Hans Heinz
In his first epistle to the Corinthians the apostle Paul discusses, among other issues, questions that had been posed to him by the Christians in Corinth: “Now I want to deal with the things you wrote me about” (1 Cor 7:1, NIRV).1 These subjects dealt with problems concerning marriage (1 Cor 7), offerings to idols (1 Cor 8:1), spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:1), and with questions connected to the collection for the church members in Judea (1 Cor 16:1; Acts 11:29).
The questions within the context of marriage are primarily referring to the following subjects: marital sexuality (1 Cor 7:2–6), the unmarried state (1 Cor 7:1, 8, 25–40), insolubility of the Christian marriage (1 Cor 7:10, 11, 39), and the problem of pagan-Christian intermarriages (1 Cor 7:12–16).
In the course of his comments Paul is holding the middle ground between the libertines who took the view that fornication cannot harm the spiritual person (1 Cor 6:15–20), and the ascetics who considered marriage to be a sin (1 Cor 7:28). Paul takes a stand against these extremes in favor of marriage as a fundamental form of human existence (1 Cor 7:2–5) and develops his line of thought in three steps:
1. The legitimacy of marriage (1 Cor 7:1–9)
2. The spiritual gift of celibacy as a prerequisite to intentional singleness (1 Cor 7:7)
3. The basic insolubility of marriage (1 Cor 7:10, 11)
However, it needs to be pointed out that this is not everything Paul has to say about marriage. 1 Corinthians 7 must always be complemented by passages such as Colossians 3:18, 19 and Ephesians 5:22–33.
After referring to questions concerning Christian marriage (1 Cor 7:3–6), counseling the unmarried and widowed Christians (1 Cor 7:8, 9), and impressing upon them Christ’s commandment concerning marriages (1 Cor 7:10, 11), Paul turns his attention toward the “rest” (1 Cor 7:12). The “rest” (KJV; NIV) or “everyone else” (NIRV) are those who do not fall into the categories of the ones already mentioned in verses 8 and 10. That implies that in this case he is dealing with the ones living in mixed pagan-Christian marriages and facing the problem of continuance of marriage versus divorce (1 Cor 7:7–16). Obviously, this is pertaining to already existing marriages, in which one of the spouses has become a Christian and the other has remained pagan,2 and not referring to the question of whether a Christian determined to get married should seal the marriage covenant with a pagan partner. In a situation resulting from the conversion of one spouse only, Paul considers the continuation of marriage to be a basic principle as well (1 Cor 7:12, 13). This is amazing considering the amount of energy the apostolic church was investing in distinguishing itself from surrounding paganism. In any case, the Christian partner should never be the one to take the initiative for a divorce on account of religious disparity (1 Cor 7:12b, 13b: the Christian husband should not divorce his unbelieving wife, and the Christian wife should not divorce her unbelieving husband).3 But if the non-Christian partner separates, the Christian spouse is not enslaved in these cases (1 Cor 7:15).4 According to the prevalent situation in Corinth the nonbeliever (apistos) is without doubt the “spouse who remained pagan,”5 the “baptism denier,”6 the “opponent of Christ.”7 We need to consider in this context the wide spectrum of the ancient intellectual world, which included fetishists, polytheists, monotheists, atheists, and pantheists. The “unbeliever” therefore actually means the “one who is of another religion.”8
Even though in this newly emerging situation, resulting from the evangelistic activities of the apostolic church, Paul could not refer to an explicit instruction of Christ, he does not merely reflect his “subjective, personal opinion,”9 but expounds Jesus’ statements in this new situation. According to Findlay, the term “I speak” (legō) in 1 Corinthians 7:12 corresponds with “the Lord commands” in verse 10 (parangellō, cf. Rom 12:3; 1 Cor 14:37).10 For that reason the “opinion” or “judgment” (gnōmē) Paul expresses here (1 Cor 7:25) is to be regarded as normative and authoritative.11
Thus, as a principle, a religiously mixed marriage is a true marriage in which there should be no divorce, if the partner with another religion wishes to continue the marriage. In this passage (1 Cor 7:10–15) the apostle uses two different Greek verbs for divorce: aphiēmi (“to release,” “to set free”: 1 Cor 7:11b, 12, 13) and chōrizō (“to separate,” “to divorce”: 1 Cor 7:10, 11, 15).
