Lessons #207 and 208
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual delivery not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GW = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions about Divorce (1 Cor 7:10-16)
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
The passage before us conveyed that there were at least two problems related to marriage in Corinth that believers faced that were reflected in their letter of questions directed to the apostle. A first problem stems from those who had a misconception of sexual relationship in marriage. Those who felt that a person is more spiritual if the individual is not involved in sexual relationship although married, could have taken the position that if that is the case then there would be no need to be married so to avoid the possibility of having sexual relationship. This thinking, of course, conflicted with a reason the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul advised those single to marry to avoid sexual immorality. Nevertheless, those who have that understanding would ask the apostle if they should divorce their spouses in order to maintain what they believed to be correct. A second problem was how to deal with mixed marriages of believers and unbelievers. This concern may have resulted from a previous letter of the apostle instructing the Corinthians not to associate with unbelievers. So, those who are married to unbelievers would want to know what to do with them. These two problems are addressed in the passage we are considering.
The instructions of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul that answered the two problems we believe that some believers in Corinth faced lead us to state a simple message the Holy Spirit intended to convey to us believers at the present time. The message is a simple but important one that we should pay attention. It is that believers should do everything possible to avoid divorce. This message would become clearer as we expound the passage we are about to study. But before we expound on this message through our exposition of the passage, let me state from the start that we would not necessarily follow the sequence of the verses or clauses or phrases of the passage in our exposition. This means that we would not necessarily follow the order of the verses, clauses or phrases in our exposition. Instead, it is a given point that we expound that will determine the verse or clause we consider. That notwithstanding, you can rest assured that by the time we complete our exposition of the message of the passage that we would have considered every phrase or clause of the passage we are about to study.
There are two questions we need to consider before we study the instructions of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul in the passage before us. The first question is: How should we understand the phrases To the married of verse 10 and To the rest of verse 12? The second is: Is there a difference between the word “separate” in verse 10 and “divorce” as used in verse 11? The answers to these questions are necessary in our exposition of our passage.
The first question of how to understand the two phrases To the married of verse 10 and To the rest of verse 12 is important because unless we understand them there is the possibility of thinking that what the apostle stated does not make sense. This is because the instruction given beginning in verse 12 would not make sense if the apostle was not also addressing the married. But then, the phrase To the rest in the English on a surface reading may suggest the apostle had others who are not married in view which does not make sense in the passage. Thus, it is important that we understand the two phrases.
The two phrases To the married of verse 10 and To the rest of verse 12 should be understood as referring to two different groups of individuals in marriage relationship in the church in Corinth. The first phrase To the married of verse 10 refers to two believers who are married to each other. The second phrase To the rest of verse 12 refers to a mixture of believers and unbelievers that are married to each other. Put in another way, the phrase to the rest refers to married individuals that were not included in the phrase to the married. This we can establish by considering the Greek word used. The word “rest” is translated from a Greek word (loipos) that as an adjective describes the same group of being or thing that is not previously mentioned and so means “other” or “rest of.” Thus, it is used to describe Roman Gentile believers that Apostle had not ministered as other Gentile believer, as in Romans 1:13:
I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
It is in the same sense that the apostle used the adjective to describe believers who were Jewish that got sucked into hypocrisy that Barnabas got involved in, according to Galatians 2:13:
The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
The adjective translated “rest of” is used by Apostle Paul to describe workers in the ministry of preaching of the gospel with him in Philippians 4:3:
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
The adjective is used by Apostle Peter to describe the Scriptures that did not include the ones written by Apostle Paul in 2 Peter 3:16:
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
When our Greek word is used with a noun where a Greek article “the” is used so we have the expression “the rest” or “the other,” it refers to a subgroup within a main group. We can substantiate this assertion using several examples from the Scripture. During the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the phrase is used to refer to a subgroup of those standing by to watch the crucifixion that mocked Him, as stated in Matthew 27:49:
The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”
The phrase is used to describe a subgroup of passengers in the ship that was taking Apostle Paul to Rome to stand trial that could not swim as we read in Acts 27:44:
The rest were to get there on planks or on pieces of the ship. In this way everyone reached land in safety.
