A Prohibition of Ascetic Divorce

The following is the conclusion of a recent exegetical study I wrote on 1 Corinthians 7, Paul’s teaching on divorce. This was first published on my Substack.

Alongside Matthew 5:31–32 and 19:3–9, 1 Cor. 7 is central to discussions of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. A long-standing question concerns how Jesus’ teaching on divorce relates to Paul’s in 1 Cor. Many have assumed Scripture gives two grounds for divorce: porneia in Matt. 5, 19,^[1]and abandonment by a non-Christian spouse in 1 Cor. 7.^[2] Yet a rational hermeneutic cannot conclude two “grounds” from Jesus’ single exception and Paul’s single exception; this is a non sequitur. Blomberg captures the issue well: “But how could Paul even under the inspiration of the Spirit, add a second exception to Jesus’ ‘no divorce’ policy if he recognized Jesus’ words as comprehensively addressing all possible situations?”^[3]

The problems with the traditional two-grounds are more profound still. Porneia functions as a singular ground for divorce only if Jesus’ exception clause applies to divorce rather than remarriage. But if the clause applies to divorce only, then a divorce for porneia in 1 Cor 7:10 would still fall under Paul’s instruction in v. 11, which would logically prohibit even the divorce that precedes the forbidden remarriage. A better approach is to understand Jesus and Paul within their own contexts and then observe how they cohere. Despite claims to the contrary, it is doubtful Paul introduces anything substantially new to the biblical teaching on divorce; he seems instead to simply apply what is already established. And, as Fee and Murray already note, remarriage is not a topic Paul addresses here.^[4]

The following interpretation and application will ask 4 questions: (1) Why does Paul address divorce in the church at Corinth? (2) What does Paul say about divorce? (3) How does Paul’s teaching fit with the broader biblical understanding of divorce and remarriage? (4) How can the church today make use of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:8–16?

Q1: Why does Paul address divorce in the church at Corinth?

Paul has not taken it upon himself to provide the Corinthian church with a comprehensive, systematic teaching on divorce. Paul’s discussion is occasional, written in response to questions raised by the church (7:1). The letter Paul is responding to apparently asks if celibacy is more spiritual than marriage. Given Paul’s response, we can also infer that there were questions of whether celibacy was preferred even for those married, and concerns about spiritual defilement for those in mixed marriages.

Greco-Roman divorce may have been common, but this does not seem to be the primary reason for addressing it here. Paul addresses a church embedded in a culture known for their pursuit of status and superiority in which spirituality reflects these status and superiority pursuits, seen in personality-driven factions (1:10–13) and power plays. There are no spiritual attainments to be gained from changing one’s marital status. Union with Christ transforms the person within a social system regardless of their position within it. Paul’s overall message to the church is that their true status and superiority is found in Christ (1:18–25; 6:2–3; 4:3–4; 12:13; 15:24–28) and not their station. Their life is a gift, whether married or single, so they should embrace the life they have been given and live out a Christomorphic unity and equality. Seeking celibacy, divorce, or marriage for spiritual purposes—especially as a means of achieving superiority—denigrates that gifted life (7:17–24), so such actions are unnecessary and to be avoided.

Q2: What does Paul say about divorce?

Because of questions of ascetic pursuit of celibacy, some apparently thought it might be the case that celibacy is preferred over marriage even for those married. To this Paul applies Jesus’ fundamental “no divorce” principle; divorce in pursuit of spiritual attainment is an invalid divorce. Also, because of questions of spiritual defilement relating to mixed marriage among converts, Paul insists there is no risk to the believer’s purity, so they too should not pursue divorce from their pagan spouse; this too is an invalid divorce. However, if the pagan spouse wishes to divorce, they should be let go. That is, if the unbeliever wishes to separate, this constitutes a valid divorce.