As a juridical term, aphiēmi was the expression used among the Greeks for the discharge of a person from a legal relationship such as an office, a marriage, an imprisonment, or a sentence.12 In the case of the release from a marriage the word can be translated as “divorce” (ESV; NIV), but also as “put away” (KJV). Chōrizō (to separate) was, similar to aphiēmi, also used for the divorce of marriage in a legal sense.13
Did Paul, by using different terms—“to separate” for the wife (1 Cor 7:10, 11a) and “to put away” for the husband (v. 11b, 12b)—bear in mind the legal circumstance of Judaism, where the departure of a wife was not laid down in law and only the husband could get a divorce by sending the wife away (Deut 24:1), as Schlatter suggests?14 It must be objected, however, that in Paul’s argument the wife can also divorce the husband (1 Cor 7:13b). This corresponds with the principles in the Hellenistic cultural sphere, where, according to Greco-Roman law, a divorce could be initiated either by the husband or the wife.15 With this legal equality of man and woman Paul very clearly advocated the “equal status of the marriage partners.”16
Basically one objective emerges from the denial to allow for “separation” and “putting away” by both spouses. The refusal to grant to both spouses the option of separation/putting away has essentially one goal: divorce is to be ruled out in the case of a Christian marriage as well as in the case of a mixed marriage. Should it nevertheless occur or have occurred in a Christian marriage,17 then both Christian partners are obligated to seek reconciliation or stay unmarried (1 Cor 7:10, 11). In the case of a mixed marriage the obligation to continue the marriage is in any case binding for the Christian party as long as the nonbeliever is willing to continue the marriage despite the differences in religion (1 Cor 7:12, 13).
For Paul, an essential motive for the continuation of the religiously mixed marriage is the sanctification of the nonbeliever through the Christian partner (1 Cor 7:14). The one who is faithful in Christ (Eph 1:1) and has been baptized (Eph 1:13) is the “saint” (1 Cor 1:2)—the one who has heard God’s call (Rom 1:7) and calls upon Christ as his Lord. The saint belongs to God, because God has sanctified him/her. In other words, He has transferred him/ her into a new existence, into the communion with Christ. Empowered by Christ, the saint is the stronger partner when it comes to coexisting with the world.18 Therefore it is God’s intention that, through communion with the Christian partner, the nonbeliever will be drawn into the “realm of Christ’s reign.”19 The “life according to the Spirit” is supposed to “radiate”20 toward the other person and encompass him/her with the sphere of blessing.21
Therefore, the way the nonbeliever is sanctified should not be interpreted as and thus distorted to being something material (by contact with the ritually pure), magical (by transmission of substantive power), or even sensual (by sexual contact), because God’s grace is not material.22 Also, to read something magical into Paul’s writings is foolish.23 And to confine the marriage relationship to the sensual is reductionist. The power of divine grace knows neither material things nor actions that achieve holiness through themselves.24 The infiltration of the holy does not occur through transmission, but through practical day-to-day life, through community, through the protected space in which the nonbeliever is allowed to move about.25 This is not making the case for an obtrusive, aggressive interference, which would only give rise to new problems,26 but the New Testament emphasizes the Christian’s credible testimony through his/her living example (1 Pet 3:1).
