HOME | BOOKS/BOOKLETS | THE MAGAZINE
SITE MAP | EMAIL

CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT

PAGE 63

THE apostles were sent out to a pagan world with a call to faith in God's purpose and to obedience to His commandments. A certain amount of preparation had been done for this through scattering of the Jews who had established synagogue worship in every considerable town in the Empire, and through whom some knowledge of the Old Testament had spread among the Gentiles. But if Israel which had the law had so far fallen below the requirements of the Law of Moses as the rebukes of Jesus indicate, the general condition of the Gentile world which had not God's revelation was much worse. This might be illustrated in many ways; but it is important in the examination of Paul's teaching on marriage that we recognize that the moral practices which prevailed in the Gentile world presented problems which have been unknown in English speaking countries for many generations. The twentieth century, however, has so far declined in its standards of life through unbelief and neglect of the Bible that some of the circumstances of the first century may well be reproduced, and apostolic teaching then takes on a new significance.

The apostle had to deal with two extremes. There were ascetics who, revolting from the corruption seen on every

PAGE 64

hand, sought escape by a rigorously disciplined life in which normal and rational pleasures were eschewed. They sowed the seeds of a monasticism which might evoke sympathy in its desire to overcome the flesh, but which was really powerless to achieve its end. This way of thinking would understandably make some appeal to certain types of Christians, but in his Colossian letter Paul shows that it is both unchristian and ineffective to produce holiness. Asceticism, however, while powerful in its influence upon those disposed to follow such a life, yet left untouched the majority.

It is evident to every reader of the first letter to the Corinthians that Paul is dealing with problems which had been troubling that Church, and for the solution of which appeal had been made to him. It is less evident, until pointed out, that Paul often quotes phrases from the letter sent to him. When this is recognized, many passages acquire a vividness of meaning otherwise missed. The sixth chapter strikingly illustrates this and serves to show also a point of view which it is difficult to think could be entertained by any believer today, but which has been advanced by unbelievers in modern times. The apostle had said that "all things were lawful", as against the ceremonial prohibitions of the Law of Moses. His opponents quoted his words with a sinister meaning (1 Cor. 6:12) to which the apostle rejoins in a way such persons might understand, that "all things are not expedient" (that is, "not profitable"). He goes up a step further by again quoting their slogan of freedom and saying, "but I will not be brought under the power of any". The next step in the argument of the freedom-seekers was to point to an obvious relation between food and the body: "Meats for the belly and the belly for meats." Paul's answer is that both are temporal, and their

PAGE 65

use and function in no way conditions eternal matters: "God will destroy both it and them." The next step is discerned by Paul's answer, for he leaves unquoted the next link in the chain of the argument for licence. It was an argument that passed from the purely natural to that which included moral factors; it postulated that the relations between the sexes was as natural in itself, and therefore as permissible, as partaking of food. The question can be understood by the answer: "The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord." Let the quotation marks be supplied as in some modern translations and there stands out clearly the argument for licence, that since man and woman are complements to each other, a full exercise of sexual freedom was permissible.

What was the background of thought and morals that made such an argument possible? The enquiry opens up a sewer of corruption which Christian teaching did much to cleanse. It is not a subject for too plain speech, but a few words from Kirsopp Lake's Earlier Epistles of Paul will make the matter sufficiently clear:

"Over against a scrupulous and ascetic party there was another which went to the other extreme, regarding the Christian as a 'spiritual' person, who by initiation into the mysteries was raised above carnal considerations, and could not be affected by anything which he did with his body. To modern minds there is something extraordinary in the suggestion that the spiritual freedom of the Christian could be so extended. But it must be remembered that the Graeco-Roman point of view was quite different. Not only was fornication -- for men -- considered a matter of small or no importance, but it actually was regarded in some cases as possessing a religious value. The prostitutes in the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth were not, in their own opinion,

PAGE 66

immoral; nor were they influenced by immoral motives, but by a religious impulse ... It is in the twentieth century, in the West of Europe, difficult to realize the possibility of a religious impulse expressing itself in immoral acts, but the fact is nevertheless indisputable that it has formerly done so. The point is that cultus -- the ritual expression of religious impulse -- is not a measure of religion only, but also of other elements in the nature of the person who is trying to express this impulse. Go back two thousand years and you will find that the nature of many men was such that they attempted to express, and to stimulate, their religious life by sexual excesses: or, if you will travel in space instead of time, the same thing can be found today in Africa, or even in some of the lower Indian cults. Go back still further in time, or penetrate to still lower depths of primitive human nature, as it still survives in Africa, and you will find men arousing and satisfying their religious instincts by human sacrifice; and if you reach to the last depths, you will find that there is a religious basis even to the horrid rites of cannibalism. Primitive man is not only religious, but he is also obscene, cruel, and superstitious, and these evil characteristics always show themselves in combination with his religious rites."

