Paul's View on the Christian Divorce: An Exegetical Approach to I Cor. 7: 10-16

Sungkook Hong

Introduction

One of marriage counselors, Charles Stewart come to realize, through taking investigations some findings of psychiatrists, social workers, and psychologists, the fact that "where physical or mental injury of a child or youth or adult is involved, divorce is not only possible but desirable." We can understand that there are various roots which produce marital stress and thus lead to dissolution of marriage, and that the problem of divorce has become more serious one than any other social problems which cause detrimental effects upon every corner of social life.

The Christian ministers are also forced to conflict with this kind of problem within the church, and their role has become very important for this problem. Because they have been trained in the framework of biblically oriented precepts, they are inclined to deal with such a problem in it consciously or unconsciously. Thus, if they are asked to deal with an actual case, they try to find any biblically based guideline for that case.

However, it is not long before they find that there are rare materials in the bible which provide them with some guidelines to deal with. Even in the New Testament, such materials are also very rare. And if there are any, those materials have been debatable in certain points among scholars in their efforts to deal with the problem of divorce. As a matter of fact, Pauline materials are worthy for our attention, because they indicate that Paul had access to the tradition of Jesus' teaching about this issue (I Cor. 7:10), and that Paul deals with another specific case which Jesus did not touch elsewhere (7:12-16).

We can find that in the First Corinthians Paul deals with the issues which are related with specific cultural settings and customs of the first century Corinthian society in certain points. His major concern in the letter is to deal with such issues in terms of maintenance of his local Corinthian community not to be defiled with heathen habits in the outer society. If that is the case, we may conclude that some guidelines, or norms provided by him can be applied the contemporary situation, because the principle of contextualization allows us to do this.

The primary concern of this article is not the practical application but rather to delve into Paul's view on the divorce reflected in the Corinthian correspondence, particularly in I Cor. 7:10-16. Though it analyzes such a paragraph exegetically with the Greek text, verse by verse commentary method is excluded but rather systematic approach is taken by gearing that passage into the whole system of Pauline thought reflected in the first Corinthian letter.

I. Divorce in Corinth: Actual Situation or Proposed Course of Action?

This passage can be divided into two parts: vs. 10-11, vs. 12-16. In vs. 10-11. In the former part, Paul deals with the problem of divorce in a case of which both partners are Christians. In the latter part, he deals with that of divorce in a case of which only one partner is a believer. The problem of divorce is reflected commonly in both cases, but whether the actual situation was occurred or not is debatable. The second case is easy to decide, because the conjunction with indicative tense in the protasis is used to construct a simple conditional clause in v. 12 and thus is the case that is assumed as real situation in the present and / or in the future. But the first case is somewhat complicated because of the appearance of e)an de\ kai\ with subjunctive in v. 11. Conzelmann admits by alluding Blass-Debrunner that this structure refers to an already existing situation. And a number of scholars have suggested that Corinthians had carried their hostility to the marriage to the extent of advocating divorce. But if we consider another possibility that the structure is used as a concessional use, we do not need to admit that this structure necessarily proposes an actual situation. If it is the case, the problem of divorce in Corinth falls in the category of predefining course of action. Because this structure is complicated one, Robertson ties together those two possible approaches: "the fact that he begins with the unusual case of a wife divorcing her husband indicates that such a thing had actually occurred or was mentioned in their letters as likely to occur."

II. Authority of Christ versus Paul

In v. 10 Paul uses a military command in the classical Greek word as he deals with the problem of divorce among the Christian partners. One of Paul's typical ways to support his authority is to allude Christ's command. If we compare Markan (Mk. 10:2-12) and Matthean tradition of divorce (Mt. 19:3-12) with Paul's version, we find some differences among them. On the one hand, Markan version shows no exception of forbidding divorce but on the other hand, Matthean version seems to indicate the exception in case of adultery (Mt. 19:9). We do not know exactly how Paul does have Christ's command but can suggest that he follows the line of exception of divorce from the Matthean tradition. Thus, Paul seems to allow probational divorce in the framework of 'how after divorce'(11a). Paul does not, however, seem to disobey Christ's command when he applies it to the specific situation, for he clearly distinguishes his own opinion or word from Lord's command (7:10, 12, 35).