As a result the nonbeliever is indeed sanctified, but not yet redeemed. Communion with the believer is not a substitute for a personal decision based on one’s faith.27 The partner with another religious belief is not “almost” a Christian;28 for the time being he/she remains a nonbeliever. Through his/her believing spouse he/she has been placed into the sphere of fellowship with God in order to have this fellowship with God also imparted to him/her, if he/she experiences conversion.29
Regarding the holiness of the children, Paul builds his reasoning on a conviction that he obviously could take for granted among Corinthian church members: children of Christian parents or of one Christian parent are not “unclean” but “holy” (1 Cor 7:14b). In other words, they are not part of the immoral world they have been born into (2 Cor 6:17; Eph 5:5) but are lifted above this world through the sanctifying influence of their parent(s). Through their parent(s) they belong to the sphere of the church in which they are included.
Thus the apostle is placing the children and the nonbelieving spouse on the same level. Both are standing under a sanctifying influence and are called to become Christians through a future decision for baptism. The situation can be compared with unbelieving Israel: they are still sanctified through their affinity with the patriarchs, but are in no way on that account released from a decision for Christ based on personal faith (Rom 11:16, 23, 28). Likewise spouses and children are potential but not factual Christians yet. It actually makes no difference in this case whether Paul, when referring to “your children,” is thinking of all children in the church30 or rather, in this context, of the children from mixed marriages.31
The argument, however, is conclusive only “if the practice of baptizing children did not exist yet at that time.”32 The assertion that the children were holy because they had received baptism has justly been characterized as “one of the curiosities of the use of scripture in the church.”33 They are holy not because they have been baptized, but because they are the offspring of Christians.34 This is also true if only one parent is Christian and the other rejects Christianity for himself and for the rest of the family. For a potential baptism of either the spouse or the child, individual faith was the undisputed conditio sine qua non, the essential condition, in apostolic times.35 If, therefore, children were baptized, it never concerned infants or toddlers, but older children who were aware of their need for redemption (1 Pet 3:21b).36
While in 1 Corinthians 7:12–14 Paul’s counsel was based on the condition that the non-Christian partner would wish to continue the marriage, in verse 15 the apostle proceeds to the converse case: if the pagan husband or wife wishes to be divorced, the Christian partner should not insist on continuing the marriage at any cost. In this case he/she is no longer “bound”37 to the marriage38 or to the word of the Lord.39 Forcing the continuation of the marriage if the unbeliever wants a divorce would certainly be a cause for continuous strife, while God on the other hand wishes for a couple to live in peace with each other (1 Cor 7:15b). Not even the good intention of wishing to win the other one for Christ justifies the continuation of the marriage, because no one can know if he/she will ever be able to accomplish this goal (1 Cor 7:16). There is no such thing as substitutional faith in the New Testament.40
There are diverse assessments in newer interpretations of the question of whether the Christian partner, who has been left for the sake of his faith, is then allowed to seek a new marriage. Schlatter holds the opinion that the question cannot be decided.41 For others like Findlay and Fee the problem is not addressed in this passage.42 Lamparter references the Christian marriage (1 Cor 7:11) and therefore argues that the possibility of a new marriage can “hardly be assumed.”43 Sometimes the denial is justified with the Cynic-stoical view frequently accepted in Hellenism that a religiously mixed marriage is undissolvable.44
The reasoning of Conzelmann, Fascher, and Morris is quite different.45 Should the pagan party decide to get a divorce, the one abandoned for the sake of his/her faith is then free to enter into a new marriage. If Paul had only considered a separation, it would not have been necessary for him to deal with this case separately; it would have already been solved in terms of 1 Cor 7:10, 11.46 It would be most peculiar, according to Morris, if Paul, when using the expression “not being bound,” was only referring to being unmarried and not thinking of the possibility of remarriage.47 The fact of being divorced (1 Cor 7:15) is therefore parallel to widowhood.48 A widow, however, is allowed to remarry (1 Cor 7:39). Indeed parallels can be seen between the verbs douloō (1 Cor 7:15, “to bind slavishly”) and deō (1 Cor 7:39, “to bind”) on the one hand, and the statements “not bound” (1 Cor 7:15) and “free” (1 Cor 7:39, eleutheros) on the other hand. Therefore the case of a partner divorced for the sake of his faith was obviously to be regarded the same way as the case of a person left behind through the death of his/her spouse, thus making a new marriage possible for the Christian partner.