The same phrase is used to describe members of a congregation that were not being rebuked for their sins in 1 Timothy 5:20:
Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
Hence, it should be clear that the phrase “to the rest” or “to the other” refers to a subgroup of the main group. This being the case, when the apostle used the phrase to the rest in 1 Corinthians 7:12, he was referring to a subgroup of the major group of the married that he mentioned in verse 10. The only way the phrase to the rest can make sense is if we recognize that verse 12 refers to a subgroup of married that is somewhat different from the ones mentioned in verse 10. The context demands that we recognize the married in verse 12 to be a reference to those who are involved in a mixed marriage that was not originally the case. By this we mean that both were originally unbelievers when they got married but one of the spouses got converted while the other was not. Of course, it is possible that a believer married an unbeliever before knowing that a believer should not marry an unbeliever but that is very unlikely since believers formed a community that separated them from unbelievers at that time. Regardless of whether both were unbelievers when they got married or one was a believer and the other was not at the time of marriage, the result is the same in that such situation created a mixed marriage of believers and unbelievers. Anyway, the point we want to stress is that the apostle was concerned with two different situations of marriage relationship in Corinth, believers married to each other, and believers married to unbelievers.
We should recognize that the situation that existed in Corinth still exists today in our local churches although some of us may not want to admit it. I am saying that there are some couples who are both believers and some in which one of the spouses is an unbeliever. This creates the same kind of problem or dilemma for present day Christians as it did for the Corinthians. Thus, the instruction of the Holy Spirit through the apostle to the Corinthians is certainly applicable to the global church of Christ. Of course, we must caution those who are single at this time in the local church that it is not permitted for a believer to marry an unbeliever. The situation we are concerned involves the case where both were unbelievers at the time of marriage, but afterwards, one got saved and not the other. Or, as we have said, it is possible, although not likely, that a believer in ignorance of the truth that a believer should only marry a fellow believer married an unbeliever. We admit this possibility although considering the social communities of the ancient world that it is unlikely that an unbeliever at that time would be admitted to the community of believers in Corinth so to make such marriage possible. Nevertheless, the reason we considered the possibility that a believer in ignorance might have married an unbeliever is that it is likely that the Corinthians might have not known this truth prior to the apostle’s first letter to them that we do not have a copy where the apostle taught them of not associating with unbelievers. Furthermore, it is possible that it is because of such thing that the apostle repeated or insisted that a believing widow must marry a fellow believer, as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:39:
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.
The second question of whether there is a difference between the word “separate” in verse 10 and the word “divorce” in verse 11 is best answered by considering the Greek words used. The word “separate” in the instruction of verse 11 A wife must not separate from her husband is translated from a Greek word (chōrizō) that may mean “to separate” that has the sense of “to divorce” since that is the sense of the word when the rabbis wanted Jesus to take sides with the ongoing debate between two schools of thought, the stricter school of Shammai and more liberal school of Hillel, about the grounds for divorce, as recorded in Matthew 19:6:
So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
The word means “to separate” in the sense of removing a believer from the care and protection of Christ, conceived in terms of His love in Romans 8:35:
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?
The word means “to separate” in the sense of being apart from someone for a little while as it is used by Apostle Paul to describe the separation that occurred as it relates to Philemon and his slave Onesimus in Philemon 15:
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good—
The word may mean “to set apart” as it is used to describe not only the exaltation of Jesus Christ to heaven, something no Levitical priest ever enjoyed, but also his being separate from humans because of his sinlessness, as we read in Hebrews 7:26:
Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
The word may mean “to leave” a geographical location or a person as it is used to describe the order issued in Rome regarding the Jews vacating from Rome in Acts 18:2:
There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them,
In our context of 1 Corinthians 7:10, the word means “to separate” or “to part ways” hence the sense here “to divorce” as that is the meaning that is supported by the context. By the way, scholars tell us that the meaning of “to divorce” is applied to our Greek word in papyri documents that are concerned with marriage contracts.
The word “divorce” in the instruction of verse 11 And a husband must not divorce his wife is translated from a Greek word (aphiēmi) that may mean “to cancel” a debt as it is used in the parable of the Lord Jesus regarding the unfaithful servant in Matthew 18:32:
“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.
The word may mean “to forgive” as it is used in the prayer of the Lord Jesus on the cross regarding those who crucified Him as narrated in Luke 23:34:
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
The word may mean “to leave” in the sense of abandoning a person as the word is used to describe what the Lord Jesus said to His disciples regarding how they would desert Him when He is arrested, as recorded in John 16:32:
“But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.
