It
has been asserted by many that the apostle Paul, in his first letter to the
Corinthians, taught that persons divorced must remain celibate. The passage
that is most commonly misunderstood and misused is 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11.
Look
with me at the text from the King James and the Weymouth versions:
1 Corinthians 7:10, 11: And unto the married I
command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her
husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (KJV).
1 Corinthians 7:11: Or if she has already left him,
let her either remain as she is or be reconciled to him; and that a husband is
not to send away his wife. (Weymouth
N.T.).
Naturally,
those who are convinced that Jesus taught celibacy are going to try to explain
Paul's teachings to harmonize with what they think Jesus taught, and the text
we just read is the most used text by those who contend that some have no right
to a marriage. But in their efforts they have to overlook or ignore some
obvious problems.
First,
they have Paul contradicting himself. In the very same chapter He said,
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and
let every woman have her own husband" (1 Cor 7:2). Then he said, regarding
the "unmarried" (verses 8, 9), "let them marry." And in verse 27
and 28 he said “If you are bound unto a wife, do not seek to be loosed. If you
are loosed from a wife do not seek a wife,” which was apparently advice because
of the "present distress"
(verse 26). He ended the passage by saying "But if you do marry you have
not sinned…."
This
is very clear language that is impossible to harmonize with the idea that Paul
taught that the divorced commit adultery by marrying. But some try, by making a
play on the word bound. They contend
that one who is divorced is still "bound"
unless the divorce was for adultery. Nevertheless, God authorized divorce (Deut
24:1, 2) and it ends a marriage, which was what it was designed to do. The idea
that one can be divorced but still “bound”
was first argued in 1987, as far as I have been able to determine.
Another
problem that those who insist that Paul teaches celibacy are met with is that
the apostle Paul did not give any indication in verses 10, 11 (or anywhere
else) that the cause of divorce was an issue, as far as whether one
could marry again. This omission is significant. The most logical explanation
for the omission is that God made no law that would forbid marriage. Obviously,
this is consistent with Paul’s teachings. In verse 11, Paul evidently did not
have in mind a couple that had divorced. Rather, he dealt with the issue of one
“departing” or leaving, resulting
in a separation; and the evident purpose of his words are that reconciliation
(not remarriage) might take place.
Not
a few have used the phrase "let her remain unmarried" to support the
idea that Paul is talking about a couple that has divorced. Although the
wording, as usually translated, seems to support that idea, it is contrary to
the language used and the context as well.
In
verse 10, we see the command to the wife that she not “depart” from her husband. First, it is conjecture to conclude
that "depart" here means "divorce." Regarding the word
translated "depart," let us note a comment by a highly respected
scholar:
STRONG (as quoted from SwordSearcher):
[Grk. 5563] chorizo (kho-rid'-zo) from 5561; to place room
between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away:--depart, put asunder,
separate.
Below,
is a comment from Robertson that
seems clear he thought Paul was talking about "separation" when he
spoke of departing:
Robertson's
Word Pictures: "But and if she
depart….If, in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she get separated…."
Another
highly respected scholar, below, speaks about the language and the context
regarding the phrase, “let her remain unmarried”:
Bloomfield [The
Greek New Testament]:
From the use of καταλλ [reconcile]
and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of
formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not,
arising from misunderstand-ings or otherwise.
Thus,
we must keep in mind from the beginning that what is being contemplated is a
case when a woman merely "departs," leaves, or is separated, from her
husband.
JFB:
But and if she depart — or ‘be separated.’ If the sin of separation has been
committed, that of a new marriage is not to be added. (Mt 5:32).
Indeed,
to marry would result in adultery as Jesus stated, but not because the woman
was divorced but because she was not
divorced.
Since
Paul’s command was directed to the woman that is or would be separated, rather
than divorced, it is imprudent and even presumptuous to try to use 1
Corinthians 7:11 to support the false assumption that Paul taught celibacy.
That idea is contrary to everything recorded in the chapter relating to
marriage. It is not consistent with the context or the language nor is it consistent
with the gist of Paul’s teaching since he was totally against requiring
celibacy and classified it as “doctrines of devils.”
If
one says the word "unmarried,"
in verse 11, means “divorced,”
to be consistent he must apply that same meaning to the same word where it is
found in verses 8 and 9, which would prove too much. Here the apostle says:
"I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it
is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them
marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."
Why
would the apostle Paul command to let the unmarried marry in one passage and
then immediately turn around and say the opposite, using the same word? Of
course, he didn't. In verses 8 and 9, the teaching is that those who do not have
a marriage are to be allowed to marry, whereas verses 10 and 11 teach that the
“married” are to remain in that state, even if separated, due to the
"present distress."
In
1 Corinthians 7:8, 9, Paul is speaking regarding the "unmarried." But at verse 10 he
begins discussion that pertains to the "married." Thus, when we look at the context of the passage
that is used to teach celibacy we see that it is not even about divorce.
Rather, the inspired instruction is applicable to a couple that is “separated.”
The apostle speaks of the possibility of one in a marriage becoming unhappy to
the point that he "departs." In such case, the couple is instructed
to remain in that state while trying to work things out.
The Weymouth
New Testament and the Montgomery
New Testament lend the most support to the probable intended meaning
of the apostle as recorded in verses. 11. See below:
Waymouth:
Or if she has already left him, let her either remain
as she is or be reconciled to him; and that a husband is not to send away his
wife.
Montgomery:
Or if she has already left him let her either remain
as she is, or be reconciled to him), and also that a husband is not to put away
his wife.
If
the wife has "departed" or already left, i.e., gone out of the home
back to the parents, or wherever, she is exhorted to "remain as she
is" (in the separated state) or go back to her husband (not ex-husband). Divorce
is not under consideration here. If a
husband or wife actually ends the marriage by divorce this text no longer applies.
Conclusion:
Those
who use 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 to teach that divorced persons have no right to
marry are misconstruing Paul’s teachings. The gist of Paul’s teaching is that
we must allow marriage for people who need it so they can "avoid
fornication" (1 Cor 7:2). The primary teaching of the apostle Paul is that
those who are married should remain that way, and not only that but also they
should be faithful. If a couple has problems and become separated they should
not make unwise and hasty decisions, especially during the time of distress, but
be patient and endeavor to work things out.