This point of view was and is shared by the large churches and some of the smaller denominations. The Evangelical Lutheran Church, for example, adheres to Luther’s principle: “the one who is innocent can change his status.”49 In case of a desertio malitiosa, a malicious abandonment, the innocent part is allowed to divorce and remarry. The Anglican Church very strongly emphasizes the spouses’ unconditional lifelong commitment to mutual faithfulness and judges divorce and remarriage as “exceptional acts” that have to be resolved with “great honesty and circumspection.”50 Within the Roman Catholic Church the Privilegium Paulinum, as this passage is called, is applied: according to the Codex Iuris Canonici (Can. 1143–1147), marriages with non-Catholics can be dissolved by the Church for the benefit of faith—in other words, for the benefit of the Catholic party—when unsolvable difficulties for the religious life arise. In such a case the Catholic believer has the right to remarry. Likewise within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a possibility to divorce and remarry may be conceded for the innocent party, not only in the case of serious sexual offences like adultery and fornication (sexual perversions), but also in the case of an unbelieving spouse leaving the marriage relationship.51
Paul’s counsel still applies to the current mission context, either in non-Christian countries or with non-Christians in Christian regions, when one spouse makes a decision for Christ by getting baptized while the partner wants to remain a non-Christian (religiously mixed marriage).
But can the instruction of the apostle also be applied to a mixed marriage with different Christian denominations? It seems that Ellen G. White had 1 Corinthians 7 in mind when in 1888 she required a Christian husband to continue the marriage with an “unbeliever” and “opponent”— obviously a nominal Christian, an apostatized Christian, or non-Adventist—as long as she was willing to maintain the marriage.52 She gave similar advice to believing wives who were bound to unbelievers. In such cases the believing partner has the duty to be a “daily home missionary” in love and kindness toward the children and spouse.53 On exegetical and historical grounds, set out above, it is not possible to deny the Christian-Adventist partner a future remarriage if the unbeliever divorces and thereby clearly refuses to continue the marriage.
__________
1 Various Bible translations have been used throughout the paper. The translation used will be noted after quotations of Scripture.
2 See Adolf Schlatter, Paulus: Der Bote Jesu, 4th ed. (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1969), 222; Friedrich Lang, Die Briefe an die Korinther, Das Neue Testament Deutsch 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 93; Hans Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das NT 5, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 153; Helmut Merklein, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum NT 7.2 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2000), 118; Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 6 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald 1953–1957), 708–709. The fact that such mixed marriages existed shows that an individual decision based on one’s personal belief preceded baptism in apostolic times, and that women or even little children were not automatically included and baptized together with the head of the household.
3 The counsel to continue the marriage contrasts strongly with the libertinism that was practiced within the pagan world: all too often men loved their wives only for their physical charms, dismissing them in their old age; similarly some women hooked eight men within five years. This is deplored by Juvenal (Satires VI, 141–147, 224–230).
4 The Roman Catholic Church denotes this possibility as Privilegium Paulinum (Codex Iuris Canonici, 4th ed. [Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker, 1994], Can. 1143); that is, as an exception from the generally applicable prohibition of divorce.
5 Hans Lietzmann, An die Korinther I/II, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 9, 4th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949), 31 (translated).
6 Schlatter, 222 (translated).
7 Werner de Boor, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Wuppertaler Studienbibel, 2nd ed. (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1973), 125 (translated). The translation of apistos (unbelieving, incredulous) with “unfaithful” in the meaning of “adulterous” or “irreconcilable” ignores the historical situation referred to in this passage, because it deals with a matter of religious dissent (1 Cor 7:16) and not general incompatibility, lovelessness, or adultery.
8 Erich Fascher, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 7.1, 3rd ed. (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1975), 185 (translated).
