BIG IDEA:
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS CALL FOR DIFFERENT DIVINE INSTRUCTION REGARDING SINGLENESS, MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
3 GROUPS ADDRESSED:
I. (:8-9) INSTRUCTIONS TO THE UNMARRIED AND TO WIDOWS – EITHER SINGLENESS OR THE MARRIED STATE MAY BE A VIABLE OPTION
A. (:8) Value of Remaining Single and Devoted to the Lord’s Service
- Source of This Instruction
“But I say”
These instructions came from Paul by inspiration rather than merely repeating the earthly teaching of Jesus – but both types of instruction equal in authority
- Subjects of This Instruction
“to the unmarried and to widows”
“Unmarried” – 2 Possibilities
a) More restricted sense — MacArthur argues that the “unmarried” refers only to those formerly married (in contrast to the “virgins” of vs 25) and thus would be those who had been “legitimately divorced” (as distinguished here from “widows”) …
Variation of this view – Richard Hays:
The word “unmarried” (agamoi) is used here to refer specifically to widowers, not in a generic fashion to include all those who are not married. (Paul’s advice to other classes of non-married persons—the divorced and the not-yet-married—is given separately in vv. 11 and 25–38). Thus, this counsel, like most of the other directives in the chapter, is carefully balanced and directed equally to men and women: in this case, men and women who have lost a spouse to death. Apparently Paul classes himself within this group, telling them that it is well for them to remain “as I am,” i.e., unmarried. This is the only hint in Paul’s letters that he might once have been married—as would have been normal, indeed virtually mandatory, for a Jewish man of his time who was devoted to the study of Torah (Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:4–6; cf. the later rabbinic teaching that “He who is twenty years old and not yet married spends all of his days in sin” [b. Qidd. 29b]). Paul’s marital history and status, whatever it may have been, was no doubt known to the Corinthians; consequently, he need offer no further explanation here. His purpose is simply to advise widows and widowers to remain as they are (note the contrast to 1 Tim. 5:14).
Gordon Fee: Several items favor the suggestion that agamois should be translated “widowers”: First, since being “widowed” in antiquity created special problems for women, most cultures had a word for widows; however, they did not always have a word for the male counterpart. Greek has such a word, but it appears seldom to have been used, and never in the koinē period, in which agamos served in its place. Second, since throughout the entire passage Paul deals with husbands and wives in mutuality (12 times in all), it would seem to fit naturally into the total argument to see that pattern here as well. After all, if agamois refers to all the unmarried, then why bother to add widows? Third, this word appears again (in v. 11) for a woman separated from her husband, and in the next section (v. 34) in contrast to the “virgin” (one who was never before married), indicating that in his regular usage it denotes not the “unmarried” in general, but the “demarried,” those formerly but not now married. On balance, therefore, “widower” seems to be the best understanding of the word here. That would also especially help to explain the presence of such advice at this (otherwise unusual) point in this context, where all of the cases in the present passage (vv. 1–16) deal with those presently or formerly married, while the later passge (vv. 25–38) takes up the issue of the never-before married.
Mark Taylor: If the term “unmarried” denotes a widower, some see in this passage a hint that Paul was once married since he advises to “remain as I am.” That Paul would have been married at some point in his life would have been consistent with his Jewish heritage. The evidence is not conclusive, however, and ultimately we cannot know for sure. It is clear that Paul was not married at the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians, and there is no trace of a wife or child anywhere in Acts or Paul’s letters. It is best not to read beyond the evidence that we have and simply confess that we do not know.
b) Broader application — Lenski argues for its broader application:
“The term ‘unmarried’ really includes all individuals mentioned in this first group, yet kai adds ‘widows.’ This conjunction is often used thus to single out a part from a whole in order to give it special attention. Widows might, indeed, have special reasons for thinking their state a sad one and thus for desiring to have it changed.”
And if you do not allow for divorce as a “legitimate” option, then divorced individuals would not be included here.
Paul Gardner: The word “unmarried” (ἄγαμος) appears only in this chapter within the New Testament. Here it seems to refer to both men and women, while in v. 11 it refers to divorced women and in v. 32 to unmarried men and in v. 34 to unmarried women. It has been suggested that the word in v. 8 may refer only to single men generally or, more specifically, to widowers in the light of the following mention of “widows.” However, Paul’s discussion proceeds to examine examples of single men and women who should not marry or who might be best to marry and, even though it is not immediately apparent why he should specify “widows” right here, it seems to make more sense of the whole argument if “unmarried” is regarded as a general description of all single people.
