The year was 1989. I was taking two Greek classes and Hebrew within a very full course load. I was also working 32 hours a week at a Wal-Mart warehouse, arriving home around midnight when study began. At home, we had two new children. What saved me? I credit a first-period auditorium class, Psych 101, in which the professor insisted on playing a recording of a Swiss psychologist instructing on relaxation techniques! In stressful situations, I still apply them. On one occasion in this year, I took off from a gas station with the nozzle still inserted. I suppose if that was the worst mistake I made that year, I did OK.
The file from an antique word-processor (WordPerfect) is not perfect. Inexplicably, some of the Greek characters had fallen out and I've replaced them. There is a chart, and the "arrows" (from a line-draw function) discussed in the explanation no longer exist--use your imagination please. My blog, unfortunately offers no Greek font, so I did my best to transliterate. Also, in removing excess "white space" in the working copy, it seems I should have left it. For all this, I think the paper will repay careful study.
I promise, I will re-present this later in renovated form!
_____________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The issue of divorce and remarriage is of vital importance to the present-day church. Family relationships hang in the balance, as do relationships between churches and between Christians in the churches. Besides these personal considerations, honoring God's will in the matter is no less crucial.
This issue brings to mind the lengthy and bitter debate which has embroiled many Christians in Churches of Christ over the years. The volume of such written material that aimed at bringing all to a truthful position is enormous. To this day no clear consensus has been achieved and, not infrequently, lines of fellowship have been drawn according to the various positions held. The proper understanding of the issue has been portrayed as simple by some. However, the proliferation of positions, of books and debaters supporting them, would suggest otherwise. The issue is incredibly complex.
In fact, it is an oversimplification to see the matter as a single issue. There are specific aspects which involve the married, the pre-married, and the post-married. The issues may also be classified for Christians, non-Christians, and also for spiritually mixed relationships. Beyond the handling of family relationship matters, there also remains the need to evaluate spiritual matters: the salvific status of people involved, the drawing of lines of fellowship, and the detection of heresy. As if all of this were not enough, the handful of relevant passages of Scripture must in some fashion be applied to a bewildering array of relationship situations, brought on by the proliferation of broken homes, which never crossed the minds of the Bible writers.
The intent of this paper is to examine the text of 1 Corinthians 7 for information which may contribute to the understanding of the issue of divorce and remarriage. The methodology employed involves a preliminary exegesis of the text, integrating the results with the other relevant texts of Scripture, and interacting with various secondary sources of research.
A SKETCH OF THE CORINTHIAN SITUATION
Basic observations from the text offer a great deal of information about the recipients of the 1 Corinthian letter and about their situation. Exegesis must properly begin with the text itself. The sounding provided here is drawn entirely from the evidence in the text; the results can be considered but tentative, since drawing insights from archaeology and other secondary research is beyond the scope of this effort[1]. Appeal to secondary sources will be made in the exegetical sections which follow.
The Corinthian church was a very diverse group. There were rich and poor; Jew and Gentile. Some were married, others formerly had been (being either divorced or widowed), and some were yet single. Many came from pagan backgrounds with the attendant worldviews and behaviors. Before their renewal in Jesus, some had indeed been wise, influential, and of noble birth[2] as society views such matters. The status derived from their background seems to have led to a haughty self-image, which continued even after they had been sanctified in Christ Jesus. Now bound together in one body and in great diversity, they were together waiting for Jesus to be revealed.
The church came into existence through the preaching of Paul, his subject matter being the cross of Christ. He had even baptized a few of their number, yet was grateful to have baptized no more after witnessing the tendency in the church to divide over allegiance to favorite teachers. As he wrote, there were those denying Paul's status as an apostle. They were quite willing to pay the expenses of other leaders, while denying this to Paul himself. Out of concern, some Christians from Chloe's household (house church?) informed Paul by letter of the current problems (especially that of division), while others had written him for answers to troubling doctrinal questions. Paul wrote in response to both of these concerns. The issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage received significant attention in Paul's response.
God had endowed the church richly with both knowledge and grace-gifts[3], both of which fell into terrible misuse in local practice. The loyalty due to the Lord Himself was divided within the group among various church leaders (Paul included). The lines of division were drawn on the basis of whichever leader had administered the baptismal rite to each member. None seemed to have concern for what the Lord Himself might think of the situation.
Abundant knowledge did not prevent to lingering lack of spiritual maturity at Corinth. The members remained worldly in attitude and behavior, provoking Paul to chide them. Greed was displayed at the "sharing" of the Lord's Supper. Christian liberty (based on true knowledge) was also abused to the hurt of others. Individual independence was standing in the way of realizing a one-body relationship. Some had become so self-sufficient in Paul's absence that they even began to feel superior to the apostle himself! For his part, Paul was ready to deal with their arrogance. The Corinthians, trying to carry their exalted social status into the church, had overlooked the surpassing status available to one and all in Christ.