Paul’s overarching rule is “remain as you are” (7:17, 24), emphasizing that marital status is not a measure of spiritual status. Notably, Paul does not address remarriage. The Christian couple in focus who has divorced, and thus must either reconcile or remain unmarried, is one that has divorced for spiritual or ascetic reasons. Therefore, our understanding of remarriage must rely on Jesus’ teaching in Matthew and the broader OT legal and ethical framework. For Jews and Romans, remarriage following divorce was an assumed right, thus Paul cannot be understood to oppose post-divorce remarriage, because he does not address it. What he does counter, however, is marital dissolution by withdrawing consent. Behind this notion lies Jesus’ teaching that one cannot simply issue a certificate of divorce and be divorced. The procedure does not nullify a marriage oath, be it the Jewish certificate or the Roman withdrawal (withdrawal of consent and physical separation constituted legal divorce in Roman law).

Q3: How does Paul’s teaching fit with the broader biblical understanding of divorce and remarriage?

The Old Testament presents monogamous permanence as the marital ideal. The Torah assumes and regulates the practice of divorce, although in a very limited sense. Deut. 24:1–4 prohibits the restoration of a first marriage after an intervening marriage and assumes a practice of issuing a certificate of divorce—rarely practiced in the ancient Near East outside of Israel—which protected the woman’s right to remarry.^[5] The OT prophets of both kingdoms used divorce imagery to warn of foreign destruction and exile by Assyria and Babylon in response to unrepentant idolatry, characterized as “whoredom” and “adultery” (Hos. 2.2; Isa. 50.1; Jer. 3.6–20), suggesting divorce is connected conceptually with punitive expulsion and excommunication.^[6]

Later, confronted by Pharisees regarding Deut. 24:1 and the Hillel-Shammai debate,^[7] Jesus states the allowance for divorce was a concession to hard-heartedness (Matt. 19:8); monogamous permanence has always been the biblical ideal (Gen. 2:24). In Matthew 5:31–32, part of the so-called “six antitheses” (5:17–48), Jesus challenges a common misunderstanding of the relationship between righteousness and Torah. In this context, his statement regarding divorce and remarriage opposes the notion that the legal procedure of divorce does not constitute divorce—one cannot simply write a get^[8] and be divorced. The exception of porneia for remarriage is taken by many scholars not to refer narrowly to adultery alone (as if he had said moicheia, “adultery”), but including other sexually immoral acts.^[9] And given the covenantal principles behind the NT understanding of divorce, it is possible that grounds for divorce are broader than merely porneia (e.g., abuse),^[10] used here rhetorically to refer to the quintessential example of what might be called marital apostasy. Paul’s statements fit within the logic of Jesus’ teaching; divorce occurs with serious covenantal breech and not a legal procedure or by withdrawing consent. The expansion that Paul clarifies is that if a spouse withdraws from the marriage against the wishes of a believing spouse, they are not under obligation to consider their marriage to endure.

Q4: How can the church today make use of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:8–16?

Biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage has obvious applicability the world over. But to address specifically Paul’s application of these biblical principles to the Corinthian church, there are a few things we can say. First, churches in parts of the world where no-fault divorce is the standard legal norm^[11] must acknowledge that the legal procedure in their locale for obtaining a divorce is not the enactment, but a legal formality recognizing what, in reality, is either a valid or invalid divorce depending on the couple’s situation and why it was pursued. Paul’s overall message is opposing ascetic divorce, and an analogous situation is elusive in the modern West. But perhaps an opposite tendency can be identified in our context; some may have every reason to pursue a divorce but refuse because of their belief that divorce would be defiling or less spiritual. In this case, rather than changing marital status for spiritual or ascetic reasons, the person is refusing such a change, but for the same reason Paul opposes. While a minister must not counsel someone to violate their conscience, the underlying rationale may help free a troubled person’s conscience and enable them to realize they are “not enslaved in such things.”

