This is the third of four posts on the twin issues of divorce and remarriage as presented in the Bible. Part One examined the cultural context of the New Testament, paying careful attention to the teachings of the Pharisees.

Based on interpretations of Deu 24.1, the School of Shammai taught that a man could divorce his wife for “a matter of indecency,” whereas the School of Hillel understood the verse to allow for divorce for “any matter.” Neither school, however, limited the biblical grounds for divorce to this single cause: both understood the Old Testament (based on Ex 21.10-11) to allow for divorce for a stubborn, unrepentant refusal to provide food, clothing, and/or conjugal rights.

Part Two explored the teachings of Jesus, found principally in Mt 19 and Mk 10. In His debate with the two schools of Pharisaic thought, Jesus corrected misunderstandings and rejected the “any matter” ground of divorce advanced by Hillel. He argued that God had always intended marriage to be lifelong, that Moses did not command divorce but only allowed it because of hardness of heart, and that monogamy was God’s ideal, not polygamy. He also declared that marriage and having children was optional, not mandatory, that men as well as women could be guilty of adultery, and that divorce was allowable when there was a continuing lack of repentance by the sinning partner.

Through His silence, Jesus appears to have accepted the grounds for divorce which were not debated or questioned, i.e., those based on Ex 21. Thus, our Lord stressed the value and importance of marriage while upholding the Old Testament allowances for divorce under certain conditions.

Before turning our attention to the teachings of Paul, it is worth returning to the teachings of Jesus briefly to elaborate on His choice of words in His “exception clause.” Jesus says that anyone who divorces of the basis of the “any matter” grounds of Hillel is not legitimately divorced; thus, if he remarries, he is committing adultery. The exception is when “any matter” refers to immorality (Gk., porneia).

Concerning the use of porneia (unchastity) and moichao (adultery) in Mt 5.31-32, Instone-Brewer comments,

“The meaning of [porneia] is not nearly as clear-cut as [moichao]. It has a wider range of connotations throughout the area of sexual sin and impropriety, including the act of adultery . . . Some have claimed that it covers a much wider area, including physical abuse and even mental torture, so that Jesus specifically allowed divorce on these grounds, too. However, there is no evidence for this.”

Some have attempted to construe porneia to refer only to an illegitimate marriage (such as one that was incestuous, but that would not make sense in this context. In the culture of Jesus’ time, no divorce was required after an illegitimate marriage because technically no marriage had taken place. Divorce in such cases was thus a moot point.

Porneia was probably used in this verse because it was the closest translation of Deu 24.1 from the Hebrew. In the context of Jesus’ debate with the Pharisees, porneia would have been a more accurate rendering of Deu 24.1 for the purpose of addressing the error of the School of Hillel. In this context, porneia (immorality, unchastity) is basically synonymous with moichao (adultery).

The Culture in Corinth

Two things stand out in the teaching of Paul on the subject of divorce and remarriage: desertion does not constitute acceptable grounds for divorce, and Christians should never be the cause of a divorce. It will also be seen that Paul affirmed the four common grounds for divorce and that he assumed remarriage as a right of divorced women and widows alike.

The heart of Paul’s teaching on divorce is found in 1 Cor 7. As Jesus did before him, Paul stresses the value and importance of marriage and of the Christian fulfilling his or her responsibilities in the marriage.

Unlike Jesus, whose audience was almost exclusively Jewish, Paul was addressing Gentile believers. The cultural milieu, therefore, was quite different. In order to understand Paul’s teaching, it is necessary to understand what his original audience in Corinth would have believed to be acceptable practices in the matter of divorce and remarriage.

In the Roman empire and Greek culture, either the husband or the wife could divorce their spouse unilaterally by simply separating from them. If the husband (who usually owned the house) wished to divorce his wife, all he needed to do was tell her to leave; if the wife wanted a divorce, she need only depart. There was no other legal requirement, no documentation, and nothing the partner could do to stop the divorcing husband or wife.

This was in stark contrast to the Jewish culture. For the Jews, it was necessary to specify grounds for divorce because it was required by law for them to go before a judge and demonstrate sufficient cause. The judge, whether of the School of Shammai or Hillel, determined if the divorce was allowable and whether or not the dowry was to be increased, decreased, or returned.

The Teaching of Paul

When Paul begins his discussion in 1 Cor 7 with “it is good for a man not to touch a woman,” he is undoubtedly stating the belief of an anti-sex contingent in Corinth. He is not addressing the issue of marriage (as the NIV unfortunately says) but the matter of sex in marriage: some Christians were teaching that it was best for married believers not to have sex in order to seek holiness.

