1 Corinthians 7 as a Case Study
Introduction
This short essay aims to provide an overview of the cultural, social, and theological background of 1 Corinthians chapter seven, with an emphasis on the issue of divorce and remarriage. These background issues are important to consider for rightly interpreting the text, which has significant practical implications for the church in the twenty-first century where divorce and remarriage is common and clear biblical guidance on the topic is needed theologically, personally, and pastorally. This essay will argue that Paul’s intention, in line with the teaching of Jesus, was not to forbid divorce in all cases, or to equally forbid remarriage in all cases, but rather to stress the importance of covenant faithfulness and contentment in one’s current relational position.
Historical Context of 1 Corinthians
The date of the first epistle to the Corinthians being between 54-55 A.D. means the historical context is in the world of the Roman ruled first century not long after the ministry and resurrection of Christ. The city of Corinth is said to have been a fairly prosperous port city, making it a place of commerce, banking, and artistic production for local artisans.[1] The church in Corinth would have been largely Gentile believers as the city was comprised of a mixed population of Greeks and Romans, as well as others from around the Mediterranean.[2]
Paul’s writing shows that he would have been intimately acquainted with the church in Corinth. This follows his having spent a year and a half establishing it upon leaving Philippi as recorded in Acts 16-17, which would have likely been in 51 A.D., and his addressing so many areas of concern, including the place of marriage, shows that he knew this church well and what her issues were.[3] So Paul, a Jew, is writing to Gentiles on the topic of singleness, divorce, and remarriage, and offers instruction on how to see each of these rightly in light of the teaching of Jesus and the current cultural context of first century Corinth. This context included existing cultural norms around marriage and divorce, namely those found in Greek and Roman culture, with which the saints in Corinth would have been familiar. It is important to spend time exploring what those expectations and norms would have been, in addition to the popular Jewish perspectives on the matter, in order to see what may have been behind Paul’s need to address what appears to be a polarized congregation on this issue.
Divorce in Jewish, Roman/Greek Culture
In chapter seven of 1 Corinthians, Paul deals with the topic of divorce and remarriage in light of relational contentment, arguing that believers ought not seek to change their status, whether single, married to a believer, divorced, or even married to an unbeliever. While the text does not provide specific case studies for cultural insight, it is still known that there were varying opinions which could have been influential on the way they were approaching the topic, to which Paul’s instruction was given as a helpful and necessary response.
The Old Testament established grounds for divorce in Deuteronomy 24, which would have been recognized by the Jewish leaders in Paul’s lifetime, and certainly would have been an issue with which he was familiar as a Pharisee. While Paul does not appeal directly to Deuteronomy 24 in his letter, he does appeal to the teachings of Christ, which were in direct relation to that famous passage in the law of Moses. For the time being, it is necessary to consider first the Jewish thoughts on divorce generally, and the Roman/Greek thoughts on the topic as well, before exploring Christ’s teaching specifically. The two main schools of thought were named after their respective leaders: the Hillel perspective which taught that divorce was permissible for basically any reason, and the Shammai perspective, which allowed for a man to divorce his wife only in the case of sexual immorality.[4]
To more fully present a look into the Jewish perspective, both Philo and Josephus are helpful. Josephus notes that a man may divorce his wife and, for any reason, in doing so he must present her with a certificate of divorce so that she might be at liberty to remarry. Josephus states, “He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife anymore; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband…(Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews).[5] So, it is clear that Josephus expects a traditional Jewish perspective to be that a woman who was divorced by her husband was free to remarry, and it was the obligation of the man from whom she was divorced to give her written release for the purpose of such a lawful remarriage.
Philo offers additional perspective on this topic, showing that a man who was consumed with passion for another man’s wife and who violates the social structure of close friendships and neighbors in this way ought to be put to death as enemies of mankind, and to keep them from teaching others to practice the same fearless evil (Philo, Special Laws).[6]Philo goes on to note that the penalty for adultery and child abuse were the same, “death for such wickedness”, and that a man was bound to support his wife and children and could only be freed from this vow by order of the high priest (Philo, Hypothetica).[7] Such background provides insight into the religious context from the Jewish perspective, which Paul, himself a Jew, would have been familiar with.