---

^[1] Porneia most often refers generally to sexual immorality (its oldest meaning is “prostitution”), although a great many interpreters of Jesus take this to refer to adultery in the divorce passages. Many attempts have been made to suggest that Jesus’ logou porneias, “a word/matter of sexual immorality” should not be understood to refer to עֶרְוַת דָּבַר ʿerwat dābār, a “word/matter of nakedness” in Deut. 24:1 (alluded to in Matt. 5:31 and explicitly the subject of debate in Matt. 19), although none have been ultimately convincing. ʿerwat dābār in Deut. 24:1 is typically taken as an indecent act less than adultery considering adultery was punishable by death. Although, any study of its meaning must consider the one other occurrence of the phrase, which is found only ten verses earlier. In Deut. 23:15 (23:14 in English versions) the phrase refers to human excrement. Because Yahweh dwells within the camp, ʿerwat dābār should not be found by God in the camp, lest he “turn away from you.” Contrary to Tigay (Deuteronomy, 214–215, 221) who therefore sees this phrase in 24:1 as referring to “any conduct the husband finds intolerable,” it seems better to understand it as a placeholder word, simply referring to the fact that the husband had a legitimate reason for the divorce. 

^[2] Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.4.

^[3] Craig Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 292.

^[4] Murray, 56. Fee, 335.

^[5] David Instone-Brewer, “Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the Origin of the Jewish Divorce Certificate,” The Journal of Jewish Studies 49, no. 2 (1998): 230–43.

^[6] G. Thomas Hobson, “Punitive Expulsion in the Ancient Near East,” ZABR 17 (2011): 15–32; Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. Volume 1. (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 264n182. Punitive expulsion refers to offenses in the Torah for which the violator’s being “cut off” (כרת, karat, “cut off”) from his or her people is the specified penalty. According to Hobson, Von Rad appears to be the first modern theologian to refer to this as “excommunication of the offender.” This penalty may refer to either destruction or removal; Hobson argues convincingly that removal should be considered the primary sense, although destruction can be the means.

^[7] In the Mishnah (Git. 9:10) the debate between the two rabbinic schools is summarized: “The House of Shammai say, ‘A man should divorce his wife only because he has found grounds for it in unchastity,’ since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything (Dt. 24:).’ And the House of Hillel say, ‘Even if she spoiled his dish,’ since it is said, Because he has found in her indecency in anything. R. Aqiba says, ‘Even if he found someone else prettier than she, ‘since it is said, And it shall be if she find no favor in his eyes (Dt. 24:1).’” The Hillelite “any matter” divorce was a new development, rising to a majority view, and it is this debate the Pharisees bring to Jesus.

^[8] Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelpha, Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 221. A get is a Jewish divorce certificate: “Aramaic for ‘legal document,’ from a Sumerian term meaning ‘oblong tablet.’”

^[9] Blomberg, Matthew, 110; Charles L. Quarles, Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2011), 130–132; Daniel M. Doriani, “Matthew,” in Matthew–Luke, ed. Iain M Duguid, James M. Hamilton Jr., and Jay Sklar, Vol. 8, ESV Expository Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 95; William A. Heth, “Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 6, no. 1 (2002): 4–29.

^[10] Craig L. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, And Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12,” The Trinity Journal 11 (1990): 161–96; Wayne Grudem, “Grounds for Divorce: Why I Now Believe There Are More Than Two: An Argument for Including Abuse in the Phrase ‘In Such Cases’ in 1 Corinthians 7:15,” Evangelical Theological Society, November 21, 2019, https://rb.gy/7sqifv; Joe M. Sprinkle, “Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage,” JETS 40, no. 4 (1997): 546–547. After reviewing OT texts, Sprinkle addresses the NT texts: “Only two of these things (sexual immorality and abandonment) are (arguably) explicit grounds for divorce in the NT. If the covenant principle is behind these applications, however, we might be justified in concluding that the two examples in the NT are not intended to be exhaustive but that other grounds are likewise applicable under the new covenant” (emphasis added).

^[11] This includes all but five sovereign nations of the world: the Philippines, Vatican City, Chile, Sri Lanka, and India.