. In their haste to "go beyond what was written" (4:6), the church failed to see the Cross as the true source of power and wisdom. Instead, the Jewish segment sought (miraculous) signs and the Greek segment sought after (philosophical?) wisdom. They failed likewise to recognize both the Spirit which bodily indwelt both Christian and church and the great price which had been paid to secure their redemption. Further signs of confusion surface in their perception of gender roles in church functioning, in the continued recognition of idols, and in the misuse of grace-gifts.
Few, it seems, pursued sanctification and so were in peril of losing their salvific status. An occasion of extreme immorality brought pride instead of shame. Some visited prostitutes and others engaged in idolatry. Christians cheated one another and then chose to settle their legal disputes before unbelievers. The inability to judge such matters for themselves bespoke their own immaturity. Sin was tolerated and discipline was not being administered as a corrective.
Not surprisingly, the worship assembly did more harm than good. There were abuses in the exercising of grace-gifts and in the Lord's Supper celebration. Spiritually-gifted members failed to appropriately appraise the relative value of the variously distributed gifts. The assembly grew disorderly, with one charismatic trying to upstage the next. The underlying cause of the immaturity and the disorder was a lack of love in the church.
For all of their faults, Paul regarded them as a sanctified church and was unwilling to write them off as beyond hope. Together this diverse group of immature, haughty, and self-centered Christians waited for Jesus to be revealed. Yet they could not claim even this as a commonly shared hope, for some were doubting that there would be a resurrection at all.
PAUL'S PURPOSE IN WRITING
The purpose of the epistle is threefold. First, Paul was responding to the divided state of the church as reported from Chloe's household. He sought to restore to the Lord the loyalty which had wrongly been assigned to mortals. The immaturity that brought division would also be given a response as Paul dealt with specific problems of immorality, ignorance, lawless behavior, and idolatry.
Paul's second purpose was to answer the doctrinal questions which were addressed to him in the correspondence from Corinth. These subjects apparently included the following:
•marriage and celibacy
•responsible love toward less informed brothers
•proper gender roles in church functioning
•the proper exercise of grace-gifts
•the truth about the resurrection of the dead
•the administration of the financial collection
The answers to these questions form the bulk of the epistle.
Paul's third purpose in writing was to prepare the way for successful visits to Corinth by himself and Timothy. Paul was ready to reclaim his apostolic status among the Corinthians and so laid down instructions on the proper appraisal and proper functioning of human leaders within the church. He aimed to topple rivals who threatened to undermine previous efforts or to hinder future progress.
TEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS
The UBS textual apparatus[4] lists six variants for 1 Cor. 7. None of these figure significantly for the subject at hand. The text may be considered well-established at least as regards this discussion.
THE SETTING OF CHAPTER SEVEN
The epistle begins with the greeting and introductory section in 1:1-9. Then Paul addresses the matters submitted by Chloe's household from 1:10 to 6:20. The remainder of the letter is a response to the questions which had been sent to Paul in a letter. Chapter Seven begins this section with its subject of marriage and celibacy as the first of several subsections.
This final major section begins with the words "now concerning (per‹i de) the things of which you wrote." This formula (peri de) introduces the several subsections, each one apparently a response to a separate question. In 8:1, the matter of food addressed to idols is addressed. In 12:1, the subject of grace-gifts is introduced. Finally, Paul speaks to the administration of church collections in 16:1. Each repetition of the formula has as its referent the initial appearance in 7:1, identifying each subsection as a matter addressed to Paul from Corinth.
THE ARGUMENT OF CHAPTER SEVEN
Chapter Seven presents a connected argument unified by a single general principle. James Walters has noted that "our tendency is often to change the subject before the Bible writer does,"[5] and most treatments of the text fail to deal with its central organizing feature. The convenient breakdown of the argument on the basis of the different groups which Paul addresses has probably led many expositors to treat the chapter in disjointed fashion. Another factor making recognition of the principle difficult is that Paul applies the principle variously according to the needs of the specific categories of people and according to the various situations on which he instructs.
The overarching principle governing the argument is stated emphatically four times in Chapter Seven:
•"each one has his own gift from God--one in this way and another in that" (v. 7)
•"But only as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each one, so let him continue to walk...." (v. 17)
•"Each one, in that calling in which he was called, in this let him continue." (v. 20)
•"Each one, in that to which he was called, Brothers, in this, let him remain before God." (v. 24)
The principle turns on the idea of one's "calling". The idea begins with one being called into fellowship (1:9), thus linking it with conversion. The Christian is to continue in the condition in which he was found at his or her conversion; it is his gift from God and his assignment as well. The Christian is not to abandon this calling.
It is likely that the demonstrably self-exalting recipients had sought to gain status for themselves based on categories of marriage/celibacy, Jew/Gentile, and slave/free distinctions. Paul denies the validity of this quest, insisting that none are superior and that those seeking to jump categories for selfish reasons should remain as they are. However, let it not be missed that Paul grants permission for category-jumping for other genuinely valid reasons.