9 Lang, 93 (translated).
10 George G. Findlay, St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, The Expositor’s Greek Testament 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 826: The distinction between the “commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor 7:10, 25) vs. the “speaking” (1 Cor 7:12) and “opinion/judgment” of the apostle (1 Cor 7:25, 40) shows that the apostolic church distinguished clearly between Jesus’ kerygma (proclamation) and the apostolic didachē (doctrine) and did not put any words into Jesus’ mouth (Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians, Tyndale NT Commentaries 7, 2nd ed. [Leicester: Eerdmans, 1985], 106).
11 See Heinz-Dietrich Wendland, Die Briefe an die Korinther, Das Neue Testament Deutsch 12, 5th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1948), 47; Conzelmann, 154; Findlay, 826.
12 See Rudolf Bultmann, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhald Kittel, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 509.
13 See Justin, 2; Apology 2.
14 See Schlatter, 222.
15 See Wendland, 41.
16 Lang, 93 (translated); see Fascher, 186.
17 The passive subjunctive aorist in verse 11a (ean de kai chōristhē, “but if she nevertheless has separated”) is atemporal. Thus the divorce can already have been implemented or be planned for the future. Jesus’ fundamental prohibition of divorce (Matt 19:6) is not affected by this because there are situations among sinful human beings—the apostle is addressing men and women (1 Cor 7:10a)—that cannot be overcome even “by affection and Christian forbearance” (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 6, 708). Nevertheless, even in such cases reconciliation should still be sought. The only alternative is staying unmarried. The divorced ones stay bound to each other until the death of one partner (1 Cor 7:39). The exemption for divorce and remarriage (Matt 19:9) is not mentioned here by Paul.
18 See Conzelmann, 155.
19 Lang, 93 (translated).
20 Ibid.
21 See De Boor, 127.
22 See Wendland, 42.
23 See Schlatter, 223.
24 See Wendland, 42.
25 See Merklein, 122; Philipp Bachmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 7 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1905), 278; Helmut Lamparter, Der erste Korintherbrief (Stuttgart: Kreuz-Verlag, 1955), 53.
26 See William F. Orr and James A. Walther, 1 Corinthians, The Anchor Bible 32 (New York: Doubleday, 1976), 213.
27 See Merklein, 121.
28 See De Boor, 127.
29 See Schlatter, 223.
30 bid.; Lang, 94.
31 See Conzelmann, 156; Lang, 94; Merklein, 121.
32 Wendland, 42 (translated); see Lang, 94.
33 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 301n27.
34 See Lietzmann, 31.
35 See Charles K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Harper’s NT Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 166. Therefore any analogy to the Jewish baptism of proselytes (baptism of the fetus as part of the mother or as infant along with the mother according to the Babylonian Talmud [Jevamot 78a]) has to be rejected.
36 The Greek noun eperōtēma means “appeal” or “request.” Therefore the latter part of 1 Peter 3:21 is translated “appeal to God for a good conscience” (ESV) or “pledge of a good/clear conscience towards God” (NIV/TNIV).
37 The Greek verb douloō means “to make a slave,” “to make subservient,” “to enslave,” “to oppress”; the perfect passive used here means “to be bound slavishly.”
38 See Lietzmann, 31.
39 See Conzelmann, 156.
40 See Lamparter, 53.
41 See Schlatter, 225.
42 See Findlay, 827; Fee, 302–303.
43 Lamparter, 54 (translated).
44 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 535.
45 See Conzelmann, 156; Fascher, 188; Morris, 107.
46 See J. Renié, Manuel d‘Ecriture Sainte, vol. 6, 3rd ed. (Lyon: Librairie catholique Emmanuel Vitte, 1948), 185–186.
47 Morris, 107.
48 Thiselton, 536.
49 Vom ehelichen Leben (1522), WA 10 II, 288 (translated).
50 Marriage: A Teaching Document from the House of Bishops (London: Church House, 1999), 18.
51 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, revised 2010, 18th ed. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald), 152.
52 Ellen G. White, Testimonies on Sexual Behavior, Adultery and Divorce (Silver Spring, MD: Ellen G. White Estate, 1989), 39.
53 White, 44–45.