The word may mean “to abandon” as it is used to describe those who have unnatural practices in sexual relationship in Romans 1:27:
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The word may mean “to divorce,” that is, to send away, as it is used only in the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians that we are considering. So, divorce involves a husband sending away a wife and so no longer cares about the wife.
Consideration of the Greek words translated “separate” in 1 Corinthians 7:10 and “divorce” in verse 11 reveals there is no significant difference between them so that both words refer to the same concept of sending away or leaving a spouse as part of dissolution of marriage. According to the authorities, the most we can say is that when the apostle used the word “separate” he was referring to a legal divorce in the Greco-Roman world that is described as “divorce by separation.” The situation being that when an owner of a house dissolves the marriage, the man or woman that does not own the house separates from the owner while the one who has the property sends away the one who does not. In other words, on the one hand, when addressing the wife, the apostle used the word “separate” because the wife would leave the house in case of divorce so that she is the one that separates from the man. On the other hand, when addressing the husband, the apostle used the word that means “to send away” when divorce occurs since he would be the one that sends the wife away from his house. The result is the same, marriage is dissolved legally. Hence, we should not think of the modern separation of husbands and wives as the same thing as what we have in our passage. Separation in modern term usually refers to a situation where those involved get away from each other either to reflect on their lives with result of either returning to their spouses or it may result finally in divorce but in the ancient world separation is in and of itself a divorce.
The message of this passage to us, as we have stated, is believers should do everything possible to avoid divorce. This message is derived from the instruction of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul who was responsible for communicating it to the Corinthians and so to all believers. This is because verse 10 begins with the sentence To the married I give this command. The Greek does not contain the demonstrative pronoun this found in the NIV since the sentence I give this command is literally I give orders, or I command. The apostle in saying that he commands or gives orders to the Corinthians recognized that as an apostle of Jesus Christ, he had the authority to speak for Him. In fact, he realized that when he wrote his epistles, he was under the directive of the Holy Spirit so that his epistles are part of the Scripture as we noted in the passage where Peter referred to his epistles as part of our Scripture. Hence, the apostle was aware of his authority to write down information that he receives from God the Holy Spirit to pass to the church of Christ. The Corinthians certainly recognized that he had the authority to speak for the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the church. For, if that was not the case, they would not have written a letter with questions they wanted him to address by providing them the answers that are from God the Holy Spirit.
We contend that the apostle knew he had the authority to speak for the Lord Jesus Christ to the church in Corinthian. However, what the apostle stated next may cause some individuals to wonder why he stated what he did when he wrote in the next phrase of 1 Corinthians 7:10 not I, but the Lord. The phrase raises the question of whether everything the apostle had written up to this point is not from the Lord. Of course, as we have indicated, what he wrote in his epistles are inspired so that his epistles are part of the Scripture. If this is the case, how should we explain what the apostle meant in the phrase not I, but the Lord. To begin with, the apostle was emphatic in this phrase. This is because the word “not” is translated from a very strong Greek negative (ou) that here has the sense of absolute assertion or denial. In other words, the apostle denies absolutely that he was the source of the command he was about to state. Anyway, when the apostle wrote but the Lord that is his way of stating that he was quoting what the Lord, that is, Jesus Christ, had already commanded. You see, it is possible for someone to charge the apostle of plagiarism, so he was warding off such a charge by stating that he was merely quoting the Lord, the source of the instruction he issued. So, the apostle meant that what he was about to state was already given by the Lord Jesus while on this planet unlike most of the things he wrote in his epistles that were given to him directly by the Holy Spirit. The command he was about to state is the case of the Holy Spirit leading the apostles to remember what the Lord had taught as the Lord indicated would be a function of the Holy Spirit when He comes, as recorded in John 14:26:
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
It is true the apostle was not one of original disciples of Jesus Christ, but we are certain that he had learned about the teaching of the Lord from the other apostles. This should not surprise us since Luke who wrote the gospel by that name was his constant companion. Therefore, as Luke researched and learned about the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, we can be sure that Apostle Paul also learned about the same subject from those who were eyewitness to Christ’s earthly ministry. Because of this, we assert that what the apostle wrote in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 7:10 not I, but the Lord is a case where the Holy Spirit brought to the apostle’s mind what the Lord Jesus taught that he was about to restate. The point is that the phrase we are considering is tantamount to a formula of quotation from what Jesus already taught so the apostle could not be charged of plagiarism although such a charge is not appropriate since he was called by Jesus Christ to represent Him as His apostle. The quotation involved here is not the usual quotation where words are given verbatim. No! The quotation here is that in which the apostle elaborated on the essence or concept regarding what Jesus initially taught on divorce.