It is admitted that one's Christian calling is not strictly equivalent to his social status at the time of his conversion. Yet it is clear that the Corinthian situation has led Paul to speak as if the two were one and the same, for this improper association was assumed at Corinth. Strictly speaking, one's social condition has nothing to do with his Christian calling; the ground beneath the cross is level. However, the Corinthian Christians were using their initial social condition or were using their changed social condition as a lever for one-upmanship in the fellowship. Recall that one's baptizer at conversion led to divided categories within the fellowship leading Christians to seek status by attachment to these famous teachers. The spiritual fratricide over "knowledge" concerning meat sacrificed to idols turned on Jew/Gentile culture distinctions. The Lord's Supper abuse could be traced to a line dividing rich and poor. Matters of status play strongly into the discussions of marriage and celibacy as well, as will be seen. The denigration that resulted from social/racial/religious/gender snobbery led many to seek to jump categories to mobilize themselves upward. The pursuit is vain, claimed Paul, in a vie for spiritual status. Both Paul's polemic and his terminology are adapted to this Corinthian confusion, yet Paul himself was by no means confused.
The governing principle is an interpretive key which conveniently fits all of the locks in Paul's argument. Paul will twice illustrate the principle, will discuss at length its purpose, and will then apply it pertinently to the various groups involved. It will be seen that the principle falls across a dual distribution of two broad groups: the married and the unmarried. Also, the principle is subjected by Paul to three methods of application: either it is enforced, or it is encouraged with recourse left to individual discretion, or the principle is excepted. The following schematic diagram illustrates the dual distribution for married/unmarried categories and the specific method of application involved for the principle: "let each remain in that calling wherein he/she was called."
INDICATIONS: M = married
S = single, or unmarried
ENF = principle "enforced"
ENC = principle "encouraged" (but left discretionary)
EXC = principle "excepted"
*** = principle stated
| 1- S:ENC 2- S:EXC 3- M:ENF 4- M:ENF 5- M:ENF 6- S:ENC ***7- S:ENC 8- S:ENC 9- S:EXC 10- M:ENF 11- M:ENF 12- M:ENF 13- M:ENF 14- | 15- M:EXC 16- ***17- 18- FIRST 19- ILLUSTRATION ***20- OF PRINCIPLE 21- 22- SECOND 23- ILLUSTRATION ***24- 25- 26- S:ENC 27- S:EXC/ENC 28- S:EXC | 29- THE PURPOSE 30- OF THE 31- PRINCIPLE 32- EXPLAINED 33- 34- 35- 36- S:EXC 37- S:ENC 38- S:EXC/ENC 39- M:EXC 40- S:ENC |
The table above was developed by considering the relationship of each verse to Paul's governing principle. The broken arrow from v. 6 shows the syntactical relationship to vs. 1-2 (Instead of to vs. 1-5 entirely). The arrows to verses left blank indicate continued discussion from the beginning application; these may or may not continue to address the governing principle.
Chapter Seven may be outlined topically according to the same principle as follows:
I. THE PRINCIPLE STATED (vs. 7, 17, 20, 24)
II. THE PRINCIPLE'S PURPOSE (vs. 29-35)
III. THE PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATED (vs. 17-24)
A. By Circumcision/Uncircumcision (vs. 18-20)
B. By Slavery/Freedom (vs. 21-24)
IV. THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED
A. To The Married:
1. Enforced (vs. 3-5 and 10-14)
2. Encouraged--this is never done
3. Excepted:
a. spouse deserted by unbeliever (v. 15)
b. those widowed (v. 39)
B. To The Single or Unmarried:
1. Enforced--this is never done
2. Encouraged (vs. 1 and 6, 8, 25-27, 38, and 40)
3. Excepted:
a. to prevent fornication (v. 2)
b. to prevent fornication (v. 9)
c. to honor a betrothal (vs. 28 and 36-37)
Having already discussed the first major division of this outline, we will now examine the remaining sections.
II. THE PRINCIPLE'S PURPOSE (vs. 29-35): Since the eschaton looms near, Paul would have all, whether married or single, to serve the Lord with undivided devotion. Although neither state is forbidden, the celibate life comes with the apostle's high recommendation. In whichever state one finds himself, he is not to shirk the Christian responsibility to which God has assigned him. Paul's purpose for so instructing also surfaces in v. 26, where the "present distress" is that which is part and parcel of the manner of life destined to end along with the form of this world; this situation embraces all time this side of eternity. While the intensity of the situation Paul addresses stems without a doubt from some trouble historically specific to his own day, the urgency of securing devotion to God free of all competing attractions is foundational to the Christian covenant (cf. Luke 9:57ff., 14:25ff., etc.) and so finds application in every age.
Contextually, the explanation of purpose falls within the section addressed to virgins (vs. 25-38). Even so, it is clear that the purpose applies as well to the other groups (cf. vs. 2, 5, 9, and 19); divided loyalty presents a threat to all.
III. THE PRINCIPLE ILLUSTRATED (vs. 17-24): The principle is illustrated twice: by circumcision/uncircumcision in vs. 18-20 and by slavery/freedom in vs. 21-24. It is significant that this entire section begins with one of the explicit statements of the principle (v. 17) and further that each of the respective illustrations is concluded in the same way (v. 20 and v. 24).
