BIBLE
DIGEST - Number 34 November 1993
WHAT DID PAUL REALLY SAY ABOUT DIVORCE?
By Allon Maxwell
|
When Jesus taught
about divorce and remarriage, He accused the Jews of hardness of heart because
of their insistence on taking licence from Moses for what God called ADULTERY. The same hardness
of heart has crept into the church of our time. People who wish to justify divorce
and remarriage, insist on reading Paul in a way which suits their purpose. They
claim that Paul has explained and added to what Jesus said. Paul is made to say
that remarriage after divorce is not adulterous at all, and that Jesus did not
really mean that it was! To
be fair, there are some who limit the licence for remarriage to cases where a
believer has been deserted by an unbeliever. Others, however, use that case as
the jumping off point to extend the justification to virtually every case. But
did Paul really say any of these things? I do not believe that he did. Paul's
words are to be interpreted by what Jesus said ..... and Jesus did not say "except
for unchastity (RSV) AND DESERTION by an unbeliever". Nor did Paul. What
Paul did say was: - 1.
ABOUT MARRIED WOMEN The
wife should not separate from her husband, but if she does (what she should not
do) let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled (TO HER HUSBAND). In
Romans 7:2-3, Paul also says
that a wife is irrevocably bound to her husband as long as he lives. Only his
death sets her free to marry again. Any relationship with another man, during
the lifetime of her husband, is adulterous. This
teaching is repeated in 1 Corinthians 7:39. Paul's
words are very clear. What
he says to women, whether married, or separated, or divorced, expressly excludes
remarriage to a new partner. That freedom is reserved for widows alone. Paul
has in fact taken this teaching direct from Jesus, who said that a woman who divorces
her husband and marries another, commits adultery. (Mark 10:12) 2.
ABOUT MARRIED MEN. A
husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:11)
Even
if the husband does what he should not do, there is no specifically
stated approval here at all, for remarriage. Again,
Paul is in agreement with Jesus. A man who divorces his wife and marries another,
commits adultery. (Mark 10:11,
Luke 16:18) 3.
ABOUT BOTH MEN AND WOMEN DESERTED BY UNBELIEVING PARTNERS If
an unbelieving husband or wife desires to separate let it be so. In such a case
the brother or sister is not bound. (1 Corinthians 7:12-15) "Not
bound" may certainly imply that a divorce has been initiated by the unbeliever
and that the marriage has been "legally" dissolved by men. It
certainly also means that the deserted Christian is "not bound", unreasonably,
to fulfil the duties of a marriage covenant which, through no fault of their own,
they can no longer perform. However,
although the deserted believer need feel no guilt about the separation which has
been initiated by the unbelieving partner, Paul certainly does not
say, in so many words, that he or she is free to remarry. "Not bound"
in the sense used here in 1 Corinthians 7:15,
must be seen in contrast with "is bound"
in another sense, in 1 Corinthians 7:39.
In
this latter verse we have already seen that Paul says that a wife is bound
to her husband as long as he lives. To
assume that permission is inferred in Paul's "not bound",
in verse 15, is an unwarranted and dangerous ADDITION
to the Scriptures. It
is not acceptable at all, to base such a radical conclusion on mere inference,
especially when it makes Paul contradict himself within the space of a few verses.
It is even more unacceptable when it reverses what Jesus has already said. There
is not the least hint from Jesus that He meant to include a second exception to
His general prohibition against divorce and remarriage. Since
Jesus was careful enough to include one exception, and ONLY ONE, it seems very
clear that there is NO OTHER. Paul's
positive statements in verses 15
and 39, agree with the teaching of Jesus
that MARRIAGE IS A COMMITMENT FOR LIFE. Separation
does not confer freedom to remarry. Instead it imposes a sacrificial obligation
to honour the covenant until death cancels it. Nowhere
is there a definite positive statement by Paul, reversing this principle
BEYOND QUESTION, in the special case of desertion by an unbeliever. We must not
take our permission for such a radical reversal from inference alone, especially
when that inference so clearly contradicts what both Paul and Jesus have already
stated elsewhere in very plain words. 4.
ABOUT THE UNMARRIED (and "THE DIVORCED VIRGINS THEORY") In
1 Corinthians 7:25-28
Paul addresses the "virgins", not the married, or separated, or divorced.
He has already addressed those categories in the verses discussed above. This
word "virgins" is translated from the Greek "parthenos", which
does mean "virgin", or "chaste", or "unmarried",
in the sense of NEVER MARRIED. Paul
has four main points to convey to these virgins a) Virgins
not yet committed to marriage, would do well to consider the option of remaining
celibate, both in view of "present distress", (1 Corinthians 7:26), and also to have increased freedom
to attend to the affairs of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34) b) Virgins
already "bound", are not to seek freedom. (1 Corinthians 7:27) c) Virgins
who are "free", are not to seek marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:27) d) Virgins
who choose marriage instead of celibacy, are not sinning. (1 Corinthians 7:28, 1 Corinthians 7:36) It
has been claimed that this permission for marriage of those who are not bound,
extends to the divorced, on the basis that the Greek phrase translated "free
from a wife", could also be translated as "divorced". However
this claim ignores the fact that Paul has already addressed the separated or divorced
in the verses discussed earlier, with clear statements that they are NOT free
to remarry. A
closer look at what Paul actually says to these VIRGINS will support our rejection
of any claims that the divorced are included amongst them. (It
is, after all, quite inconceivable that Paul would be addressing divorced
virgins!) The
word used here, which is claimed to mean "divorce", is not the same
as that used by Paul only a few verses earlier in the chapter, ('aphiemi",
to send away), or by Jesus in the Gospels, ("apoluo", to release,
send away, put away). The
PRIMARY meaning of the Greek word used in this verse by Paul, ("lusis"),
is not "divorced" at all, but "loosed" or "set free",
as rendered by most of the older translations. It
is interesting to note that amongst the more commonly recognised translations,
only the recent NIV, (which I personally find unreliable on other counts also),
actually renders it as divorced. It
is true that most lexicons do offer "divorce" as a SECONDARY meaning
for this Greek word. However they also quote 1 Corinthians
7:27 as the justification for this meaning! To
lift this doubtful secondary meaning from the lexicons and then reapply it back
to the verse used to justify that meaning, is the error in reasoning which is
called "circular logic". This
resort to the deceptive techniques of "circular logic" is unconvincing.
It does great violence to the context of what Paul is saying to VIRGINS. Further,
the Greek word translated here as "wife", can also mean simply, "woman",
married or unmarried, depending on the context. The RSV interlinear text does,
in fact, have this alternative. In
the context of Paul's advice to virgins, who are obviously still unmarried, "woman"
does convey the meaning more clearly. Even
if we do accept "wife" as valid, it is clearly in the sense of POTENTIAL
wife of a male virgin. The "bondage" and "freedom" to which
Paul refers, is BETROTHAL ..... not consummated marriage. Item
"b" above is for those virgins who have already promised (bound) themselves
in betrothal, to take a wife. Item
"c" is for virgins who have either never been bound to a woman in this
way or have been set free from such a binding. CONCLUSION Hard
hearted men are still with us in the church! Just like the Pharisees of Jesus'
day, they seek licence to undo what God has joined. In
their attempt to justify divorce and remarriage after divorce, they seek to enlist
Paul in their cause. However there is nothing at all in any of what Paul says,
which in any way grants permission for remarriage of the divorced. Nothing
contradicts his earlier statement that the separated, or divorced, have ONLY TWO
options. "REMAIN UNMARRIED, OR ELSE BE
RECONCILED". |