(It is unthinkable that the phrase “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” reflects Paul’s belief: if it did, then he would be contradicting himself in the immediately following verses. Rather, Paul is arguing against this position, as the context demonstrates.)

In refuting this erroneous teaching, Paul bases his response on Ex 21 and the obligations of husbands and wives to one another. They are not to withhold conjugal rights from one another, he says, using the strong language of slavery to make his point: the body of the wife is the property of the husband; the body of the husband is the property of the wife. He stopped short of saying that a spouse could demand his or her rights, but stressed instead that certain duties were owed to the other.

Abstinence in marriage was based on three conditions: it was to be of limited duration, for the purpose of spending time in prayer, and agreed to by both parties. The length of time was from one to two weeks, depending on whether one was following the guidance of Hillel or Shammai.

While referring obliquely to Ex 21 in upholding conjugal rights, Paul does not develop the other accepted grounds for divorce. His emphasis was elsewhere, as Instone-Brewer explains:

“Paul’s message was that Christians should not cause divorce. They should not separate from their partners, and they should fulfill their marriage obligations so that they do not create an occasion for divorce . . . he was clearly familiar with the normal Jewish understanding of Exodus 21.10-11 because he applied it in exactly the same way in which all sections of Judaism applied it: he divided up the three obligations into emotional and material support; he applied them to both male and female equally; and he interpreted the third obligation, which is difficult to translate, as sexual love.”

Instone-Brewer also explains Paul’s denial of desertion as a legitimate ground for divorce:

“Paul added that if divorce by separation had occurred, believers must do everything they can to reverse it. They should try to be reconciled, and they should remain single so that they remain available for reconciliation . . . Jesus condemned the Hillelite no-fault divorce called ‘any matter’ divorce. In the same way, Paul condemned the Greco-Roman ‘divorce by separation,’ which was also a no-fault type of divorce . . . Paul, therefore, did not allow any Christian to use the Greco-Roman procedure of divorce by separation . . . Paul added that one could not use this procedure even if one was married to a non-Christian. However, if a non-Christian used this procedure, there was nothing that the Christian could do to prevent it.”

It is interesting what Paul does argue here. He might have stated that separation was, indeed, grounds for divorce because the unbeliever failed to provide food, clothing, and sex - the Ex 21 basis for divorce. But he does not do this. Instead, he simply says, “God has called us to peace.” He adopted a pragmatic solution rather than trouble with a legally - legalistically? - correct process.

The Issue of Remarriage

In 1 Cor 7.39-40, Paul comments on the rights of widows and (by extension) those who have been divorced. His teaching on the rights of widows was in sharp contrast to the regular practices of his Jewish ancestors. According to the Old Testament, a woman whose husband died without an heir was subject to levirate marriage. This practice require her to marry her brother-in-law and to have an heir by him.

Paul did away with the practice for Christian widows by teaching that the woman in such cases was not required to marry her brother-in-law and bear children. As Instone-Brewer explains,

“The most interesting aspect of these verses is Paul’s quotation from a standard Jewish divorce certificate. According to the Mishnah, which is confirmed by a surviving papyrus, first-century divorce certificates contained a line stating:

“’You are free to marry any Jewish man you wish.’

“The only difference in Paul’s version is the stipulation that she must marry a man who is ‘in the Lord’ instead of a ‘Jewish man.’ The words that Paul quoted were the most important part of the divorce certificate and were the only words that were necessary on the certificate.”

Remarriage following a legitimate divorce was assumed in both Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures of the first-century c.e. Instone-Brewer writes:

“The right to remarry after divorce was the fundamental right that was communicated by the Jewish divorce certificate. It was also seen as an undeniable right in Greco-Roman marriage and divorce law. Technically it was actually illegal for a divorced Roman woman to remain single for more than eighteen months . . . It would therefore have been very difficult for Paul to convince his readers that they no longer had the right to remarriage after a valid divorce, and it is inconceivable that he could have expected his readers to conclude . . . that remarriage of a divorcee was unacceptable.”

In summary, he adds,

“The main message of this chapter [1 Cor 7] is that a believer should never cause a divorce, either by separating from his or her partner or by neglecting marital obligations, but if the marriage ends despite the best efforts, he or she is entitled to a divorce and is free to remarry.”

Next: Interpretations and Applications


2 Cor 1.13