III. Sexual Discrimination

In Jewish law olny the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. According to the Mishnah, "a woman goes out where she likes it or not, but the husbands sends her out only if it so pleases him" (Yebamoth 14:1). But the tone reflected in v.10 and 11a is quite different.

As Findlay points out that "Christianity had powerfully stirred the feminine mind at Corinth(11:5; 14:34)," woman's position was elevated to the extent that they could think or act the actual separation from their hurband. The fact that Paul passed from the topic of vs. 1-9 to this problem stimulates us to ask the reason and to try to reconstruct a probable situation in which the problem should have occurred. O'Connor's reconstruction of the situation is intelligible one.

The husband had been influenced by the ascetics who proclaimed, 'It is good

for a man not to have sexual intercourse with a woman'(v.16), but instead of

simply abstaining he decided to break up the marriage completely by divorcing

his wife. The wife, it is presumed, did not share his views. Naturally, then,

she would think in terms of a second marriage, because the essential element

in a writ of divorce was the right to marry again.

If it is the case, this is enough to reveal the fact that woman in Corinth had the equal right to initiate an actual separation. And the interchangeable use of the term of 'husband' and 'woman' at the same level (v.12 vs v.13; v.14; 15; 16) seems to support equal right of woman.

IV. Mixed couple

toi=j de\ loipoi=j in v. 12 does not mean that anyone, a Christian, is condone by Paul either to get married with non-Christian partner or not to get married, but describes a real situation that one partner is a Christian while the other partner is a non-Christian.

But most scholars admit the real situation of mixed couple as occurred by one partner's becoming Christian after he had got married.

Paul is approaching this case quite differently from the other case. He seems to have no direct command from the Lord for this respect, and regards the Christian partner not to initiate the problem of divorce, but to become passive.

V. Motif of "holy", "peace", and "salvation"

Special attention needs to be paid in case of mixed couple, because this case is not mentioned by Jesus elsewhere and is dealt with complicatedly by Paul. He approaches to this case by adopting various motifs which is reflected in the grammatical structure of the passage.

A. Motif of "holy"

In what sense, does Paul affirm that even the non-Christian partner becomes holy by or in the Christian partner, and that the children are now 'holy'? Before defining its meaning, we need to notice the tense in which the verb form of holy is used. The verb h(gi/astai is in the perfect passive of verb a(gia/zw. Dana and Mantey define the significance of the perfect tense as follwing: "the significance of this perfect tence in presenting action as having reached its temination and existing in its finshied results lies at the basis of its uses."

With this perfect tense, the word a(gia/zw signifies resultant status through a certain condition in the past. And also passive voice signifies a certain effects upon the subject.

The phrases, e))n t$= gunaiki\ and e)n t%= a)delf%=, modify the verb h(gi/astai in certain way. The preposition, e)n is widely used in the New testament in different meanings. Arndt and Gingrich illustrates its various uses. Among various possibilities of use, causal use (by) or relational use (in) is most probable. But we do not need to choose either this or that, but rather, we may be safe even if we decide that this case denotes both meanings implicitly. The status of 'being holy' is initiated by relationship and continued by both relationship and the influence by means of examples of good conduct as a good Christian partner. For the meaning of 'sanctified', Calvin sees it in the sense of sanctification of the marriage itself and not for the person. Most scholars admit that a semi-material contagion effect is in the term of 'holiness'. And thus it can be interpreted as "the purity of the believing partner overpowers the impurity of the unbelieving one ( Chrys.), so yhat the union is pure and lawful; there is no profanation of matrimony."

