For modern readers, Paul’s comments on marriage and divorce seem outdated. After responding to several related issues reported by Chloe’s household, Paul moves on to questions from the Corinthians sent to Paul in a letter. Some of these questions relate to the reported problems. Paul begins with questions about marriage since the church asked about the topic, but Paul’s answer addresses the specific situation in the Corinthian church in chapters 5-6 is sexual ethics. Notice the final words of 1 Corinthians 6: “honor God with your body.” How does the Christian honor God with their body? Flee sexual immorality (6:18) and pursue healthy sexual relations within marriage (7:1-7).
The context for Paul’s comments on marriage and divorce is “this present crisis” (1 Cor 7:26). If this refers to persecution, then marriage would be less important since there is a real possibility of death. But the “crisis” might be frequent famines plaguing Corinth in the first century. If this is the case, even sex within a marriage may very well result in a child, “another mouth to feed” (Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 270). It is possible this explains why married couples refrained from sex while the men still visited the prostitutes (6:12-17).
Paul’s marital status is another factor which may have affected the situation. In 1 Corinthians 7:6 Paul says he remains unmarried to devote himself fully to his ministry. If 1 Corinthians 7:6 does, in fact, imply that Paul is unmarried, then perhaps at least some in the Corinthian church took his status as a model to imitate and took voluntary vows of celibacy even if they were already married. There are three marital statuses addressed in this chapter: Married to a believer, married to an unbeliever, and unmarried. An unmarried person might be a widow or a “not yet married person” (a virgin in verse 25).
One last point before looking at the details of the chapter. Paul is not writing a comprehensive “theology of marriage and divorce” in this chapter. Contemporary Christianity has defined marriage in far more detail than Paul does here, and most people have far more questions about what sorts of conditions might lead to divorce. We want to define infidelity more precisely or consider spousal abuse (whether physical or emotional). Paul never addressed the question, “Should I divorce my husband if he abuses the children?” Should I divorce my husband if he is a raging alcoholic or mentally unstable?” “Can I divorce my husband if he comes out of the closet and announces he is gay?” “Can I divorce my husband if he decides he is trans and begins to transition to a woman?” Can 1 Corinthians 7 even be used to answer such questions?
Many contemporary Christian readers approach this passage with the question, “Under what circumstances is divorce permissible today?” (Or better, is there any way I can get out of this rotten marriage and not go to hell?) Others are shocked at Paul’s patriarchal attitudes toward women in the passage, but Ben Witherington suggests most women in the Greco-Roman church of Corinth “surely would have welcomed Paul’s attempts to reform the patriarchal approach to marriage and singleness” (1-2 Corinthians, 177).
Paul’s point in writing the original letter was not to encourage divorce. Rather than “when can I get a divorce,” Paul offers a series of encouragements to the Corinthians to stay married. Paul’s thoughts on marriage are directed at the Corinthian situation, not ours. “Paul is not answering questions but questioning answers” (Garland, 1 Corinthians 252). Nevertheless, we can draw some principles about marriage and divorce from this passage and the rest of Scripture, which the Holy Spirit may use to guide our thinking about contemporary questions about marriage and divorce
What is Paul’s main concern in 1 Corinthians 7? How does he challenge views of marriage and divorce in the Greco-Roman world?
I found it interesting to see a more in depth understanding of what marriage and divorce meant in Paul’s time. He talks to the corinthians who are unmarried, married or a believer and unbeliever. And for Corinth, they seemed to be very quick to jump to the “worst” solution according to Paul. He was very much “stay in marriage, and work things out,” instead of “divorce them if your spouse gave you a weird look.” I think that was Paul’s main concern. He also stresses how divorce should never be an option if the person is an unbeliever. And the reason being said in verse 14 is that the believer makes the unbeliever holy.
We live in a society where divorce is okay, and with that- we often ask if divorce is a good solution if the relationship is beyond repair, it’s broken and shattered. I think while marriage is sacred, I think it is also good to care about the mental and physical health of the person. A first solution should always be marriage counseling, but if that doesn’t work and things continue to get worse, I think you’ll be okay if divorce was the final decision. I am also one to believe that if the divorce occurs, then it probably wasn’t real, true love. I think Paul does a good job of showing that divorce is not always the first option, and if the marriage is fixable, that should be the first step for healing (1 Corinthians 7:10).
“For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (v. 9). This has always been an interesting verse in my interpretation of Scripture. Dr. Long expressed an emphasis on how Paul is not writing to our contemporary ears, which, of course, is true. But this seems to be a blanket statement Paul is making, and if it is, how does this work today? I am hyper-focused on responding to one part of this blog, pertaining to this verse and the application of the whole chapter. Surely Paul does not think that anyone who struggles with self-control should get married; that would lead to a slew of problems. This whole passage raises questions in my mind, getting down to verses 14–16, where Paul talks about couples where one partner is not in the faith, yet it says that the unbelieving partner is made holy by the believing partner. How does this work!
