FIVE HUSBANDS AND TWO MEN: Christian Divorce and Re-Marriage? (Part 13 of 18)

27. The Will of God or the Will of the Parties?

Since no one can force anyone to stay in a marriage, the willingness of both parties is crucial to the outcomes between a husband and his wife. According to Paul in our passage, the decision to leave or remain in a marriage is less about ‘the will of God’ and more about the will of the man and the woman. They can continue to stay IF he is “willing to stay” and IF she is “willing to stay” (1 Corinthians 7:12-13, Contemporary English Version). In other words, it is a matter of mutual choice rather than of force. When their wills no longer align, particularly due to a ‘new state’ or a new perspective on life, peace is already at risk. If tensions escalate to the point where one party insists on leaving, Paul’s clause is likely to come into play. While this might seem like a dismissive treatment of such a serious topic, it does not undermine the fundamental truth.

Paul says the union may continue “IF he be pleased to dwell with her,” and IF “she be pleased to dwell with him…” (v.12).  In other words, if both are “pleased.”  That something is right does not always mean that everyone would be “pleased” with it.  That somebody is not pleased with something does not mean that it is not right.  If one party is pleased to stay but the other is angry, difficult, violent, and insistent to leave, they may not be restrained except at a great cost to peace.  Every war has its casualties.

28. The Voice of Paul or the Voice of the Lord?

On the matter of divorce and remarriage, it is the opinion of some that when Paul said, “But to the rest speak I, not the Lord,” it was clear that he was giving carnal counsel, which should not be obeyed.  They suggest that by that ‘Introduction,’ Paul made it clear that he was taking a position opposed to that of the Lord; that it was his open confession that whatever he was about to say was not from God but from his senses, his flesh, his carnal perspective.  In other words, Paul was giving us a choice between obeying him and obeying God.

That is a very strange way to push that passage. It is odd that St Paul would know the Lord’s position on a matter but take a different stance, and still have the boldness to confess it.   Nothing else in the entire scripture aligns with such a subversive character in Paul the blessed apostle.  According to them, what Paul meant was, “Hello, ladies and gentlemen, whereas I know what the Lord says on this matter, I advise you to do the contrary.”  That is like saying that Paul in that passage was teaching us to be rebellious to the clear command of the Lord.

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away (1 Corinthians 7:12).

According to Adam Clarke’s Commentary, this is what Paul meant: “For what I have already spoken I have the testimony of the Lord by Moses, and of my own Lord and Master, Christ; but for the directions which I am now about to give there is no written testimony, and I deliver them now for the first time.”  That Commentary proceeds to say, “These words do not intimate that the apostle was not now under the influences of the Divine Spirit; but, that there was nothing in the sacred writings which bore directly on this point.”  Many Bible scholars agree with this interpretation.  Paul was offering principles of proper Christian conduct in “such cases” where there had been no express commandment from the Lord or from the Law.   The point is perhaps clearer in other Bible translations, as we shall shortly see:

Here I want to add some suggestions of my own. These are not direct commands from the Lord, but they seem right to me: If a Christian has a wife who is not a Christian, but she wants to stay with him anyway, he must not leave her or divorce her (1 Corinthians 7:12, The Living Bible).

There are exact Bible answers to certain matters, and applicable principles in other cases where a direct scripture is not available.  For example, what do I do when confronted with sin from a colleague in the office?  There is no scripture on what to do in an office, but looking at the story of Joseph and Mrs Potiphar, there is a principle I can apply: flee.  Even though that Bible story does not tell anyone to flee, the principle of fleeing is there.  If I should expect exact scriptures for every situation in life, then God must write a new Bible every day for each person.

Paul was saying that on the other subjects, there was either a clear word from Moses or from the Lord, but on the new situation, there was no direct statement.  However, he could apply a proper principle.  Jesus nowhere addressed the case where one partner chose to leave the marriage on the grounds of theology or a new faith.  It was a new case confronting Paul, and he provided an answer.

Paul made similar expressions elsewhere in the Bible, as in I Corinthians 7, on matters where there was no explicit prior commandment; for example, about virgins, where he said, “I have no commandment of the Lord.”  In other words, there was nothing previously said by the Lord that directly addressed the matter of virgins, “yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful” (1 Corinthians 7:25).  Paul was making it clear that he was speaking by no less anointing and inspiration on that matter than on others, and he was doing that by the very “mercy” of the Lord, as one who was “faithful” to the Lord, not a rebel against the Lord.

A few verses later, Paul provides another novel counsel on a new subject, and says, “and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.”  He had to sound that note as if he envisaged a generation where someone was going to suggest that his candid counsels were unreliable carnal words spoken out of his flesh.  He was making it clear that he was being guided by the Spirit of God in giving those instructions on matters not previously clearly addressed by the Old Testament scriptures or the teaching of the Lord (v.40).

When Paul was suggesting that someone might choose to be a celibate like himself, he made it clear that he was not enforcing a commandment but making a personal concession, which he was quick to amend with the admission that each one had his or her special places in God (1 Corinthians 7:6-7).  We would have less trouble if we read the Bible without preconceived biases.

6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. But God gives to some the gift of marriage, and to others the gift of singleness (1 Corinthians 7:6-7, New Living Translation).

If we should refuse Paul’s counsel on this matter of separation or divorce, because he said he was the speaker, ‘not the Lord,’ then we should discard all other scriptures where Paul does not say, “this is the Lord, not me.”  For example, he speaks about the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit.  He doesn’t say there that it was the Lord speaking through him.  Are we to believe him?  He speaks of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.  Was that Paul or the Lord?  He urges us to present our bodies as “a living sacrifice” to the Lord.  He does not say there that those were the words of the Lord.  Should we therefore decline that exhortation?  That is how ridiculous it could be to push that interpretation on the clarification that Paul sought to provide on his candid counsel on marriage.  Note what Paul says about persons who reject his counsel as carnal words, because it does not support their traditional creed: “Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 4:8, NKJV).

Paul’s apparent dilemma in 1 Corinthians 7 was not new.  We find a similar situation in Acts 15:28 when the apostles, not finding any direct word of the Master to apply to a present situation, but within the acceptable allowance of scriptures available to them, said, “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.”  In the case of Paul, it also seemed good to the Holy Ghost and the apostle.  Paul spoke not by available direct information but by revelation, by wisdom, by inspiration no less than in other places in his epistles.

Paul meant that on that matter, he was not quoting a commandment of Jesus or Moses but offering an inspired position.  Why?  In the Old Testament, the Jews were obliged to put away their heathen wives (Ezra 10:3), but Paul, respecting the sanctity of marriage where both partners were willing to stay, gave a New Testament Counsel, with a caveat, in case the other party refused the olive branch of peace.  Essentially, he was revising an Old Testament application for his New Testament congregation. There was no negotiation in the Old Testament cases of religious revival where the Israelites suddenly came to a new sense of God, with their heathen wives still in their homes.  The heathen wives had to go (Deuteronomy 7:2-3), but Paul said, Let the parties negotiate their stay, unless it is impossible to negotiate.

From The Preacher’s diary, 

July 20, 2021. 

• A link to the e-book version of these posts shall be provided in the last three ‘Parts’ of this series.