The contagion effect is further supported by the following affirmation about the children's case. That is connected by the expression e)pei\ a)/ra. The exact meaning of this expression is debatable. Calvin interprets it is as "else":

It is an argument taken from the effect--'If your marriage were impure, then the children that are the fruit of it would be impure; but they are

holy; hence the marriage also is holy. as, then, the ungodliness of one of the parents dose not hinder the children that are born from being pure.'

Some scholars explain this passage as referring to a civil sanctity, in respect of the children being reckoned legitimate. But Findlay also supports Calvin's opinion by saying that "the (relative) sanctity of the unconverted spouse is made more evident by the analogous case of children: else one must suppose that your children are unclean; but as it is, they are holy."

B. Motif of peace

The phrase, e)n de\ ei)rh/nv (15b) and v. 16 is very important one to understand Paul's instruction on the problem of divorce in a mixed marriage. Two considerations for interpreting this phrase have been made: the Christian spouse forsaken by the heathen is free from the former yoke; and peace is better for a Christian than disruption. But the ambiguous grammatical structure causes difficulty for one to decide the real meaning or intention of Paul behind the structure. To what is the 'peace' opposed? If it is to bondage, then the meaning will be that to remain with a heathen partner who objects to your remaining as a believer would violate the peace in which you were called to be a Christian. If 'peace' is opposed to separation, then the meaning will be that you ought to do your utmost to avoid divorce and to remain in the mixed marriage.

One who maintains the former opinion appeals to Col. 3:15. And he asserts that the word de\ supplies the positive complement to the negative ou) dedou/lwtai. But the other who maintains the latter opinion appeals to Rom. 12:18, for general thought, and also to the parallel of e)n ei)rh/nv, namely, Phil. 4:7, Gal. 6:16.

C. Motif of salvation

Along with the phrase (15b), v. 16 is also debatable with the same weight. One who maintains the former opinion appeals to the sequence of the thought in terms of grammatical structure. According to Heinrici, "'if not' (ei) in the sense of ei) mh/)) does not suit because in the context the point 'is not bound'." And Meyer asserts that "this uncertainty can not be the basis of any constraint to the hurt of their peace." And Robertson tries to paraphrase the whole sequence as following:

If the unbeliever demands divorce, grant it: you are not bound to refuse.

If you refuse, you will have no grace. The chance of converting your heathen spouse is too samll a compensation for a strained and disturbed life,

in which Christian serenity will be impossible.

On the contrary, one who maintains the latter opinion asserts that this verse is following up previous principle that a Christian partner needs to remain in peace with his or her heathen partner. According to Findlay, ti/ oi)=daj connotes "not the manner in which the knowledge is to be obtained, but the extent of it--what do you know as to the question whether, etc.?"

And Lightfoot prefers "interpretation that chance of saving the unbelieving partner is worth more than any temporal inconvenience."

VI. Conclusion: Paul's View on Divorce

The influence of ascetics and on the contrary of immorality may cause among the Corinthian Christian and mixed couple the problem of divorce in actual situation and/or in likely occurring situation. Paul who knows that there are two dangers: asceticism(7:1) which is advocation even to divorcing; sexual immorality(5:1-13) which leads sexual abuse even in marriage is forced to do something for this problem. And the 'feminine mind' stirred powerfully at Corinth makes the situation more complicated and worse, which is reflected in Paul's command that "the wife should not separate from her husband"(7:10).

Through Paul had access to the Lord's command on the Christian couple which is reflected in the synoptic materials, he had no access (probably no command of the Lord) for the case of mixed couple. This fact also forces Paul to deal with this problem sophisticatedly, and each case separatedly. Before he gets into the problem, he first appeals in each case to the authority on what he is going to give the command and instruction. He makes clear the source of authority in each case. And he never tries to destroy the feminine mind, even if it may cause problem, but to deal with the problem on the basis of equal right.