Last, it is worth noting the cultural perspective in the Greco-Roman world on marriage and divorce, for this would be the perspective the Corinthians would have been familiar with as Greeks and Romans in Corinth. Social standing might be improved through marriage where women who bore three or more children received special status and privilege under Augustan laws, and divorce did not have a negative social stigma associated with it unless it was on account of adultery.[8] There were Roman civil laws which promoted marriage and child bearing by penalizing childlessness, as well as rewarding marriage, remarriage, and childbearing, including a path to citizenship for slaves who married and had a child which survived its first year, and at the same time adultery was criminalized, and if a husband allowed it he would be charged for prostituting his wife.[9] Ancient Roman law also allowed for the husband to decide the punishment for his wife if she was found guilty of adultery, including the ability to put her and his children to death after calling a family court to session to publicly address the crime.[10]
Likewise, in the first century, both Jews and Romans thought remarriage was to be the goal for most divorcees and, in particular, if a Roman citizen did not get remarried within two years they could face fines as part of the incentive to foster social stability within the society. Jews expected divorcees to remarry on account of fulfilling the command to be fruitful and multiply.[11] However, where in Jewish culture only men had the right to initiate a divorce, the women could and did initiate divorces in the Greco-Roman world in Paul’s time.[12] Divorce was not a formal process, but only required either a verbal or written notice by both parties.[13] It was also likely that many church members in Corinth had been remarried before their conversion, as divorce in Corinth was very common. Given first marriages were normally arranged by parents, it could have been that these Christians had not personally chosen to marry unbelievers.[14] This was the cultural and social context of the first-century Greco-Roman world in which the first epistle to the Corinthians was written, which is helpful in rightly understanding Paul’s instruction on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in this passage.
Teachings of Jesus on Divorce
Given the fact that Jesus lived and taught before, yet relatively close to, the time of Paul’s writing, and that he explicitly references the teachings of Christ on the topic at hand, it is important to spend time at least briefly providing an overview of the teachings of Christ on marriage and divorce focusing on the exception clause of Matthew chapter five as it provides what might be considered a contradiction to Paul’s position in first Corinthians seven.
The argument being put forth is that Jesus did in fact offer grounds for legitimate divorce and remarriage, namely on grounds of adultery. The underlying Greek words used for the exception and the outcome of what would otherwise be an illegitimate divorce are πορνείας (translated sexual immorality) and μοιχᾶται (translated adultery). There is consensus among commentators and lexicons as to the intention of the word porneia referring to adultery, including the BDAG which states, “Of the sexual unfaithfulness of a married woman Mat 5:32; 19:9…no need to adopt obscure definitions of porneia, such as marriage within the forbidden degrees…The specific word for adultery does not appear in the exceptive phrase simply because a general expression occurs in Deuteronomy.”[15] A longer explanation from the New Testament Dictionary of Theology is also helpful:
…unchastity, prostitution, immorality…It is not clear whether porneia in the so-called ‘exceptive clause’ (Matt. 5:32; 19:9) is to be understood simply as extramarital sexual intercourse in the same sense of moicheia or as including prostitution. Most interpreters tend to favor the former interpretation. In this clause, Matt. Is dealing with a vital question that MK. and LK. do not consider, namely the question of remarriage after divorce for marital unfaithfulness…The Mosaic law was not concerned with divorce for adultery (for which death was the prescribed penalty) so it did not need to consider the question of remarriage in such an event. Jesus, therefore, felt a need to give God’s will on this issue.[16]
The point being the semantic range of the word porneia does include the concept of marital unfaithfulness, which is certainly categorically related to adultery as used in the context of Matthew 5:32, thus signifying that Jesus allowed for legitimate divorce on grounds of marital unfaithfulness, and therefore what follows is a freedom to remarry without it being an act of adultery. As Calvin summarized, the exception was added to show that if the husband was the victim of adultery, he would be set at liberty to remarry, yet those who unjustly abandon their wife are guilty of prostituting her to others.[17]
Craig Blomberg’s conclusion is similar concerning the meaning of the passage being a legitimate exception, while at the same time concluding that Jesus was in fact presenting a more exact standard than was practiced in his day. He also recognizes the different ways scholars have interpreted this passage, with some concluding the use of porneia being significant as to communicate a discovery of premarital unfaithfulness. However, he believes the use of porneia over moicheia was not significant in that way, but was rather probably a more common term used to describe female infidelity and that Jesus’ teaching was radical because he considered a man’s infidelity as equally grievous.[18] Divorce ought not be, but Christ allows for the gracious out for victims of adultery while at the same time not requiring divorce even in such cases, for all divorce is against God’s created order. As D.J. Atkins notes that divorce is covenant unfaithfulness and is a serious and sinful act, yet there seem to be circumstances in which divorce may be permitted as a last resort, “Matthew is careful to include the exception. The exceptive clause points to the sort of concession to which Deuteronomy 24:1-4 also referred. It recognizes that, despite a sinful departure from God’s intention for marriage, divorce may sometimes be permitted in a sinful world.”[19] This is not to argue that those who are sinned against in adultery or who are abandoned are therefore guilty of sin in being divorced, but that divorce itself misses the mark of God’s intentions for marriage and therefore is sinful.