The command of the Lord that the apostle elaborated is the core message of our passage which is that believers should do everything possible to avoid divorce. This core message is derived from the instruction given to the wife and repeated to the husband. The instruction to the wife is given in 1 Corinthians 7:10 A wife must not separate from her husband. The instruction is amplified by its repetition to the husband in the clause of 1 Corinthians 7:11 And a husband must not divorce his wife. There are two observations we should make regarding the instruction issued to both husband and the wife. A first observation is that the instruction implies that either the wife or the husband could initiate divorce. This means that divorce never takes place until one of those who are married initiates it. Thus, the message that believers should do everything possible to avoid divorce puts a burden on the husband and the wife. This burden is to try to do everything to prevent divorce. One reason divorce is so common today is that many believers have not recognized that divorce is something that God hates, as recorded in Malachi 2:16:
“I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
Too many married couples dangle the prospect of divorce before each other. This certainly creates the environment where couples do not work hard to maintain the right spiritual relationship with the Lord. For if both husband and wife worked hard to have the right relationship with the Lord then they would have right relationship with each other. I want you to realize that I did not begin by saying that each should work hard to maintain the right relationship with each other. Instead, I said that they should work hard to maintain the right relationship with the Lord. This is because if both husband and wife have the right relationship with the Lord then they would solve whatever problem they have with each other in a manner that is honoring to the Lord. I realize that some husbands and wives focus too much on pleasing each other to the point that their spouses could become idols they worship instead of the Lord. The right approach in marriage relationship is first to focus on the Lord to please Him. When this happens, a result of having right relationship with the Lord is that of right kind of relationship with a spouse. For example, it is impossible for a believing husband to truly love the wife or a believing wife to submit to her husband without the filling of the Spirit. Your spouse has faults as you do although in your arrogance you only see the other person’s fault but not yours. However, if both the husband and wife are those who remain controlled by the Holy Spirit then they would know how to love each other which implies that they would be forgiving of each other as demanded by the Lord, as the Holy Spirit states through the pen of Apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:32:
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
The point I am stressing is that if couples have the right relationship with the Lord where both are continuously seeking to please the Lord that they would not entertain the thought of divorce. I guarantee you, on the authority of God’s word, that it is impossible for a husband and a wife not to be at peace with each other if they please the Lord. Any time there is lack of peace or harmony between the husband and the wife then the spiritual explanation is that both have failed to please the Lord. I know that a husband could say it is my wife’s fault and the wife could say the same but that does not change the fact that both have not pleased the Lord. I base my statement on a conclusion derived from the word of God. The Lord promised to keep us in peace even with our enemies as we may gather from Proverbs 16:7:
When a man’s ways are pleasing to the LORD, he makes even his enemies live at peace with him.
The clause When a man’s ways are pleasing to the LORD means that a person’s conduct is pleasing to the Lord. If your conduct is approved by God because you live according to truth and controlled by the Holy Spirit, then we are told the Lord would cause your enemies to live in peace with you. Is your spouse your enemy? Well, when you are angry with your spouse you may feel at that moment that your spouse is your enemy. Now, if we apply what we have in this passage in Proverbs to that situation, then according to this passage in Proverbs, if Lord does not cause your spouse to be at peace with you, it must be because you did not please Him. For, it is impossible for God’s word not to be fulfilled. Therefore, we are correct to state that if you are not at peace with your spouse you bear the blame as well. If you please the Lord by your conduct, you will probably satisfy your spouse unless, of course, she/he is an unbeliever that has no relationship with the Holy Spirit or that your spouse that is a believer is not under the control of the Holy Spirit. Hence, you can understand my assertion that anytime there is lack of peace between spouses, both are to be blamed. I could imagine what some of you are thinking now saying to yourself, he must be wrong. I am such a perfect wife or husband, but my spouse is terrible since such a person is not spiritual as I am. Let’s say that the wife thinks this way about the husband. She is spiritual but not the husband and so that is the reason there is lack of peace between them. My question to you is, have you pleased the Lord? In other words, have you lived in accordance with truth? If you did, can what is recorded in the Scripture about a wife who is married to an unbelieving husband be true of you? I am referring to 1 Peter 3:1:
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,
The instruction here is addressed to the wife who should through her good conduct that is pleasing to the Lord impact the unbelieving husband. In effect, I am asking you, the wife who thinks that the fault is all on your husband that there is no harmony between you, have you lived in such a way that your conduct is a witness to your husband? It is true that the wife is addressed here, the principle is also applicable to the husband. So, if you are a husband that says that it is your wife’s fault that there is no harmony between you and your spouse, have you conducted your life in such a way that it is a witness to your wife? The point I am laboring to emphasize is that when spouses have the right relationship with the Lord then they would have the right relationship between them. Anyway, our first observation of the command not to divorce each other is that either the husband or the wife could initiate divorce.