David Garland: If Paul applies the word for the general category of the unmarried, why does he single out widows from this group? In 7:39–40, he again gives special instructions to widows, and he may have believed that widows were particularly useful to the church’s ministry when they dedicated themselves completely to it and if the church could support them (cf. 1 Tim. 5:3–16; see Godet 1886: 330). On the other hand, he may have highlighted their case simply because there were more widows than widowers and they faced more serious economic problems by remaining single (Schrage 1995: 94). Paul offers them spiritual encouragement to remain unmarried.
- Substance of This Instruction
“that it is good for them if they remain even as I.”
B. (:9) Freedom to Marry and Protect Against Sexual Temptation
“But if they do not have self-control, let them marry;
for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
Again this is not comprehensive teaching or systematic teaching covering all of the reasons to marry; His emphasis in this section has been dealing with sexual temptation and the physical aspect of the relationship.
L. Alexander: “Burning” is one of a range of metaphors (wounding, captivity, drowning) used in the novels to describe the irresistible force of passion: and it is a sensation associated as much with the legitimate loves of hero and heroine as with the unregulated passions of the various tempters who seek to assault their chastity. Paul’s metaphor of sexual desire as “burning” (7:9) is commonest in the novels and in Greek erotic poetry.
Gordon Fee: Paul is not so much offering marriage as the remedy for sexual desire for “enflamed youth,” which has been the most common way of viewing the text; rather, marriage is to be understood as the proper alternative for those who are already consumed by that desire and are sinning.
Bob Deffinbaugh: The satisfaction of our God-given sexual desires within the context of marriage is wholesome and good. There is no intrinsic merit in the suppression of sexual desire. If sexual fulfillment (a definite “good”) is voluntarily set aside for the purpose of ministering to others, even as our Lord did, then celibacy is better. If one’s service as a celibate is one of constant preoccupation with sexual desires, marriage is the better way. It is surely better to marry and be sexually pure than to fall into sexual immorality.
II. (:10-11) INSTRUCTIONS TO THOSE UNITED IN CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE – DON’T DIVORCE YOUR SPOUSE
(Both spouses are believers here since their situation is contrasted with the next group which deals with mixed marriages – a believer with an unbeliever)
Richard Hays: If continuing sexual relations are mandatory for Christian husbands and wives, might some of them seek an escape route into celibacy by means of divorce? Had this perhaps already been occurring in Corinth? Or had the issue of divorce arisen for other, more ordinary, reasons? Whether prompted by a concrete instance or not, Paul articulates a general norm in verses 10–11: Christian wives and husbands should not divorce one another.
A. (:10) Stay Married
- Source of This Instruction
“I give instructions, not I, but the Lord”
Paul here is repeating and emphasizing (still by inspiration) teaching that the Lord had given personally during His earthly ministry.
Richard Hays: This is one of the very few places that Paul appeals explicitly to a teaching of Jesus in support of a directive to his churches (see also 9:14 and perhaps 1 Thess. 4:15–17). Although the wording here is different from that found in the Gospels, Paul is certainly alluding to the tradition that Jesus had forbidden divorce (Mark 10:2–12; Matt. 5:31–32; Matt. 19:3–12; Luke 16:18), an unusual stance more stringent than anything found either in Judaism or in Greco-Roman culture.
- Subjects of This Instruction
“But to the married”
- Substance of This Instruction
“that the wife should not leave her husband”
“and that the husband should not divorce his wife”
David Prior: Paul’s fundamental approach to the question of Christians getting divorced is, therefore, very simple: ‘Don’t. The Lord has expressly forbidden it; so do not even allow yourselves the luxury of entertaining it as a possibility.’ If this is the express command of the Lord, it does no good whatsoever mentally to flirt with what is so clearly beyond limits. If, as not infrequently happens, a Christian couple think they have made a mistake in getting married, then it is important for them to accept the authority of the Lord’s teaching and to apply themselves to their relationship, in the conviction that, if they work at it, God can make it new and vital.
Bob Deffinbaugh: When Paul forbids terminating the marriage, he forbids both separation and divorce. All too often, I hear Christians acknowledge that divorce is forbidden, and then proceed to encourage someone in a troubled marriage to separate. Their thinking is that divorce is one thing, and separation is quite another. I believe Paul clearly differs. Paul employs two different terms in verses 10 and 11, when he forbids the termination of marriage. In the NASB, the first term is translated “leave,” with a marginal note which indicates the literal meaning is “depart from.” The same term occurs at the beginning of verse 11. This same word is employed by our Lord in His teaching on divorce: “Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6, emphasis mine). But when Paul speaks specifically to husbands at the end of verse 11, he employs a term which is rendered by the expression, “send her away” (with a marginal note indicating the alternative, “leave her”). In the vernacular of our times, Paul is forbidding women both separation and divorce.
B. (:11) Don’t Compound the Sin Problem
“(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried,
or else be reconciled to her husband)”
Only 2 Options:
- Remain single
- Be reconciled to your husband
Otherwise she also commits the sin of adultery … Reconciliation is only an option if neither has remarried.