Blomberg goes on to note that this passage should not be taken as Jesus clarifying all grounds for divorce, but rather he was responding to a particular debate in his time and Paul would have understood this to be the case when he offers an additional ground for divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:15.[20] For these reasons, Paul’s single exception of abandonment should be understood in light of Jesus’ exception given in Matthew 5:32 and, in particular, Paul’s address is considered in light of its own unique context. This will be the focus of the following section.
Thoughts on Paul’s Purposes
Considering all of the above, it is necessary to consider Paul’s intention and purpose in his teaching on the topic of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. First, his overarching emphasis is contentment in whatever the current marital status might be; singleness with prudence, marriage, and singleness in divorce are clearly communicated in the first part of the chapter, namely 7:8-14 and stated again in 7:20. Yet, he allows for divorce on grounds of an unbelieving spouse leaving the marriage in 7:15, and he explicitly allows for remarriage in the case of widows as seen 7:39 with the explicit clause of remarriage in the Lord.
In light of the cultural context of divorce being common, and lacking a negative stigma where not just men, but women could and did divorce their husbands in the Greco-Roman world, Paul is offering a view of marriage which is decidedly Christian in that he aligns himself with the teaching of Christ that divorce should not be, but due to sinfulness of man, there are legitimate grounds for divorce where remarriage is also a legitimate option. Alluding back to the concept of a certificate of divorce being given where the divorcee was free to remarry, Instone-Brewer argues that in the same way as those certificates would have explicitly stated remarriage was to be to a Jew, Paul’s view is that a widow has the same right as a divorcee to remarry, but they were additionally released from the levirate marriage and were free to marry whomever they wanted as long as he was a Christian man.[21]
To further follow this thought of Paul’s intention of offering an additional exception for divorce, it is important to recognize that he is providing the exception in the case of an unbeliever leaving the marriage where the non-believer takes the initiative to leave the marriage and where the Christian does not need to stand in the way of such a divorce. In such a sad case the forced divorce leaves the one abandoned just as if their partner were dead and therefore are no longer “bound” to the marriage.[22] In contrast, his clear command is that for believers, divorce is not an option and seeking divorce so as to be married to someone else is an inappropriate motivation, thus his call to be reconciled to the first spouse is his explicit allowance for remarriage between Christians.[23]
Two final thoughts need to be considered in this section on Paul’s intention. The first is the issue of a believer staying married to an unbeliever. Paul offers comfort in fear of being defiled by staying married to an unbeliever, and actually declares the opposite true in that the marriage is made holy on account of the believer. So rather than being grounds for separation out of fear of defilement, sanctification becomes grounds for staying. Not unlike those in Corinth, this is something even new converts today ought to be instructed in, lest they feel the need to start over and go find a believing spouse, something Paul was advising against.[24] Yet, in that society, the religion of the husband was the religion of the household, and for a wife to be a believer, and therefore go against the religion of her husband, would have been a point of friction, and her allowing him to go would have been in the interest of peace.[25]
Second, in Roman law, physical distance, which was established with the intent to end the marriage, was enough to amount to divorce with no need for formal court appearance.[26] This meant that Paul encouraged believers to stay and pursue reconciliation rather than divorce, even when they were married to an unbeliever. Yet, for the sake of peace, the abandoned believer was not to pursue their unbelieving spouse, and to let them go was effectively to be divorced upon such separation without the need for further litigation.