A. CIRCUMCISION/UNCIRCUMCISION (VS. 18-20): The attempt to change one's status by changing his state is prohibited. Put another way, the principle has been strictly enforced. Yet Paul gives assurance that God's outlook is unaffected by such anyway. Jewish claims to superiority are addressed directly in the very next chapter regarding meat sacrificed to idols. Boasting and vaunting oneself on this basis is out of place; what counts, says Paul, is keeping God's commands.
B. SLAVERY/FREEDOM (vs. 21-24): Rather than enforcing the principle as before, Paul encourages the slave to not be overly concerned about his low state and perhaps to remain there. This is justified, he says, because the slave status is equivalent to another's free state, and visa versa, in God's sight. However, the slave who is able to change his state of affairs is granted an exception to the guiding principle.[6]
Notice that, among the two illustrations, we find the three methods of the principle's application: enforcement, encouragement, and exception. Paul's applications follow suit.
IV. THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED A. To The Married:
1. Enforced (vs. 3-5, 10-14): That Christians in vs. 3-5 are forbidden to bypass the governing principle is seen in the command to not separate unless it be for a temporary period of prayer, and that by mutual consent. However, they are to remain in their married state. The Rabbis likewise limited a spouse's withholding of marital relations.[7] Paul does follow up in v. 6 by admitting that he speaks by way of concession rather than command. However, it is most natural to find the referent of this declaration in the option granting a choice between celibacy and marriage a few verses earlier (i.e. vs. 1-2 only). While it is grammatically and syntactically possible to extend the concession through v. 5, it is clear that Paul offers no option in vs. 3-5.[8] The instructions to the married are in fact a command, and not a mere concession. The same imperative is reiterated for the married in v. 10.[9]
Paul then gives instructions in v. 11 regarding those who heed not this command; they are either to reconcile or remain single (in the sense of being separated from their mate!). His legislation is akin to that of Deut. 24:1-4, which presupposes--rather than permits--marital separation. Hence, Paul's application neither makes an exception nor merely encourages the principle in the case of married Christians; the principle is enforced.
Before addressing vs. 12-14, it is appropriate to note the function of the two complementary phrases "not I, but the Lord: (v. 10) and "say I (not the Lord)" (v. 12). The former may be taken as a reference to the dominical saying of Jesus.
Objection to this connection is raised on two fronts. First, it is difficult to envision Jesus issuing a command requiring a Jewish woman not to divorce, when she would not have had legal recourse to such action anyway. Only Mark records this in 10:12 of his gospel. In response, Robert W. Herron Jr. has cogently argued in support of a textual variant which substitutes exeltha apo for apolusasa in this passage.[10] Thus, he envisions a situation where the wife might desert rather than formally divorce and provides a plausible Sitz im Leben for the Markan pericope.
A second objection is that the husband and wife are in reverse order of the dominical saying if indeed Paul has used it. However, a situation is proposed by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor which may underlie vs. 1-11; thus Paul may have intentionally reversed the order to address an actual Corinthian situation.[11] He suggests a situation in which a Christian woman sees celibacy as a spiritually superior state and who is looking for a way out of her marriage. In support, he notes the possible translation of the passive infinitive chwristhanai as "the wife should not allow herself to be separated from her husband"[12] (italics mine). Again, the wife is not seen as the initiator of the divorce action (although she was able to do so in Greco-Roman society). It seems best to take the instructions to married Christians as Paul's enforcement of his principle on the precedent established in the dominical saying of Jesus. Ones status is not raised by jumping from marriage to divorce.
New on the salvation-history horizon was the prospect of legitimate marriages between God's people and pagans, which Paul addresses in 12-15. Paul begins this verses by referring to the mixed marriages with the phrase tois de loipois, which sets them off as a different class from the purely Christian marriages just addressed before. That dissolving a such a relationship might lead to spiritual advantage seems to make good sense, but Paul again enforces the principle as he had done before. This instruction is purely Paul's legislation--"say I (not the Lord)" (v. 12). The Christian--he or she--is not to depart if the unbeliever is content to live with the Christian. Paul goes on to allow an exception in v. 15 should the unbeliever depart[13] (see discussion below under IV. A. 3.). Paul is not being arbitrary; he denies category-jumping as a means of gaining spiritual status but he makes an exception based on a more noble agenda (theological considerations are set within in a canonical context in the Excursus below).
2. Encouraged: Paul at no time encourages marriage (except as an preventative against fornication). In fact, his strong encouragement of celibacy may be taken as discouragement regarding marriage (cf. IV. B. 2.). Paul recognizes, however, that each has his own gift from God (v. 7).
3. Excepted (vs. 15, 39): Two exceptions to the principle are granted for married Christians, and some would find a third in vs. 27-28 This doubtful exception is based upon a minority interpretation which identifies the one "having been loosed" in v. 27b as one who has been divorced.[14] This person is permitted to marry (again) in the following verse. However, the position adopted here is that the reference is instead to a betrothed male virgin who has broken an engagement (cf. IV. B. 2.).[15] Verse 27 is a natural progression of the instructions to virgins, both male and female, that began in v. 25. Divorce was required to end a betrothal, at least among the Jews (cf. Matt. 1:19). One who ended a betrothal could yet marry.