A second observation regarding the instruction issued to both husband and the wife about avoiding divorce is that it recognized the possibility of divorce being initiated by either spouse. This is because the word “not,” used in both the instruction of 1 Corinthians 7:10 A wife must not separate from her husband and in verse 11 And a husband must not divorce his wife, is translated from a Greek word (mē) that is a milder form of the negative in contrast to the one the apostle used in verse 10 to deny that what he commands is from him. The Greek word used in the two instructions is one that allows the possibility that what is instructed could happen. If the apostle had used the same Greek word translated “not” in the phrase of verse 10 not I, but the Lord then it would imply that prohibition of divorce is absolute. As it is, the Greek negative used in the instructions given to the husband and wife not only is intended to prevent what has not yet occurred, but it recognizes the possibility that divorce could take place. Such recognition would be facing reality of the fallen human nature that the believer still has. A believer who consistently lives according to the flesh would have the tendency towards divorce. Thus, the Holy Spirit was directing the apostle to use the Greek negative that we are concerned as a way to concur to the answer of Jesus Christ as to the reason divorce was permitted in the law, as narrated in Matthew 19:7–8:
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
The Lord’s answer is that the reason divorce was permitted was because of the stubbornness of people in that they were not living according to God’s word. Thus, the instruction of divorce that Moses stipulated was God’s way of accommodating the fallen human nature. It is similar to God’s accommodation of polygamy, which was not in His intention regarding marriage, but He included it as a way to accommodate human failures. This is the reason He could say to David that He gave him wives and would have been willing to give him some more rather than him committing adultery and murder, as we read in 2 Samuel 12:8–9:
8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.
Anyway, our second observation is that regarding the instruction issued to both husband and the wife about avoiding divorce is that it recognized the possibility of divorce being initiated by either spouse and so the instruction is given in such a way that does not make divorce impossible. In effect, the instruction does not absolutely prohibit divorce.
It is our assertion that Apostle Paul interpreted the Lord Jesus Christ as indicated first by the phrase of 1 Corinthians 7:10 not I, but the Lord. This phrase is followed by the instruction given to the wife in 1 Corinthians 7:10 A wife must not separate from her husband and that given to the husband in 1 Corinthians 7:11 And a husband must not divorce his wife. The phrase of 1 Corinthians 7:10 not I, but the Lord implies that the instruction given both to the wife and the husband comes from the Lord Jesus Christ and not the apostle. As we have interpreted the phrase previously, the apostle implies that he was quoting the Lord Jesus but not verbatim as we use the concept of quotation in our modern day. If the apostle quoted the Lord verbatim, we would expect to find in the gospel exact instructions we have in verses 10 and 11. But that is not the case. We find two differing records of Jesus’ teaching about divorce. The first is given by Matthew in the passage we cited previously, that is, Matthew 19:9:
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
A differing record is given in Luke 16:18:
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
The difference in the two records is the exception of marital unfaithfulness given in Matthew as being a ground that allows for divorce and remarriage. The apostle interpreted the teaching of the Lord Jesus in the instruction of 1 Corinthians 7:10 and that of 1 Corinthian 7:11 in a way that is similar to the record given in Luke because at he did not state any exception as we find in Matthew. Of course, we will deal with this issue later when we consider the question of divorce and remarriage but for the moment, we are only concerned to indicate that the apostle interpreted the instruction of the Lord Jesus since he did not quote Him verbatim. Jesus’ instruction was given in such a way that the husband was addressed. You see, at the time of Jesus’ ministry, the Jews had the view that a woman could not initiate a divorce but only the man. Therefore, Jesus addressed His instruction to the man who at that time was one that initiated divorce. However, when Apostle Paul interpreted the Lord Jesus, he conveyed the sense that a woman could initiate divorce because he first addressed her in 1 Corinthians 7:10 A wife must not separate from her husband. This instruction as we have indicated assumes that a woman could initiate divorce so that she separates from the husband and leaves him in his house leading to the concept of “divorce by separation.” The fact that the apostle addressed the wife that Jesus did not, implies that he did not quote the Lord verbatim, but he took the essence of what Jesus taught under Jewish concept and interpreted it in the context of Greco-Roman world. It is for this reason, as we have been stating, that the apostle applied our Lord’s teaching to believers in Greco-Roman world as he recognized the fact that in Greco-Roman world it was not only the man who could initiate a divorce but also the wife. Anyway, the instruction given to the wife and the husband that we have considered supports the message of the section of 1 Corinthians that we are dealing, which is that believers should do everything possible to avoid divorce.