Concluding Thoughts: Divorce & Remarriage According to Jesus & Paul
It would be incorrect to assume that Paul is in disagreement with the Old Testament on the issue of divorce, for he clearly refers to the teaching of Christ on divorce in this passage, which ought to be considered an authoritative interpretation of Deuteronomy 24, meaning divorce, while not ideal, is within the bounds of biblical ethics.[27] Paul and Jesus are in alignment in that in instances where the fundamental integrity of the marriage has been damaged through one partner’s refusal to maintain the marital commitment, divorce is justified.[28] In both cases, Jesus and Paul suggest that divorce and remarriage are permissible in the case of infidelity or a spouse being deserted.[29] And while Paul does not explicitly address the issue of infidelity, since he draws on the words of Jesus and he himself allows for an exception, it follows that he would also allow for divorce on grounds of adultery just as Jesus did.[30] The point being, while reconciliation is to be pursued, and believers should not initiate divorce, there are grounds for legitimate divorce and remarriage in cases of unrepentant covenant separation.
Conclusion
The aim of this essay was to provide relevant historical and cultural context for understanding chapter seven of the first epistle to the Corinthians, namely dealing with the issue of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It has been shown that in the Greco-Roman world divorce was not only common, but easily initiated. And while marriage, childbearing, and marital faithfulness was encouraged in the pagan culture, there were legitimate questions concerning what Christian marriage looked like for the church members in Corinth who may have found themselves married to unbelievers, abandoned, or widowed. Paul’s message was to stay as you are, yet, just as Christ taught, marriage was good and divorce ought not be, but in certain instances, divorce and remarriage were permissible.
Pastorally, I would argue that the topic of divorce and remarriage ought to be handled with great gentleness and care. While Scripture clearly offers explicit cases where divorce is legitimate, and while it argues for believers to seek reconciliation rather than divorce, it also does not raise divorce to the level of some great disqualifying sin that should haunt a person the rest of their life. If a person has been divorced, even for sinful reasons, there is forgiveness and healing available. I understand here is debate around this topic, but when Scripture speaks of qualifications for elders and deacons, my conviction is that it is speaking to the character of the man more than sum of his past. If a man has been divorced, namely because his spouse was unfaithful or abandoned him, there seems to be no reason why this should disqualify him from serving the church.
And if he had been divorced in the past, even illegitimately, yet today is in a faithful marriage, demonstrating the character of a one-woman man, meaning he is faithful to his wife, and devoted only to her, then there also seems to be no reason why he cannot serve the church if his congregation so calls him considering the matter with grace and prudence. To argue the inverse, certainly a man may have only one wife and yet fail to currently demonstrate the desired character of a one-woman man, while technically being a “one-woman” man. As with all the other qualifications, the character is the focus rather than a single point of consideration, for who has never lost their temper? Yet no one would disqualify a man from serving on grounds of not being a gentle, self-controlled man because he had lost his temper in the past. In the same way, I believe current character is the concern over a formulaic qualification of divorce or remarriage; a man who loves his wife in the same way Christ loves the church is the kind of person Paul is telling Timothy and Titus to look for.[31]
The end of the matter is that God has given man the covenant of marriage which is to be an indissoluble union, for life. Yet, because of sin, even in this He has provided gracious ways out of this union and allows for remarriage where at least one party is not guilty of sin in divorce and remarriage. May we never justify our sin on grounds of God’s grace, yet above all this, the grace of God and the power of the gospel can bring healing and renewal so that even what began in sin, can become something honoring and glorifying to Him through humble repentance and faithful covenant commitment.
Bibliography
Atkinson, D.J. "Remarriage." In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1007-1008. Grand Prapids: Baker Academic, 201.
Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary: Matthew. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.
Brooks, James A. The New American Bible Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture - Mark. Nashvillle: Broadman Press, 1991.
Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. XVI. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.
Carson, D.A., and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to The New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The First Letter to the Corinthians. Edited by D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010.
