Teaching of the apostle Paul
The apostle answered a number of inquiries from Christian believers concerning marriage in his first letter to the Corinthian Church. In particular Paul deals with two important questions. The first was––is divorce permitted? Paul writes:
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife (1 Corinthians 7:10–11).
Paul is teaching new believers and stresses that he is giving them a command from the Lord. And the command from the Lord is clear and emphatic––a wife must not separate from her husband. However, should circumstances arise which make separation inescapable, then the deserted wife has two options: either to be reconciled to her husband or to remain unmarried. Note that remarriage is not an option. It seems unlikely that Paul would have failed to mention the possibility of remarriage for the divorced woman, if he understood that the teaching of Christ allowed remarriage. But Paul does not do so. Instead, he reaffirms the teaching of no remarriage in the strongest possible way.
According to Andrew Cornes, Paul knew of the one exception that Christ allowed namely, divorce in a case of marital unfaithfulness. ‘Paul knows this and includes it in his quotation of Christ’s teaching. Christ taught not only that a woman should not divorce her husband and a man should not divorce his wife. He also taught that you may divorce for adultery. Moreover, that exception of Christ’s came in a setting where remarriage was being discussed. So Christ also taught (according to Paul here) that if (following Christ’s permission) you divorce for adultery, then you must remain single or be reconciled to your partner.
This is what Paul is doing: relaying Christ’s teaching about the right marital state after the one exception Christ allowed: divorce for adultery. The only difference is that Christ put it negatively (to remarry is to commit adultery) whereas Paul puts Christ’s teaching positively (after divorce, you must remain single or be reconciled).’26 FF Bruce adds the comment, ‘For a Christian husband or wife divorce is excluded by the law of Christ: here Paul has no need to express a judgement of his own, for the Lord’s ruling on the matter was explicit.’27
Paul then deals with the issue of the Christian married to a non-Christian. Can they divorce?
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. 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. 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. 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 (1 Corinthians 7:12–15).
The essence of Paul’s teaching is that a believing husband or wife must not divorce his or her unbelieving marriage partner. He mentions that the unbelieving partner and children have been sanctified through the marriage, indicating that their hope of salvation lies in the witness of the Christian parent. The children love both parents, believer and non-believer, and want their family to remain together. It is unthinkable that the Christian parent would do anything to destroy their family. Therefore the Christian should do all he or she can to preserve the marriage and pray for the conversion of the unbelieving partner which God frequently brings about.
In the situation where the unbelieving partner chooses to leave the marriage, despite the Christian spouse having done all they can to preserve it, the Christian should not resist, but allow the unbeliever to leave in peace. But there is no suggestion that the Christian who is left by an unbelieving partner is permitted to remarry. Should an unbelieving partner leave the family home, the Christian spouse should do all in their power to achieve reconciliation; remarriage, which destroys the hope of reconciliation, should not enter their mind.
The so-called Pauline privilege, which allows remarriage for desertion, is derived from the words ‘a believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances’. According to Stephen Clark in Putting Asunder (1999), evangelicals who believe that Jesus allows divorce and remarriage for sexual infidelity have long been divided over the question as to whether Paul allows another ground for divorce in this verse. ‘Some have argued that this verse allows divorce for desertion, while others have said that it teaches no such thing. Those who believe that it allows for divorce in cases of desertion differ amongst themselves as to the type of situation with which Paul is dealing.’28
The New Bible Commentary suggests that this verse probably allows divorce for desertion. ‘Separation in this case presumably means that the Christian is free to marry someone else––provided he or she is a Christian.’29 But this interpretation appears to be reading into these words what human nature wishes to find, for a perfectly valid interpretation is that a Christian is absolved from pursuing an unbelieving spouse, because ‘God has called us to live in peace’. To interpret the words as overriding the clear command from the Lord (that a separated wife must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) is perverse. Moreover, such an interpretation is out of sympathy with the instruction that ‘each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him’ (1 Corinthians 7:17). Paul’s final summing up leaves no doubt about his teaching regarding remarriage:
‘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’ (1 Corinthians 7:39).
Here Paul mentions the one and only situation in which a woman is permitted to remarry, and that is on the death of her husband; and this is because she is bound to her husband for life. If Paul was teaching that remarriage was permitted for desertion he would surely have said so––he could have written ‘but if her husband dies or leaves her’ but he did not do so. Like Jesus, Paul taught that marriage was indissoluble except by death.