A clear exception is given in v. 39 to those married who have then been widowed. Admittedly, it seems equally valid to classify the widowed as unmarried, as we shall in fact do in IV. B. 2. Even so, Romans 7:3 is instructive. At the death of the spouse the widow is released from the law of marriage. Thus, the widow is permitted to regard herself as free to change her social station; she is thus considered single (unmarried) and is free to remarry. There is no hint of an attempt to gain spiritual status thereby.
The other exception for the married is hotly debated to the present day. It is found in v. 15b and has been dubbed, inaccurately I believe, the "Pauline privilege" (in the Excursus, preference is given to the expression, the "Pauline protection").
With the assumption that the now familiar principle indeed governs the entire argument, we are provided with the interpretive key needed to unlock the meaning of dedoulwtai. Paul is saying that the Christian spouse "has not been bound in such cases." Bound to what?, is the critical question. Let it be submitted here that we may fill in the full meaning legitimately by drawing it from the contextual data gathered from our understanding of Paul's argumentation. This yields an implied meaning intended by Paul as in this paraphrase: "The brother or the sister, in such cases [when deserted by unbelieving spouses], has not been bound [to remain in the state wherein he or she was called]."
Failure to interact with the larger context has led to many fanciful conjectures. Representative are those of Laney, who suggests either the Christians necessity of "preserving the union through legal maneuvers" or the absurd notion of "[p]ursuing the unwilling partner all over the Roman Empire."[16] While neither option has a shred of contextual support, the former is based on a fact of Roman law--a man could be punished for failing to divorce his adulterous wife.[17] This law was adopted from 18 BC to 9 AD[18]. Whether any corresponding legal tradition continued in Paul's day is unknown to the present writer. The interpretation offered here has the advantage of having contextual support.
Sharpening the focus from the broader to the more immediate context yields further support for our interpretation. First, Paul is speaking where the Lord has not (v. 12, cf. v. 10). He has fully agreed with applying the substance of Jesus' legislation as per the dominical logion also to mixed marriages in vs. 12-13, and Paul explains why in v.14: the unbeliever is sanctified in the Christian spouse. Hence, it is altogether feasible that Paul's instruction that allows an exception to the deserted Christian is extra, and not contra, to that of Jesus. Desertion by an unbelieving spouse was not a problem faced by Jesus in His Palestinian ministry, but it was a problem Paul had to face in his Greco-Roman setting.
Second, "in such cases" creates an antithesis to what has gone before. We are again dealing with mixed marriage situations, but now in opposite circumstances. The antithesis may extend back even further, so that Paul's instructions in v. 15 may be seen in contradistinction with the dominical saying of Jesus. Jesus addressed a spiritually homogenous cultural matrix for marriage; Paul a heterogenous matrix. Their legislations should not be considered contradictory, especially if some encompassing principle is seen to incorporate them in complementary fashion (this will be argued in the Excursus).
Third, support is found when we finish the reading of v.15 while considering the interpretation we postulate. This yields: "The brother or sister, in such cases, has not been bound [to remain in the state wherein he or she was called]: but God has called us in peace." We find here a most natural echo if the governing principle is, in fact, functioning through ellipsis to complete the meaning of dedoÝlwtai.
Finally, support for this interpretation is found in v. 16 which immediately follows. The question, which queries the possibility of the Christian's likelihood of saving the unbeliever, is most likely expressive of pessimism towards the possibility. Paul said, "Let him depart...for how do you know, O wife, if you shall save your husband?" The deserted believer is free of responsibility for the unbeliever's faithless decision.
EXCURSUS:
MARITAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION IN CANONICAL SCRIPTURE
Discussion of the divorce/remarriage issue revolves upon the binding nature of the one-flesh relationship of Gen. 2:24, to which Jesus referred in Mt. 19:5 and Mark 10:7-8. A crucial factor too often neglected in the discussion the God-intended beneficent nature of the marriage covenant.[19] This beneficent intent for marriage by God as summed up by F. F. Bruce: "Marriage, like the Sabbath, was instituted for man, and not vice versa."[20] With such an understanding, the legislations of Deut. 24:1-4, Matt. 19:9, Rom. 7:1-3 (par. 1 Cor. 7:39), and 1 Cor. 7:15 begin to look much like "protection clauses" to the Gen. 2:24 legislation, rather than to function merely as "exception clauses". These passages may be seen to express a uniform pattern of divine concern. We shall examine each in turn.
The Mosaic protection clause of Deut. 24:1-4 was predicated upon broken relationships in Israelite society, rather than being permissive towards them. The result of divorce was a victim (the wife) where God had intended a beneficiary. The bill of divorcement mandated in this passage, according to the Mishnah, first and foremost gave the victim permission to remarry.[21] God is seen as the victim's protector.