Cohick, Lynn H. "Women, Children, and Families in the Greco-Roman World." In The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Joel B. Green, & Lee Martin McDonald, 179-187. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
D'Angelo, Mary R. "Roman 'Family Values' and the Apologetic Concerns of Philo and Paul: Reading the Sixth Commandment." New Testament Studies (Cambridge) 61, no. 4 (10 2015): 525-546.
Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition (BDAG). University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Fee, Gordon D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987.
Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity . Grand Rapids: Wm, B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003.
Gardner, Paul. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Raipds: Zondervan Academic, 2018.
Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.
Josephus, Flavious. The Life and Works of Flavious Josephus. Philadelphia : The John C. Winston Company, 1957.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014.
Longman III, Tremper, and David E. Garland. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Romans-Galatians. Edited by Tremper Longman III, & David E. Garland. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
Naselli, Andrew D. 1 Corinthians. Vol. 10, in The ESV Bible Expository Commentary: Romans-Galatians, 209-394. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020.
Philo. The Works of Philo: New Updated Edition Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Edited by Trasnlated by C.D. Yonge. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians. Vol. 7. Downers Grove: IVP, 2018.
Verbrugge, Verlyn D., ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
von Bone, Emese. "The historical development of grounds for divorce in the French and Dutch Civil Codes." Fundamina: a journal of legal history 20, no. 2 (2014): 1006-1014.
Yarbrough, Robert W. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eermans, 2018.
Footnotes
[1] Gardner, Paul. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Raipds: Zondervan Academic, 2018. 24-25.
[2] Ibid. 25.
[3] Carson, D.A., and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to The New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. 421.
[4] Brooks, James A. The New American Bible Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture - Mark. Nashvillle: Broadman Press, 1991. 156.
[5] Josephus, Flavious. The Life and Works of Flavious Josephus. Philadelphia : The John C. Winston Company, 1957. IV.VIII.23. 134.
[6] Philo. The Works of Philo: New Updated Edition Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Trasnlated by C.D. Yonge. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993. The Special Laws III, II. 595.
[7] Ibid. Hypothetica Apology for the Jews. 7.1, 7.4. 743.
[8] Cohick, Lynn H. "Women, Children, and Families in the Greco-Roman World." In The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, edited by Joel B. Green, & Lee Martin McDonald, 179-187. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. 182.
[9] D'Angelo, Mary R. "Roman 'Family Values' and the Apologetic Concerns of Philo and Paul: Reading the Sixth Commandment." New Testament Studies (Cambridge) 61, no. 4 (10 2015): 525-546. 528.
[10] von Bone, Emese. "The historical development of grounds for divorce in the French and Dutch Civil Codes." Fundamina: a journal of legal history 20, no. 2 (2014): 1006-1014. 1007.
[11] Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003. 110.
[12] Fee, Gordon D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987. 325.
[13] Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity . Grand Rapids: Wm, B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003. 75.
[14] Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014. 474.
[15] Danker, Frederick William, ed. “Porneia” In A Greek-English Lexicon of The New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: Third Edition (BDAG). University of Chicago Press, 2000. 854.
[16] Verbrugge, Verlyn D., ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: Abridged Edition.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. 485-486.
[17] Calvin, John. Calvin's Commentaries: Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. XVI. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009. 293.
[18] Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary: Matthew. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992. 111.
[19] Atkinson, D.J. "Divorce." In The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 345-348. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. 348.
[20] Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary: Matthew. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992. 111-112.
[21] Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003. 111.
[22] Gardner, Paul. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Raipds: Zondervan Academic, 2018. 316-317.
[23] Fee, Gordon D. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987. 327.
[24] Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The First Letter to the Corinthians. Edited by D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2010. 303.
[25] Longman III, Tremper, and David E. Garland. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Romans-Galatians. Edited by Tremper Longman III, & David E. Garland. Vol. 11. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. 319.
[26] Naselli, Andrew D. 1 Corinthians. Vol. 10, in The ESV Bible Expository Commentary: Romans-Galatians, 209-394. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020. 281.
[27] Ibid. 291.
[28] Ibid. 293.
[29] Schreiner, Thomas R. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: 1 Corinthians. Vol. 7. Downers Grove: IVP, 2018. 145.
[30] Ibid. 142.
[31] Yarbrough, Robert W. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eermans, 2018. 481.