Richard Hays: Paul says nothing here, however, about whether the spouse who has been abandoned is free to remarry. The major concern of his pastoral counsel is to prevent either partner from initiating divorce.
David Garland: In Paul’s Jewish tradition, a wife who has been divorced and has married another is forbidden to her former husband (Deut. 24:4; Herm. Man. 4.1.8; see also 2 Sam. 16:21–22; 20:3). If there was to be a reconciliation, she must remain unmarried. The assumption behind this instruction is the same as in the teaching of the Lord: the marriage bonds remain intact regardless of what steps spouses might take to end the marriage.
Gordon Fee: The wife who may happen to divorce her husband may not use her present unmarried condition as an excuse for remarriage to someone else. If she does in fact desire to remarry, she must “be reconciled to her husband.” This is in keeping with Paul’s view expressed elsewhere that for believers marriage is permanent, from its inception until the decease of one of the partners (7:39; Rom. 7:1–3). Thus the priorities of the directive are clear: she is to remain as she is and not divorce her husband; but if she were to disobey this first directive, then she must again remain as she is and not commit adultery by remarrying someone else. If she does not like her new unmarried status, then she must be reconciled to her husband.
III. (:12-16) INSTRUCTIONS TO BELIEVERS WITH UNBELIEVING SPOUSES – MAINTAIN THE MARRIAGE IF POSSIBLE
Mark Taylor: In sum, in 7:12–16 Paul argues against Christians initiating divorce from unbelievers on the basis of the sanctifying character of marriage and its evangelistic potential.
A. (:12-13) Command: Do Not Initiate (Push for) Divorce
- Additional Situation not covered By Christ’s Teaching
“But to the rest I say, not the Lord”
- Applies to Both the Believing Husband and the Believing Wife
a. Command to the Believing Husband in Mixed Marriage
“that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever,
and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.”
b. Command to the Believing Wife in Mixed Marriage
“And a woman who has an unbelieving husband,
and he consents to live with her,
she must not send her husband away.”
John MacArthur: Some believers must have felt that being married to an unbeliever was somehow defiling. However, just the opposite is true.
B. (:14) Cause and Effect Principle: Appreciate the Opportunity for Godly Influence in the Home
- Application to the Unbelieving Spouse
a. Godly Influence on the Unbelieving Husband
“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife”
b. Godly Influence on the Unbelieving Wife
“and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband”
Anthony Thiselton: Whatever the finer points, Paul’s main point is to allay any anxiety on the part of the Christian spouse that to remain with the non-Christian spouse might somehow imperil their status as Christians or their walk with God. Such anxiety is not at all unreasonable, for in 6:12-20 Paul has stated that sexual union with a prostitute can rip apart the limbs and organs of Christ with damaging effect.
In response to such a concern, Paul insists that the purity of Christians and their holy standing as set apart for God will not be compromised by remaining with the unbelieving spouse. Indeed, he asserts, the solidarity of the family works in the other direction: the consecration, lifestyle, values, and influence of the Christian spouse and parent has a wholesome and salutary effect on the unbeliever, and on the child also. . .
Paul does not license a Christian’s deliberately marrying an unbeliever on this basis. He simply describes a situation where the Christian is already married to a partner who has not (yet) come to faith.
Bob Deffinbaugh: Paul reasons that if marriage to an unbeliever in some way defiles the believing mate, it must also defile the children of that union. But since the unbeliever is blessed in the believer, so also are the children. Remaining married to an unbeliever has no negative connotations for the believing partner or the children, but there are distinct advantages for the unbeliever. There is, therefore, no good reason for the believer to seek to dissolve the marriage. All of this, however, is contingent on the desire of the unbeliever to remain married (cf. verses 12-13).
- Application to the Children of the Mixed Marriage
a. Less Opportunity for Influence in Broken Home
“for otherwise your children are unclean,”
b. Greater Opportunity for Influence in United Home
“but now they are holy.”
C. (:15) Clarification: Divorce Appropriate When Initiated (Pursued) by the Unbeliever
- Let the Unbeliever Go
“Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave;”
- Called to Peace, not Bondage
a. Not under Bondage
“the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases,”
Mark Taylor: Many suppose the statement implies that the believer is no longer bound to the marriage commitment when abandoned by the unbeliever and is free to remarry. This reading of the text has given rise to what is known as the “Pauline privilege.” This may well be the case, yet Paul does not speak directly to the issue of remarriage in 7:15. We have to wonder if Paul might be saying something more, or perhaps even different. Paul disallows for remarriage in 7:11 in the case of the wife who leaves her husband (both believers). Paul specifies the freedom to remarry in 7:39 but only upon the death of one’s spouse and only if the remarriage is a Christian marriage. The verb for “binding” in 7:15 is not the ordinary verb Paul uses for the “binding” character of marriage (7:27,39; Rom 7:2). The term used in 7:15 means “to be enslaved,” which could be somewhat synonymous with the normal term of “binding” if Paul’s intention is to specify remarriage. In 7:17–24, however, Paul continues with the enslavement/freedom contrast (7:21–23) in support of the overarching principle “to remain as you are.” Paul’s meaning in 7:15 may be that the abandoned believer is not enslaved in their newfound circumstance and is free to serve the Lord without distraction (7:22, 32–35). If the principle “remain as you are” holds, then Paul’s trustworthy judgment would be to remain unmarried. However, if Paul views the abandoned believer in the same light as a widow or widower whose marriage has been dissolved by death, then while advocating singleness, he would allow for remarriage.