The Mathean protection clause (19:9) upholds the cause of the would-be beneficiary whose covenantal rights have been violated by a fornicating spouse. Some interpreter's even deny this as an "exception" to the binding nature of marriage.[22] The Lord's intention from the beginning was for two (and not more!) to share in the one-flesh relationship. How can it be imagined that the innocent victim should yet be bound in such cases? Again, God has offered protection, and not merely an "exception".
The "widow's protection" of Rom. 7:1-3 (par. 1 Cor. 7:39) offers protection to those who have been victimized by the death of a spouse. God's concern for the widows and fatherless is an oft-repeated theme in Scripture.
The "Pauline protection" of 1 Cor. 7:15 (this terminology preferred to "Pauline privilege") protects victims from desertion by an unbelieving spouse. Why? Because God has called us in peace! His covenant, like the marital covenant, aims at making beneficiaries. God is willing to help victims in a beneficial way that ends the abuse; He is opposed to people changing marital status on the supposition that such category-jumping will exalt their spiritual status in His eyes (or in the eyes of others). The deserted Christian, in this reading of v. 15, is permitted to leave that social state in which he or she was called. He becomes "unmarried" and has the right to remarriage implicit in a legal divorce.[23] Both Roman law[24] and rabbinic tradition of the Mishnah[25] granted this right. Nowhere in Scripture is an unmarried person forbidden to marry. A married person who fornicates would be denied this privilege because "they have unfinished covenantal business. They have a moral, not a mystical, obligation to reconcile."[26] The fornicator, victimizer rather than victim, has no benefit in Jesus' protective legislation.
A common pattern runs through these protection clauses. First, in each case, an exception is made to the binding nature of the marriage based on God's legislation in Gen. 2:24 (cf. Matt. 19:3-6). Second, each of these exceptions is predicated upon an already invalidated relationship; the covenant has been broken. Third, the covenant-breaking by one spouse has victimized the other, which does violence to the beneficent purpose for marriage which the Almighty intended. Fourth, God offers protection to the victim in every case to pursue a legitimate relationship.
Some, who see only God's intent to preserve[27] marriage bonds, are at times prone to castigate those who also see God's beneficent intent to protect victims. Our interpretation must allow space for God's express will in both areas. A victimized spouse, after all, stands on Square One where Adam once stood when God declared: "It is not good for man to be alone; I shall make a partner suited to him." May God open our eyes to see the whole picture of His attitude toward marriage and divorce and remarriage!
CONTINUING WITH PAUL'S ARGUMENT
We began earlier to follow Paul's argumentation topically according to the scheme outlined on page 6-7. Thus far we have examined the governing principle for the chapter, its stated purpose, its two-fold illustration, and its application (whether enforced, encouraged, or excepted) to those having married. We now turn our attention to the application of the principle to the unmarried.
IV. THE PRINCIPLE APPLIED B. To Those Single or Unmarried:
1. Enforced: Paul at no time requires the unmarried to remain in that state wherein he or she was called. This accords well with the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 19:10-12)
2. Encouraged: In v. 1, Paul says: "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," and in v. 6 he clarifies that he is speaking by way of concession, and not by way of command. The option remains, weighted to one side.
In v. 8, the unmarried and the widows are encouraged to remain even as Paul himself is--i.e., presumably single (cf. 9:5-6). The "unmarried" here may refer to people of either gender.[28] The word here seems to refer to widowers, since tois agamois stands in apposition to "widows". Paul has already addressed the premaritally single of both sexes in vs. 1-2.
Virgins are addressed in vs. 25ff. Paul's advice is for them to remain as they are. In vs. 27-28, a good case can be made that specific reference is being made to affianced virgins. To marry would not be a sin, but it is warned that trouble will follow as a result. Engagement was viewed as a binding arrangement which required a divorce for annulment (Matt. 1:18-19). The application is prescribed to secure undivided devotion to the Lord. Attention to Christians committed to entering a marriage is resumed in v. 36.[29] The encouragement to remain single is repeated in vs. 37 and 38.
In each case, Paul has encouraged--but has not demanded--compliance with the principle.
3. Excepted. Four exceptions are made for two different reasons. First, Paul desires to prevent fornication. The celibacy (otherwise encouraged in v. 1) is set aside in deference to marriage in view of this concern (v. 2). Likewise, the unmarried (widowers) and the widows, after being encouraged toward celibacy, are permitted to marry (v. 9) for "it is better to marry than to burn." The situation is parallel to the situation in vs. 1-2, and the warning against being burnt seems equivalent to the warning against fornication. Clement of Alexandria would later exclaim: "Adulterer, no longer burn."[30] Thus, the burning is better taken as that of sexual lust than of the fires of eternal torment.
Exceptions are also granted to the betrothed for yet another reason: apparently to spare them from the hardships brought on by marriage in light of the present situation. Since the betrothed live at once with one foot in marriage and one foot in the single life, the exceptions are granted both ways. They are permitted to end their engagements in v. 28; and then in vs. 36-37 the man is permitted to end his bachelorhood by marrying.
