempt to locate such a law in scripture is as unsuccessful
as other endeavors to identify such an ordinance. The bottom line is that all
efforts to place limitations upon the universal moral law incorporated in the
law of Christ fail miserably.
r. A variety of different arguments
establish the universality of Christ’s teaching on marriage divorce and
remarriage, including the following:
- Jesus’
teaching in Matt 19:9 is grounded upon creation law (Matt 19:4-9; Gen
- Jesus has
“authority over all mankind” (Jn 17:2 cf. Matt 28:18; Eph
- Since the
commands to believe in Jesus, to repent of sin and to be baptized into
Christ are part of the law of Christ, if unbelievers are not amenable to
this law they are not required to
obey these Gospel commands. Yet we know that all men everywhere are
required to render such obedience (Acts
- Sin is a violation of law (1 Jn 3:4). Before having been
“washed” “sanctified” and “justified” the Corinthians (and others) had
been fornicators, idolaters,
adulterers, effeminate,
homosexuals, thieves,
drunkards, revilers, and swindlers
(1 Cor 6:9, 10). The gentiles were held accountable for violations of divine moral
law (Rom
- It is
true that Jesus’ statement in Matt 19:9 was addressed to people of the
covenant, but since His work was primarily among the Jewish people so too
were most of His other statements. Everyone recognizes that Jesus’
universal declarations about repentance (Lk 13:3) the new birth (Jn 3:5)
and the essentiality of faith (Jn
- The
suggestion by some that a covenant offered by God is binding only after an individual has entered
into a covenant relationship with the Lord is misguided. J. D. Douglas points out that “the
thought of bilateral agreement is wholly excluded” from a covenant between
God and man (The New Bible
Dictionary). ISBE
distinguishes between two types of covenants, one of which is “more a
command.” That is, “instead of an obligation voluntarily assumed, it is an
obligation imposed by a superior upon an inferior.” It is this kind of
covenant rather than a mutual
agreement which exists between God and man.
Various other scriptural teachings reveal
the shortcomings of the “covenant law” position, but enough has been said to
refute the contention that 1
Cor 7:12-15 legislates for those who are not amenable to Jesus’ teaching on
marriage divorce and remarriage. Let’s take care lest forced and unnatural
interpretations of Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 7:10-15 become the basis for a
re-interpretation of creation law in Genesis 2 and Jesus’ clear application of this law in the
Gospels.
s. The closing words of v 15, "God has
called us in (lit) peace,” carry the dominant idea of 1
Cor 7. Paul insists that the Christian is to gracefully accept the situation in
which God has called him/her even if
he/she has been deserted by an unbelieving spouse.
1
Cor
a. We close this section with a brief comment on 1 Cor
7:24 where Paul instructs that “each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was
called.” Clearly Paul has in mind conditions which are not sinful (vv 17-23)
and he is not suggesting that the thief who continues to steal, the practicing
homosexual or the confidence trickster who continues in his dishonest
occupation is acceptable to God.
b. Some argue that while theft and homosexual activity
are inherently sinful, marriage is an honourable state (Heb 13:4) and that
while repentance requires the cessation of sinful practices (e.g.
homosexuality, theft) it does not
require the termination of relationships which are inherently moral (e.g.
moral). However while it is true that scriptural
marriage unions are honourable, it is equally true that unscriptural adulterous unions are sinful, and in the case of such
unions repentance places the same demands upon the adulterer as it places upon
the thief, the homosexual and the confidence trickster – the renunciation of
sinful activities.
Conclusion:
Our understanding of 1Cor 7
will be enhanced greatly if we realize that "Paul is not discussing the
question for what causes marriage might be disrupted, but the question of
manners and morals in the
relation" (C. Caverno ISBE).
The apostle does not modify Jesus in any way.