For the first case, he confirms the Lord's command as it is and prohibits the divorce. We do not know whether he appeals to Matthean source or Markan source. And also we do not know that the exception reflected in v.11a is the case of the exception reflected in Matthean source, namely, in case of an adultery. But one thing is clear that even though the Lord's command prohibits the divorce and Paul is in the same line, Paul admits that human being may behave against the prohibition, and he is flexible to face practically the problem as the real occurring.

For the latter case, we have seen more difficulties to understand his view because the passage (12-16) is structured ambiguously at the very important points. But one thing is clear that Paul does not allow divorce when the non-Christian partner wishes to continue the marriage with the Christian partner. For the reason of instruction, he adapts the religious concept of 'contagion of holiness.' Even the status of 'being holy' of the non-Christian (not in the sense of an ontologically sanctified nature produced by justification through personal faith in Christ) can be inferred from the relationship with the Christian partner and continued by both such relationship and the influence of a good Christian partner. He also confirms the legitimacy and purity of the mixed marriage by adopting Jewish concept of purity of the children between mixed couple. In the case that the non-Christian partner rejects to continue marriage with the Christian partner, Paul's view has been interpreted quite oppositely: from 'against separation' and to 'for separation'. The first part of v. 15 states clearly that Paul allows separation, but the subsequent part is ambiguous: whether Paul is reluctant to instruct them to lead actual divorce or vice versa.

If one make fairly the balance of the grammatical considerations, one can determine easily the tenor of Paul's meaning from the whole context of the text. Paul seems to esteem the value to the marriage life negatively, namely, 'because of the temptation to immorality' (7:2) and 'lest Satan tempt you through lack of control' (7:5). And the another context of this letter (5:1-13; 6:9-13; 10:8-13) reveals that the Corinthian community shows lax moral notions. This situation probably forces Paul to be reluctant to condone separation, but rather to stand against separation. This probability may be supported by another consideration. Paul sees freedom in the context of self-restraint for helping and building up other members(6:12; 8:9; 9:12, 18; 10:23). Though a Christian partner is not enslaved to continue marriage and is free to let him or her leave (a non-Christian partner), the freedom may be restricted in terms of 'peace' and hope' for other's ultimate 'salvation'. And the whole tenor of Paul's ethical attitude is a goal- oriented one in which eschatology is functioning as the key factor to decide the way of the Christian life and ethical attitude (15:15-58). Thus, every matter of morality, including the one of marriage and divorce, is urged in the light of 'ultimate devotion to the Lord' who is going to come again (7:32) and for the glory of God (10:31). Such a goal-oriented tenor of Paul's ethical attitude makes him reluctant to encourage an actual separation even in the case of a mixed couple, but rather, as Lightfoot insists, preferable to remain, because "the chance of saving the unbelieving partner is worth more than any temporal inconvenience" while waiting Christ's parousia.

And such interpretation is more applicable in the most of the oriental societies, which see the divorce shameful and of which the social structure makes the actual divorce more difficult than that of an open society.

Bibliography

Arndt, Willian F. and Gingrich, F. Wilbur, A Greek - English Lexicon of the New

Testament and Other Early Literature. Chicago: University Press. 1967.

Calvin, John, Commentary on the First Corinthian. Edinburgh.

Conzelmann, Hans. I Corinthian.. Trans. by James W. Leitch, Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1975.

Dana, H. E. and Mantey, J. R., A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan. 1957.

Findlay, G. G., "St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians" The Expositor's Greek Testament. Ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll, Grand Rapids: Eerdman. 1979.

Hurd, John C. Jr., The Origin of I Corinthian. New York: Seabury Press. 1965.

Meyer, H. A. W., Commentary on the First Corinthian. New York: Funk.1884.

Moffatt, James, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New York: Harper. 1938.

O'Connor, J. M., The First Corinthian. Wilmington: Michael Glazier. 1979.

Robertson, Archibald, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthian. New York: Scribner's Sons. 1925.

Stewart, Charles William, The Minister as Marriage Counselor. Nashville: Abingdon Press. 1970.