STUDIES DIVORCE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Francis E. Gigot, D. D. As we saw in our last paper, I Cor. vii, 10, 11 states and enforces: as the command of "the Lord," the same absolute injunction against divorce as is ascribed to Christ in Mk. x, 2-12 and Lk. xvi, 18. Its plain and direct meaning is to the effect that neither husband nor wife is allowed to break the bond of holy matrimony, and therefore rules. out any and every cause that would justify remarriage after divorce. In it St. Paul placing husband and wife exactly on the same footing with regard to the marriage tie, supposes that a wife has actually separated herself in a permanent manner from her husband, and declares: that she may not lead a married life unless she goes back to the one who is still "the husband." Whence it is clear that according to the Apostle's mind, the marriage bond remains intact despite a permanent separation; and several Protestant scholars, truly unbiassed by dogmatic preoccupation, have of late expressly recognized that in this passage St. Paul proclaims in virtue of the Lord's command, the indissolubility of the marriage tie between two Christians. This interpretation of I Cor. vii, 10, 11 appears all the more unquestionable because it is the only one which tallies with the context, and with other passages in St. Paul's Epistles. It is the only one in harmony with those passages wherein the Apostle distinctly states that the marriage tie binds a wife until her husband's death, condemns her remarriage before that event as an adultery (Cf. I. vii, 2, 3; Rom. vii, 2, 3), and describes the marriage relation between a Christian husband and a Christian wife as making them "one flesh," as obliging them to strict and permanent duties for its preservation, and as binding them to a union which is a copy of the very union which exists between Christ and His Church (Eph. v, 22-33). It is also the only one in harmony with the context of I Cor. vii, 10, 11, for this context proves that in wording I Cor. vii, 10, 11, St. Paul represented as indissoluble the union of "the married" whom he had in view, simply because he applied to them the command of "the Lord." In examining this context in our preceding paper, we indeed assumed, rather than proved, the dissolubility of a marriage which, according to the Apostle's mind, did not fall under the law of Christ; but we then promised soon to discuss this point in detail, and it is to redeem our promise that we shall make in the present paper a close study of the "Pauline Privilege" set forth in I Cor. vii, 12-16. The following is a direct rendering of this important passage, from the original Greek: I Cor. vii. 12. But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother has a non-believing wife let him not dismiss her. 13. And if any wife has a non-believing husband let her not dismiss him. 14. For the non-believing husband is hallowed in the wife, else were your children unclean; but now they are holy. 15. But if the non-believing [consort] departs, let him depart. The brother or the sister is not enslaved in such [cases], 16. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save the husband? or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save the wife? In this passage, as in I Cor. vii, 10, 11, we can readily notice three several elements, the precise meaning of which it behooves us to determine accurately. The first consists in the short introductory phrase: "But to the rest say I, not the Lord," which sets forth St. Paul's exact purpose in writing the passage: the Apostle wishes to give to a class of the Corinthian faithful, directions of his own concerning their married state. The second element extends to the end of verse 14: I Cor. vii. 12b If any brother has a non-believing wife and she consents to dwell with him, let him not dismiss her. 13. And if any wife has a non-believing husband and he consents to dwell with her, let her not dismiss him. 14. For the non-believing husband is hallowed in the wife, It deals with the case of mixed marriages wherein the non-Christian partner is willing to remain in marriage relation with the Christian consort. It gives and justifies the Apostle's decision that, in such a case, the Christian should continue the marriage intercourse. In the third and last element of the passage-the last two verses-St. Paul treats of a precisely opposite kind of mixed marriages, viz.: that in which the non-Christian partner chooses to break off the marriagerelation with the Christian party. As in the foregoing element, theApostle gives and justifies the line of conduct which the Christian partner should follow: I Cor. vii. 15. But if the non-believing [consort] departs, let him depart. The brother or the sister is not enslaved in such [cases], but God has called us in peace. 16. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save the husband? or how knowest thou, O husband, Of these three elements, the first: "But to the rest say I, not the Lord," is of a special importance because of its manifest bearing on the whole passage. It points out, in the first place, the particular class of the Corinthian Christians to whom St. Paul intends to give the directions that follow: "But to the rest;" and next, the exact authority to which he refers these directions: "Say I, not the Lord." The expression: Toîs dè doɩñoîs “but to the rest," which he places atthe beginning of the sentence, recalls forcibly by its position and its construction the words which he has used at the beginning of the two preceding sections, in the first of which (verses 8, 9), he speaks of the non-married Corinthian Christians by means of the expression: Toîs ἀγάμοις καὶ ταῖς χήραις “to the unmarried and to the widows;” and in the second of which (verses 9, 10), he addresses the married Corinthians, both of whom were Christians, by means of the formula: τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν “but to the married:” I Cor. vii. 8a But I say to the unmarried and to the widows... 