The attitude to life that is revealed in this extract inevitably affected powerfully marriage relationships, and it is necessary to enquire what marriage practices prevailed in the Graeco-Roman world. A few brief quotations will answer. After giving the prevailing views among the Jews on divorce and re-marriage, K. E. Kirk says:

"In the Roman world even laxer customs prevailed. Either partner might, to all intents and purposes, divorce the other on the slightest pretext and marry again. The law intervened only to regulate the practice, and to secure that grave injustice was not done in the distribution of the dowry and estate" (Marriage and Divorce, p. 33).

PAGE 67

A. T. Macmillan in What is Christian Marriage? discusses the various forms of marriage in the Roman world. Divorce was always allowed though the laws regulating it varied with the marriage practices at different times. In the earlier days, only unions were recognized as full legal marriages where the wife was entirely subject to her husband; this was described as manus. Inheritance laws were closely connected with marriage ties and the laws of divorce were consequently stricter. The manus practice in time became obsolete, and divorce was then as easy as marriage.

"In regard to marriages without manus, or free marriages, the rule was quite different. Such a marriage could be dissolved either by mutual consent or by the will of either party. The essential element was the intention to dissolve marriage", and to secure this the law required that a notification be addressed by one spouse to the other. "The general decline of religion and morals which characterized the later days of the Republic had led to an increasing number of divorces which led to certain legislation . . . Divorce remained however, very common; it was lawful without any assignable cause, though when blame attached to either side, he or she suffered deprivation to some extent of the nuptial provisions, but there were no other penal consequences."

To this we add the statement of 0. D. Watkins in Holy Matrimony:

"No form of solemnization at any time concluded a marriage", the bringing home of the bride being the principle evidence of marital intention . . . "Perhaps more than any other system of human law the Roman law regarded marriage as a contract pure and simple. Like any other contract it was voidable at any time by mutual consent ... at any time the contracting parties were as free to rescind their contract by mutual consent as they had been to form it."

PAGE 68

These quotations with the following from Emil Reich in his book Woman through the Ages, refer to the conditions in the first century A.D.:

"The sanctity of the marriage tie, which through church doctrines has become an accepted, though frequently forgotten, habit of our thought, was represented to the ancient Roman solely by the ceremony of confarreatio. As this religious form gradually fell into disuse, and its place was taken by the purely legal and much looser form sine canventione, the Romans came to regard marriage as a condition dependent solely upon mutual consent. If this were wanting, either party was considered justified in declaring his or her intention of putting an end to the connexion. The nuptiales tabulae, the tablets bearing the signatures of the witnesses, etc., might be formally broken; or, the woman might be deprived of her keys and turned out of the house. Either proceeding was sufficient to dissolve the union, but it was customary for the objecting party to serve a notice in writing upon the divorcee. The State did not interfere in the matter; marriage was regarded as a private relationship which might be dissolved in a private manner without the intervention or sanction of any public authority. Under this fatal facility divorces became rife and were made upon the flimsiest pretexts. Marriage meant little or nothing; it was little more than regulated free love."

These quotations are given for the factual information; but it must not be inferred that all the writers are in agreement with each other in the interpretation of the teaching of Jesus on marriage nor yet with the views set out in this series. Their final decisions are governed by other factors than Scriptural teaching. On facts they help, and knowledge of the customs and conditions which prevailed in the first century is of the greatest value in interpreting the Scripture,

PAGE 69

and particularly in understanding Paul's letter to the Corinthians.

In 1 Corinthians 7 the Apostle answers a number of questions concerning marriage. It would be doubtless of considerable help if we knew the exact form of the questions, but they have to be inferred.