We have indicated that the instruction of the apostle that interpreted Jesus’ teaching on divorce forbids divorce although not absolutely. This interpretation is further supported by what the apostle wrote next that conveys that divorce is possible although with a reduced probability. It is this possibility of a divorce initiated by a wife occurring that is given in the conditional clause of 1 Corinthians 7:11 But if she does. The translators of the NIV felt that it was redundant to use the word “separate” again in the clause since the literal Greek reads But even if she is separated. The literal translation indicates that the clause admits the possibility of a wife separating from her husband in the sense of divorce. You see, the word “if” is translated from a Greek conjunction (ean) that in our verse is used as a marker of condition in which the probability of the action associated with it has been reduced and so means “if.” The implication of the use of the word “if” here is that divorce is something that would rarely occur among believers. This again supports our statement that divorce among believers is due to failure in spiritual lives of the spouses. Anyway, the fact the Holy Spirit through the apostle states what we have, indicates that divorce while it should be unlikely among believers does occur.
Be that as it may, the apostle interpreted what the Lord Jesus said about restricting remarriage with two choices that he gave to the wife that equally apply to the husband in the case of two married believers. We say that the choices equally apply to the believing husband because the choices given to the wife were not repeated after a husband was instructed not to divorce the wife. The implication is that what is said to a wife who divorces the husband is also applicable to a husband that divorces the wife. That aside, a first choice is that the wife should remain single as in the instruction of 1 Corinthians 7:11 she must remain unmarried, that is, she must remain single. You see, because Christians in our day are not careful with God’s word, they are quick to divorce. However, if those involved pondered on the prospect of remaining single and find it difficult, they would work harder to avoid divorce in the first place. A second choice is to be reconciled to the spouse as in the instruction of 1 Corinthians 7:11 or else be reconciled to her husband. The word “reconciled” is translated from a Greek word (katallassō) that means “to reconcile”, that is, to exchange hostility for a friendly relationship. Of the six occurrences of the Greek word in the NT, in five of its occurrences, it is used of God’s action of reconciling us to Himself, as we read, for example, in 2 Corinthians 5:18:
All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
It is used once of humans in 1 Corinthians 7:11 in the sense of being restored to a favorable or friendly relationship after alienation due to a perceived wrong done to a person. The Greek used a passive voice implying that it is not the wife that actually carries out the reconciliation but that she is the recipient of the reconciliation. The situation then is that when there is a divorce of two believers, another believer should try to reconcile the husband and wife. There is a sense that what we have said involves the restoration ministry assigned to believers in Galatians 6:1:
Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.
Someone may say that the restoration ministry mentioned here involves sin. If so, what is sin? Is it not failure to obey God’s instruction? When there is divorce sin must have been committed otherwise, there would be no divorce. Thus, believers who know that a divorce had taken place should do their best to try to mediate or restore the broken marriage relationship. In our time, where divorce drags out for a long time, it is during the process of the divorce that believers should intervene. We are, of course, mindful that that may not always work in that either one or both do not want to be reconciled to each other but that does not keep believers from trying to mediate between a husband and wife that divorced each other. The attempt to reconcile a divorced husband and wife should occur before any of them remarries. Once any of them remarries that becomes too late as per the instruction in Deuteronomy 24:2–4:
2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
In any event, the choices of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul interpret the teaching of the Lord Jesus that indicates divorce is not desirable or that gives no provision for remarriage as stated in a passage we cited previously, that is, Luke 16:18:
“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Again, we will deal with the possibility of remarriage later but for now let me end by reminding you of the message we are expounding which is that believers should do everything possible to avoid divorce.
03/27/20