Paul's Undeniable and Indisputable Teaching that the Divorcee May Marry
(1 Corinthians 7:1, 2; 8, 9; 27, 28)

by Robert Waters

While the apostle Paul teaches that Christian men are to love their wives (Eph. 5:25) and the women are to honor their husbands (Eph. 5:22), he does not teach that the divorced may not marry – but to the contrary.

In his first letter to the church in Corinth, Paul answered questions regarding divorce and marriage. Unfortunately, many have it ingrained in their heads that Jesus taught that the divorced may not marry lest they commit adultery, and they therefore cannot receive Paul's clear teaching. Others suggest that the divorced may marry if they instigated the divorce for adultery. That neither of these teachings is true is evident from the fact that Jesus was an Old Testament prophet who taught the Law of Moses that allowed a divorced woman to marry. Although Jesus is currently being charged by His "friends" with teaching contrary to the Law there is no indication that the Jews, who were His enemies, believed He did. Jesus did take issue with the false notions of the Jewish teachers, but not with Moses, who was inspired of God in his teachings. While some insist that Moses was not inspired of God in his teaching the following passages indicate otherwise:

(Deut. 4:1) "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. 3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you. 4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it."

Before we expound on the passages noted above (at the heading) let us take a very brief look at what Jesus taught. He said a woman that is "put away" will commit adultery if she marries, as will the man she marries (Matt. 5:31, 32). In view of the law in effect at the time, the idea that apoluo (translated "put away") means divorce would have Jesus clearly teaching contrary to the law that said the divorced woman "may go and be another man's wife". Thus, "put away" must not mean divorce. While apoluo did mean divorce to some of Jesus' day – particularly to those who did not know nor respect the Law of Moses – it was only part of God's definition as found in the Law (Deut. 24:1, 2). Therefore, when the woman was merely sent away (apoluo) by her husband, it was to be understood as a separation rather than a divorce, which means they were still married. (This is the circumstance to which Paul referred in 1 Cor. 7:10, 11). Therefore, the woman would commit adultery because she was NOT divorced rather than because she WAS divorced. The man who sent her away without the "bill of divorcement" that she needed to marry another was guilty of "adultery against her" (Mark 10:11). This is all the "exception clause" is about. If the man put his wife away "for fornication" (an illegal marriage) he would not be guilty of "adultery against her." Under the Law there was no circumstance in which the man himself would be guilty of adultery because he married another. This is because a man was allowed more than one wife under the Law.

(1 Corinthians 7:1, 2) "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

BARNES:
"The word fornication is used here in the large sense of licentiousness in general. For the sake of the purity of society, and to avoid the evils of sensual indulgence, and the corruptions and crimes which attend an illicit contact, it is proper that the married state should be entered."

This passage sets the stage for the idea that it is contrary to the will of God to endeavor to preclude either a man or a woman from having a spouse. The apostle gives the reason, which is that everyone be able to avoid fornication. This is an explicit command with no hint of an exception.

(1 Corinthians 7:8) "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am."

Robertson's Word Pictures
"It is hardly likely that Paul means only widowers and widows."

First, after man was created God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18). This is a timeless fact, which Paul recognized. The church at Corinth was experiencing distressful times. It was because of this that Paul spoke of being single as being good. Later (verse 26) he said, "I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is." That this is the correct interpretation is evident from what Paul said next.

(1 Corinthians 7:9) "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Robertson's Word Pictures
"Marriage is better than continued sexual passion. Paul has not said that celibacy is better than marriage though he has justified it and expressed his own personal preference for it."

Paul, who likely had been married, recognized that some would have great difficulty staying celibate. Thus, he clarified that even under the “present distress,” those who needed marriage “to avoid fornication” should marry. This would have included all who needed marriage; and those who had been married but no longer were, whether by divorce or death of a spouse, would be ones that had the greatest need for marriage.

Remember to whom this passage is addressed – "the unmarried." That divorce makes one "unmarried" is understood by everyone except those who have been deceived into thinking Jesus took away divorce, as taught by Moses (changed the Law while living), or that a divorce does not end a marriage except for the one who initiated it for fornication.

(7:27) “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife."

Let us first consider whom Paul addressed in this passage. This is important because some insist it is referring to widows and virgins. It is hard to acknowledge that they really believe their argument because the context is set by the question “are you bound to a wife?” Paul then gives the command “do not seek to be loosed.” If limited to virgins or widows this command would make no sense at all. Finally, if the context is regarding virgins or widows then Paul’s command “do not seek a wife” would be totally out of place. Therefore, to limit this passage to virgins, as mentioned back in verse 25, is unreasonable, illogical, and absurd.

In this passage (verses 27-28) Paul contrasts those "bound" (married) with those "loosed" (divorced or widowed, resulting in being "unmarried").

Barnes
Art thou bound unto a wife? - Art thou already married? Marriage is often thus represented as a "tie," a "bond,"

Seek not to be loosed - Seek not a "dissolution" (λύσιν lusin) of the connection, either by divorce or by a separation from each other;

Clark
"Married; for the marriage contract was considered in the light of a bond."

Some have argued that "loosed" (lusis) does not mean divorce, but the context shows a contrast of those "bound" (married) with those "loosed" and makes it apparent that the reference is to those who have been divorced.

Strong's says this specifically refers to divorce:

“G3080
Λύσις
Lusis
loo'-sis
From G3089; a loosening, that is, (specifically) divorce: - to be loosed."