Both of these exceptions rest upon difficult interpretations. The position adopted here on v. 28 is that those in view are betrothed male virgins (recall discussion in IV. A. 3.) rather than divorced persons (as "having been loosed from a wife" might suggest). In vs. 36ff., the difficulty involves the interplay between gamew and gamizw. While gamizw may be equivalent in meaning to gamew ("to marry"), it may also carry the meaning of "to give in marriage."[31] The former meaning is opted for here. Yet, the choice is inconsequential, for whether it be a father giving his daughter as a bride or whether it be a man marrying a bride, an exception to the principle is being offered to an unmarried person.
THE PROTECTIONIST TEACHING OF JESUS ON DIVORCE
While extensive treatment of Jesus' statements on divorce within the synoptic gospels is beyond the scope of this paper, a few words should be devoted to interfacing the results of this exegesis with the gospel texts. Matthew 19:9 has already been identified in the Excursus as a protective clause to the Genesis legislation setting forth the binding nature of marriage. What of the parallel statements in the other gospels?
Matt. 5:32 may also be viewed as protectionist, employing the phrase parektos logou porneia instead of ma epi porneia as in the parallel in 19:9. It's interpretation has proven difficult, in part because of its setting within the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus precedes this and surrounding teachings with, "You have heard that it was said that...," which He follows up with, "but I declare to you that...." In each case, except for the divorce teaching, Jesus seems to put forward a more stringent requirement than the teaching of old. Here however, by allowing an exception, Jesus appears to have liberal leanings! Seen in light of a protectionist interpretation, however, Jesus is seen to be even more rigorous than the teaching of old. Whereas the Mosaic legislation had been misused so as to promote victimization by making divorce more acceptable, Jesus instead applies the legislation on behalf of the victims!
Luke 16:18 finds a better parallel with Matt. 5:32 than it does with 19:9. The saying is thus from a non-Markan source (such as Q). Since the passage lacks the Matthean exception clause permitting divorce, Jesus, instead of protecting the victims of divorce, seems rather to be interested in preserving the marriage bond. Likely, the protective teaching (intended to protect victims by allowing divorce) and the prohibitive teaching (intended to preserve marriage against easy divorce), were complementary and authentic elements of the teaching of Jesus.[32]
Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 9:43-48 are clear parallels, although clearly Matthew has redacted freely. Mark, like Luke, includes the prohibition against divorce and includes no exception, as does Matthew. This teaching of Jesus, which prohibits divorce without any accompanying protectionist legislation, closely resembles the teaching of Malachi 2:10-16 in this regard.
RECAPITULATION
Paul wrote the epistle of 1 Corinthians to a divided church. The division was evidenced in many ways, one of which was the attempt to gain status over other Christians by boasting on social, religious, and marital categories. Some who felt slighted sought advancement by category-jumping. This was an improper rationale to Paul, who responded by denying such attempts, while permitting other changes of category for genuinely legitimate reasons. Paul sought undivided glory for God and benefit for the Christians and, whether they knew it or not, they were all equal in status before God.
Concerning marriage and celibacy, Paul's instruction is summed up well by the principle that governs Paul's approach to the attempt to attain superiority via social categories: "Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called" (7:20). The instruction was applied to the married and unmarried in one of three ways: it was enforced, it was encouraged (but left discretionary), or it was given exception.
Crucial to the current issue over marriage, divorce, and remarriage is the exception provided in 7:15. The exception is deduced by supplying the governing principle from the surrounding context as the completion of the otherwise elliptical meaning of the critical verb dedoulwtai. The interpretation has strong contextual support.
Paul thus is seen to offer protection to the victim of a situation in which a Christian has been deserted by an unbelieving spouse. This is of a piece with protectionist legislation allowing divorce and remarriage for victims of other covenantal catastrophes. Examples were suggested from Moses (Deut. 24:1-4), from Jesus (Matt. 5:32, 19:9), and also another one from Paul on behalf of widows (Rom. 7:3, par. 1 Cor. 7:39).
Jesus' teaching on divorce was seen to contain two complementary approaches to divorce. Passages containing the "exception clause" permitting divorce and remarriage, as in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 noted above, aim at the protection of the victims of fornicating spouses. Other passages (Mk. 9:43-38, Lk. and Luke 16:18) aim instead at prohibiting divorce so as to preserve the intact covenantal bond of marriage. These latter prohibitions are of a kind with those of Malachi 2:10-16, in which God proclaimed, "I hate divorce!"
It is hoped that this paper contributes to the present discussion and stimulates further research. The findings of this research would suggest that we will find ourselves in line with God's intentions for marriage, divorce, and remarriage if we will seek at once to prohibit the breaking of the bonds of valid marriage covenants while protecting the victims of broken covenants. The two aims do no violence to one another.
[1]For example, the relevance of archaeological data for interpretation of 1 Cor. 11 is argued convincingly by Oster, who postulates a strongly Roman cultural matrix underlying the situation addressed by Paul. See Richard Oster, "When Men Wore Veils to Worship: The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11.4," New Testament Studies 34 (October 1988), 481-505.
