|
The seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians may be one of the most controversial chapters in the epistles, but it is certainly one of the most informative. The chapter deals primarily with questions that Christians asked the apostle Paul regarding marriage. This is evident from the first verse of the chapter: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor 7:1). We do not have a copy of the letter, but from the answers we could construct a list of questions that would likely resemble the ones that were sent to Paul.
When intelligent truth-seeking Christians fail to come to a confident understanding of the truth revealed in chapter seven, it is likely because of at least one of the following reasons:
1) Many, from the outset, have in their mind that Jesus taught that divorced people must remain celibate; thus, they feel that whatever Paul meant must harmonize with what they think Jesus taught. Therefore, any exegesis or explanation of Paul's teachings that do not harmonize with their previously conceived notion is rejected.
2) Some fail to acknowledge that the questions were asked in view of the "present distress" (verse 26), i.e., persecution, and that all the advice isn't necessarily applicable to all under all circumstances. For example, some argue that Paul argued for celibacy, but it is imprudent to contend that Paul took issue with God who said, "It is not good that man should be alone." When talking to those who were separated, he said they should "remain unmarried" or "as they are." This should be interpreted in light of the "present distress." If Paul had been teaching the doctrine that is attributed to Jesus (celibacy for one involved in divorce unless he initiates the divorce for fornication) he surely would not have failed to mention the "exception clause." Therefore, Paul must have intended his advice only for those Christians who get separated to remain as they are while trying to work things out during the present distress. The passage therefore was not about legal divorce but was applicable to a couple who had separated--a common occurrence to this day.
3) Some are not willing to apply good hermeneutics, or even to be consistent in the rules they do apply. For example, some argue that the "unmarried" in verse 9 does not include the divorced. Yet, in verse 11, where Paul speaks to those who are separated, they contend that the phase "let them remain unmarried" refers to the divorced.
4) Finally, passages in the chapter are interpreted in a way that is not consistent with the apparent theme of the chapter, which we shall now address.
In several passages in the chapter under study, Paul emphasizes the need for marriage, and sexual release therein, so that a man or woman might avoid sexual immorality. He begins by saying: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband (verse 2). Then, he said:
1 Cor 7:3-5: Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
In verse 7 Paul speaks of his gift (celibacy) but recognizes that not all possess such a gift. Therefore, he advises:
However, if they cannot control themselves, they should get married, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (ISV)
In several different places in chapter seven the reader is urged, even commanded, to allow marriage. These passages include verses 1-2, 8-9, 27-28 and 36. To avoid misunderstandings the apostle gave the reason that marriage should be allowed ("to avoid fornication") and he noted who was eligible for marriage--the "unmarried."
Verse 15 is a controversial passage. It says:
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
In this verse the inspired apostles tell us that sometimes, maybe even when we have been a good and faithful spouse, our spouse may leave. When that happens, we are "not under bondage." Some say this does not give us a right to marry again, but not having that right would be bondage. On the "Pauline Privilege" Foy Wallace wrote:
If the bondage here does not refer to the marriage bond, then the believer would still be in the bondage of it. To advocate, as some do, that the passage means the believer is not bound to live or remain with the departing unbeliever would be a truism, for it is set forth as a case of abandonment and the abandoned one obviously could not abide with the one who had departed. (snip) If that does not mean that the believer in these circumstances is free to marry, then it cannot mean anything, for if the one involved is not altogether free the bondage would still exist." (The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State; p. 45).
Let us now observe some things taught in verses 27 and 28:
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.
Paul speaks of men "loosed" from a wife. If any single word in the New Testament refers to the entire process of divorce (as we commonly use the word), this has to be it as it is used in this context. The word apoluo (usually translated "put away"), as we have shown, does not refer to legal divorce. But we must conclude that “loosed” (luo) does refer to divorce. One can "put away" (apoluo) yet not give the bill of divorcement (apostasion). But if a woman is loosed from a spouse, she has divorce papers to prove it. The Bible gives absolutely no indication that one is loosed (divorced) except by a “bill of divorcement” (Deut 24:1, 2). Yet, some contend that the word "loosed" here does not refer to divorce. They contend that one can be divorced but not loosed, which is a concept that does not harmonize with what we know the Bible to teach, nor does it make any sense.
Thayer evidently understood the context to refer to divorce. He stated:
1) to loose any person (or thing) tied or fastened "1a) bandages of the feet, the shoes "1b) of a husband and wife joined together by the bond of matrimony "1c) of a single man, whether he has already had a wife or has not yet married.
Is it not strange that one would argue that the word "loosed," as used in verse 28, does not refer to divorce, while at the same time arguing that "put away" in Matthew 19:9 does refer to divorce? Any position that has passages in conflict cannot be the truth.
One who is loosed (divorced) is advised by Paul not to seek a wife, apparently because of the "present distress," but is told that if he does marry he does not sin. Nothing in Paul's teaching leads us to believe that a divorce does not end a marriage and free the parties to marry another. Some have argued that verse 11 does, but that argument poses serious problem (see chapter 9 for an explanation of verse 11). Even if this text did refer to divorced Christians, rather than those merely separated (as is supported by the context, reliable respected versions and other Bible scholars), it would apply only to Christians. Yet the majority are not willing to so limit the text but insist that it is in harmony with their view of Jesus' teaching that one commits adultery unless he initiates the divorce because his spouse has committed adultery.
Now let us note verse 36:
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
Some are saying the "man" in the text is the father of the virgin and that he does not sin if he lets his daughter marry. But what sense does that make? What father does not already know he does not sin if he lets his daughter marry? Clearly, this text emphasizes the need for marriage to "avoid fornication" in accordance with the theme of the apostle throughout the chapter.
Also, is it not interesting that Paul uses "any man" instead of "those eligible for marriage" when talking about eligibility for marriage? And again, we see the command: "let them marry."
|