This is an example of how important it is to know how to read the Bible. Dr. Long’s post did a great job at noting how we, in our contemporary minds, bring modern-day questions to a not-so-modern text and expect clear answers; this is unfortunately not the truth. “Paul is not writing a comprehensive ‘theology of marriage and divorce,’” says Dr. Long. I think this is true, and I think there are areas of Scripture where we get theology laid out for us, and other times, on a teaching like divorce, we have to draw on what the Bible says as a whole to construct our theological position. I think we can draw things from 1 Corinthians 7 to accept as doctrine for marriage and divorce. For example, in verse 17, Paul indirectly makes a broad claim about marriage but applies it to all the churches he has established. Nevertheless, I also think a lot of this chapter is contextual and deserves more time of study. To answer your final charge, marriage and divorce were very different in the Greco-Roman world. It was completely acceptable for a married man or woman to have sexual acts outside of marriage, especially with prostitutes. Paul, conversely, urges in verses 2–3 that one wife and one husband should give each other their conjugal rights. There are so many questions this text raises; one thought-provoking question I have is: in the case where a man converts to Christianity, but his wife despises the faith, is he to stay with her? Verse 13 would clearly say no, but two verses later Paul says if the unbelieving partner leaves, let it be so, for the brother is no longer δεδουλωται. So Paul encourages them not to separate, yet views a brother or sister with an unfaithful spouse as enslaved… would it not be better to divorce in this case, Paul?
Paul prepares to talk about marriage by first addressing the correct sexual ethics in 1 Cor 5-6. Then he transitions into chapter 7 by addressing “the matters about which you wrote” in verse 1. Clearly, there was an issue of self-control within 1st century Corinth. Married men and women were having affairs, men were off sleeping with prostitutes whenever they needed to release their sexual urges, some men were sleeping with their mothers (1 Cor 5:1).
I was reading through a book called, De Beneficiis (also known as On Benefits), written by Lucius Annaeus Seneca, who was a philosopher and also a political advisor to Emperor Nero (among many other titles) during the 1st century, making him a contemporary of the Apostle Paul. Seneca had this to say about women who held a position of elite status at the time: “Is any woman ashamed of being divorced, now that some noble ladies reckon the years of their lives, not by the number of the consuls, but by that of their husbands… Can any one feel ashamed of adultery, now that things have come to such a pass that no woman keeps a husband at all unless it be to pique her lover?”
In other words, what Seneca is saying here is that some women don’t measure their lives by what Roman consuls they appear on, rather they measure they lives on how many husbands they have, or in modern day terms, her body count. The reason I chose these words is because Seneca points out that women aren’t even ashamed to be sleeping around anymore because it is so normalized. And men had more freedom to get away with even worse acts than this! Clearly, there is an issue of and lack of self-control on one’s sexual urges.
That is why Paul prepares the Corinthian church with chapters 5-6 for his heavy message on how sex should function within a marriage. Right off the bat in verse 3 Paul says that a man and a woman should give to each other their conjugal rights. Furthermore, in verse 5, Paul mentions that if you need a break from sex for whatever reason, take a limited-time break and pray through it, but do not take a long break to the point where you deprive each other of sexual pleasure. We are hardwired and made for sex, and that is a good thing, but the people in Corinth were getting it wrong. And so, Paul redirects them on how to properly do it. It is between one man and one woman. The man’s body belongs to the woman, and the woman’s body belongs to the man’s body (1 Cor 7:3-4). And so, in a marriage, the man and the woman should seek to serve the other through sexual means, and Paul encourages that it happens often! Do not deprive eachother, because your body is no longer your own.
I found it interesting that you brought up the abuse argument as grounds for divorce. I am of the opinion that if your spouse is abusing you or your children it is best not to divorce. This sounds really harsh, but I am not saying someone who is abused needs to live with their abusive spouse. It is in these situations, that I think what is best is keeping yourself (and your kids safe) while also getting your spouse the help they need. We had a few situations like this come up in my church recently. We were concerned for the safety of a woman and her daughters at the hands of her husband, so my pastor’s family took them in. During this time, the husband was arrested. This solution helped keep the kids safe, and it allowed for him to get the help he needed. All that to say, I really do not think these arguments need to be had. I think it is very evident that divorce rates are too high in this country. I think they would be lower if men and women were committed to God and each other. Regardless of whether or not you believe divorce is permissible or not, I think everyone can admit that divorce rates are too high and it has honestly become normalized in the church. It is my opinion that if you divorce (while maybe not great if you are just giving up) it is better to divorce and then live a single lifestyle than to divorce and remarry. I really don’t think Paul is interested in arguing about specific instances either. I think Paul was pretty black and white in his thinking, and he wasn’t afraid to say things as they were.