Gordon Fee: This statement is the source of the notorious “Pauline privilege,” in which the text is understood to mean that the believer is free to remarry. But despite a long tradition that has so interpreted it, several converging data indicate that Paul is essentially repeating his first sentence: that the believer is not bound to maintain the marriage if the pagan partner opts out.
(1) Remarriage is not an issue at all; indeed, it seems to be quite the opposite. In a context in which people are arguing for the right to dissolve marriage, Paul would scarcely be addressing the issue of remarriage, and certainly not in such circuitous fashion.
(2) The verb “to be under bondage” is not Paul’s ordinary one for the “binding” character of marriage (cf. 7:39; Rom. 7:2); that means that he does not intend to say one is not “bound to the marriage.” One is simply not under bondage to maintain the marriage, which the other person wishes to dissolve. From Paul’s point of view, one is bound to a marriage until death breaks the bond (7:39).
(3) At the end of the preceding issue (v. 11), even though there is a similar exception regarding divorce, he explicitly disallows remarriage.
(4) Such a concern misses the theme of the chapter, which has to do with not seeking a change in status. The exceptions in each case do not allow a change in partners but in status, either from single to married or vice versa, but not both!
All of this is not to say that Paul disallows remarriage in such cases; he simply does not speak to it at all. Thus this text offers little help for this very real contemporary concern, and one should therefore be especially cautious in “using” Paul at all regarding this matter.
Van Parunak: The believer may feel bound to the duties of marriage, even toward a spouse who has abandoned the union. Paul relieves the Christian’s conscience. If the unbeliever leaves, the believer is no longer responsible to consider the wishes and well-being of the partner, as in a normal marriage. The believing wife does not need to submit to her husband. The believing husband is no longer responsible to support his wife. The spouse who leaves no longer has the authority over the body of the believer that Paul describes in 1 Cor. 7:4. . .
The constant theme of 1 Cor. 7:10-16 is the permanence of marriage. Believers must never separate from other believers. If one spouse is unsaved, the believer should persevere in the marriage. If the unbeliever seeks a separation, the Christian should pray for the salvation of the unbeliever, and take advantage of any opportunity for a peaceful restoration of the marriage. Paul’s instructions about reconciliation strongly suggest that verse 15 does not authorize remarriage for the believer. If the believer marries someone else, reconciliation becomes impossible, because of the requirements of Deuteronomy 24, and the believer’s channel of influence on the unbeliever is broken. .
When the unbeliever departs, the believer is no longer enslaved to the spouse. The human duties end. But 1 Cor. 7:15 says nothing about the bond that marriage establishes before God. Verse 39 does discuss that bond, using a different Greek word to describe a unity that it later says ends with death. Because Paul uses different terms in the two verses, we should not assume that they describe the same concept.
b. Called to Peace
“but God has called us to peace”
David Garland: Paul appeals to their calling to peace to discourage them from causing strife by stubbornly clinging to a marriage that an unbeliever wants to dissolve. “Peace” means not causing conflict by disputing the decision to end the marriage. “Peace” could also refer to “peace of mind.” They should not become excessively agitated by the divorce. A peaceful attitude can be present even in divorce.
John Piper: The last phrase of verse 15 (“God has called us to peace“) supports verse 15 best if Paul is saying that a deserted partner is not “bound to make war” on the deserting unbeliever to get him or her to stay. It seems to me that the peace God has called us to is the peace of marital harmony. Therefore, if the unbelieving partner insists on departing, then the believing partner is not bound to live in perpetual conflict with the unbelieving spouse, but is free and innocent in letting him or her go.
This interpretation also preserves a closer harmony to the intention of verses 10-11, where an inevitable separation does not result in the right of remarriage.
D. (:16) Caution: Don’t Presume that Your Influence Will Save Your Spouse
- Application to the Believing Wife
“For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband?”
- Application to the Believing Husband
“Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”
Robert Grosheide: Bondage and quarreling which are certain need not be accepted in order to achieve a highly uncertain goal.