10a But to the married I command, not I, but the Lord... The striking parallelism which exists between the opening formula: "but to the rest," and the two preceding ones, is manifestly intentional on St. Paul's part. As he has employed the first two formulas to "oduce each time a distinct class of the Corinthian Christians to whom he wished to give appropriate directions with regard to the married state, so he now uses the third parallel formula to introduce another distinct class of the Corinthian faithful to whom he intends to impart special directions concerning the same state in life. The Christians whom he has now in view are those "brothers" and "sisters" of whom he speaks in the body of I Cor. vii, 12-16 as united in marriage to a "non-believing," that is, non-Christian, consort.' Such married Christians stand before his mind as clearly distinct from both the unmarried of whom he has treated in verses 8, 9, and "the married" (both of whom were Christians) to whom he has just given directions in verses 10, 11, for they are living in what may conveniently be called mixed marriage.' He therefore conceives of them as forming a special class by themselves, and this he denotes by the use of the adversative particle de "but to the rest." He no less clearly realizes that such a third class of Christians includes all the remainder of the faithful needing directions with regard to the married state, and in consequence, he rightly designates it by means of the expression Toîs λOLTOîs "the rest." A further study of the three opening expressions in I Cor. vii, 8, 10, 12: 8. to the unmarried and to the widows... 10. But to the unmarried... 12. But to the rest..., enables us to realize more definitely the extent to which, according to St. Paul's mind, Christians united to a non-Christian consort form a distinct class. As can readily be seen, the Apostle establishes the same distinction between Christians united to a non-Christian consort, and two married Christians, as between the latter and "the unmarried and the widows." As he has set forth the contrast which he has in view between the married (verse 10) and those not actually living in marriage (verse 8), by means of the expression: Toîs dè yeyaμŋkóσi γεγαμηκόσι 'As in this section (I Cor. vii, 12-16), St. Paul has not a single word of blame for the faithful united in marriage to a non-Christian partner, it is universally, and indeed rightly, admitted, that he is dealing here only with marriages contracted by two parties when as yet non-Christian, and transformed into, so to speak, mixed marriages by the subsequent conversion of either husband or wife to Christianity. Contrast with I Cor. vii, 12-16, the strong rebuke of Christians becoming yoked with unbelievers, which is found in II Cor. vi, 14 sqq. For the sake of convenience we will apply,throughout this paper, the term "mixed" to such marriages between a non-Christian and a Christian partner, although the term is now restricted in theology to designate marriages between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic. "but to the married," so immediately afterwards he sets forth the contrast which he admits between two married Christians on the one hand, and Christians married to a non-Christian partner, on the other, by means of an exactly parallel expression: Toîs dè λOLTOîs "but to the rest." It thus appears that on account of their actual condition in the married state, Christians united to a non-Christian consort are considered by the Apostle as forming a class no less apart from that of "the married" both of whom were Christians, than is the latter from the one which comprises "the unmarried and the widows." And this is an important conclusion inasmuch as it naturally leads us to admit that the directions which he intends to give to "the rest" of the Corinthian faithful, are viewed by him as essentially no less. different from those which he has just given to "the married," than the latter are from the directions already imparted to Christians not. actually living in the married state. That in taking this last position we are not ascribing to St. Paul a view of the matter that would be foreign to his mind, is proved by the fact that to the opening expression: "but to the rest," he subjoins at once the significant words: Aéyw yw'ovy óKúpios "Say I, not the λέγω ουχ ὁΚύριος Lord." Obviously, these additional words are intimately connected with the formulas: λέγω δὲ (“but I say”), and: παραγγελλω, οὐκ ¿yà ́åλλà ó Kúpιos ("I command, not I, but the Lord"), which the Apostle has used at the beginning of the two preceding sections, respectively;: I Cor. vii. 8a But I say to the unmarried and the widows... 10a But to the married I command, not I, but the Lord... 12a But to the rest say I, not the Lord.... It is plain, for instance, that the words: "say I, not the Lord," are, like the preceding formulas, intended to point out the exact authority to which the Apostle refers the directions which he is about to impart to those whom he has in view. No less plain is it, that in writing: "say I, not the Lord," he has deliberately used words which he had already employed in framing the preceding formulas. When these two things are distinctly borne in mind, the precise wording of the phrase: "say I, not the Lord," becomes highly significant. It discloses the fact that St. Paul places "the rest" though actually living in the marriage state, on practically the same basis as "the unmarried and the widows" spoken of in verses 8, 9. It is on that account that in verse 12, he has set aside the verb waрayуéλλw "I command," of verse 10, to return. παραγγέλλω |