[2]1 Cor. 1:26 is often read as a question that expects a negative answer, suggesting that the Corinthians were by no means of the high social standing. For a provocative study supporting a minority view which suggests that the Corinthians in fact were of high status, see Gail R. O'Day, "Jeremiah 9:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-31: A Study in Intertextuality," Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (Summer 1990), 259-67.
[3]"Grace-gift" is the translation of charisma suggested in D. A. Carson, Showing The Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 19. This translation is preferred as it preserves the connection with its cognate charis, i.e. "grace". The grace-gifts mentioned by Paul and other NT writers may be either miraculous or non-miraculous in nature.
[6]The phrase mallon chrasai may be translated "by all means use it" according to Henry G. Meecham, The Letter of Aristeas (London: Manchester University Press, 1935), 176. Similarly, one grammar renders it as "by all means seize (the opportunity)"; cf. James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard, Accidence and Word Formation, vol. 2 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920) 165 (footnote #1). Yet another grammarian denies alternative translations saying: "...Corinthian Christians are urged to make use once and for all the opportunity to be free; only with a pres. imper. ought the interpretation to be use your present state to the glory of God." See Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963) 76.
[14]McGuiggan, following Godet, sees it passing strange that with all of the various groups being given instruction in Chapter Seven, the divorced are never themselves addressed as a group and sees the "unmarried" as being such a group. See Jim McGuiggan, The Book of 1 Corinthians, Looking Into The Bible Series (Lubbock, Tex.: Montex, 1984), 113-15.
[17]"The Julian Law on Curbing Divorce," from various legal sources collected in Regia Academia Italica, Acta Divi Augusti, Pars Prior (Rome 1945), quoted in The Empire, vol. 45 of Records of Civilization Sources, ed. Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 48-49.
[19]Marriage is explicitly referred to as a covenant relationship in Prov. 2:17 and Malachi 2:14. Covenantal concepts and terminology abound in the opening chapters of Genesis where marriage is discussed, as well as in the discussions of Jesus on divorce. That the marriage covenant is to be instructive toward one's covenant with God is taught in Hosea as well as in Eph. 5:22ff (where the instruction is reciprocal). That Jewish and Christian interpreters have understood Song of Solomon allegorically of their respective covenantal relations to God derives from the obvious points of comparison of the relationships, since pointers to allegory are absent in the text itself.
[22]For example, Heth argues unconvincingly that the Bible nowhere recognizes a dissolution of marriage which permits divorce! His syntactical/grammatical argument, based upon the protasis of Matt. 19:9, is inconclusive, as Duty, whom he cites in support, has admitted. See William A. Heth, "Another Look at the Erasmian View of Divorce and Remarriage," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (September 1982), 263-72.
[32]Contra Stein, who sees in the prohibition the ipsissima verba of Jesus and then sees the Matthean protection clause as the Evangalist's inspired interpretation of Jesus' teaching. See Robert H. Stein, "Is It Lawful For A Man To Divorce His Wife?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 (June 1979), 115-21. Stein's position is ably critiqued by Heth, 266-7.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, and Allen Wikgren. The Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1983.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2d ed. Revised by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
Carson, D. A. Showing The Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.
Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man's Salvation. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953.
Elliot, J. K. "Paul's Teaching on Marriage in I Corinthians: Some Problems Considered." New Testament Studies 19 (date unknown): 219-25.
Harrell, Pat Edwin. Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church. Austin, Tex.: R. B. Sweet Company, 1967.
Herron, Robert W. Jr. "Mark's Jesus on Divorce: Mark 10:1-12 Reconsidered." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (September 1982): 273-81.
Laney, Carl J. "Paul and the Permanence of Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (September 1982): 283-94.
Lewis, Naphtali and Meyer Teinhold, eds. Roman Civilization. Vol. 2, The Empire. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.
Luck, William F. Divorce& Remarriage: Recovering the Biblical View. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987.
McGuiggan, Jim. The Book of 1 Corinthians, Looking Into The Bible Series. Lubbock, Tex.: Montex, 1984.
Meecham, Henry G. The Letter of Aristeas. London: Manchester University Press, 1935.
The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 2, Accidence and Word Formation, by James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard; and Vol. 3, Syntax, by Nigel Turner. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920 and 1963 respectively.
Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. "The Divorced Woman in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11." Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (December 1981): 601-6.
O'Day, Gail R. "Jeremiah 9:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-31: A Study in Intertextuality." Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (Summer 1990), 259-67.
Oster, Rick. "When Men Wore Veils to Worship: The Historical Context of 1 Corinthians 11.4." New Testament Studies 34 (October 1988): 481-505.
Stein, Robert H. "Is It Lawful For A Man To Divorce His Wife?" Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (June 1979): 115-21.
Walters, James. Exposition of the Text I, lecture delivered at Harding University 1988 13-in-1 Lectureship. Audio cassette by Harding University recording service: P. O. Box 757 Station A, Searcy, AR 72143.
No comments:
Post a Comment