The first question concerned the relations of husband and wife: were these to continue when they became Christians, or was a celibate life desirable? Perhaps the general laxity in the world led to the view that the only safe rule was to live as though unmarried. Some at the time advocated that marriage was polluting and anything connected with sex defiling. It may be that the last sentence of verse 1 should be in quotation marks as a sentence taken from their letter to Paul, for he immediately qualifies it, and advises that normal relations should be followed. There were mutual obligations and privileges which should, as a general course, be recognized.

In verses 8 and 9 Paul passes to the question whether the unmarried should marry. Paul was free from marriage responsibilities (probably a widower); it left him free for a fuller service, but he recognized that it was not the way of life for all.

The third question (verses 10,11) concerned whether divorce was allowable for Christians. Paul finds his answer in the teaching of Jesus which must therefore have been well known to the Corinthians. He repeats the Lord's rule as given in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, which suggests the gospels were in circulation at an earlier date than is today generally

PAGE 70

recognized. "But unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

Paul makes no reference to the exceptive clause, and this fact is used in various ways by advocates of one or other view of marriage. The writer who regards the "exceptive clause" in Matt. 19:9 as an interpolation, finds support for his view in its omission here. Its omission, however, probably means nothing more than that Paul is laying down the general rule to meet the general question.

On the further questions submitted to Paul there was no decision of the Lord to which appeal could be made; Paul therefore speaks in his own name but with apostolic authority: "To the rest say I, not the Lord." The first of these questions concerned an urgent problem among Gentile churches of the first century. What was the duty of a man or woman who obeyed the truth in relation to their married, but pagan, partner? Since marriage was so degraded and divorce so easy, and a union with a pagan so full of difficulties for a convert, should they dissolve the marriage? Paul's answer is: "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." Paul gives reasons (not easy of explanation but not vital to the point we are considering) why the married life should continue (verse 14), and then faces the position created when the pagan partner refuses to continue the alliance with the Christian convert.

PAGE 71

On this Paul says: "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." This is the rule that is described as the Pauline privilege.

Of course, neither Paul nor anyone else could interfere with what the pagan partner decided to do. He was not concerned with Christian teaching which he probably regarded as something more than a nuisance. Law and custom gave the utmost freedom, and if he thought fit he would exercise it.

Paul's advice is for the Christian whose partner insists on leaving: "Let him depart: the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases." Under bondage to what? Here, as on every passage of Scripture that concerns this subject, there has been the most divergent interpretation. Did Paul accept the pagan's action as dissolving the marriage in fact, so treating the alliance in the same way as the pagan regarded it? It would appear so. In other words, as a practical measure Paul taught that an alliance stood if there was agreement, but failing that, its dissolution must be accepted. But did that give the right to re-marry to the divorced Christian partner in such circumstances? On this we quote from Goudge's Commentary on First Corinthians (third edition 1911):

"To continue bound to a heathen, who wishes to repudiate the connexion, would be slavery. Whether Paul by these words allows remarriage to the Christian may be doubted. It is possible that the question is not in his mind. But in any case there can be little doubt that he would have given such liberty (contrast his language in verse 11). Father Puller has shown that the witness of Fathers and Councils, and the practice of the Church, is strongly in favour of this

PAGE 72

view. If it seems inconsistent with verse 11, it should be noticed (i) that the marriage dissolved is not Christian marriage, but the marriage of the heathen, which was simply a civil contract with the utmost license of divorce; (ii) that Paul himself does not consider the words of the Lord as covering the case under consideration. This is shown by the words (verse 12) with which he begins the discussion of it." (H.L. Goudge, Westminster Commentaries.)

Parry, in the Cambridge Greek Testament, says:

"These cases deal with mixed marriages ... The underlying principle is not clear. Paul evidently does not put these marriages on a level with Christian marriage; he appears to estimate them by the current standard, as practically dissoluble by consent, having no further validity than is given by the intentions of the parties when entering into the union . . . He does not state that the Christian partner is free to marry again, but the fact that he does not forbid it seems like allowance."

The rest of 1 Corinthians 7 need not be considered now as it does not bear upon our particular subject.

Besides bearing in mind the circumstances of first century life as shown in the quotations given earlier in this section, we might perhaps the better appreciate the Corinthian difficulty if we reflect on what we would do if a member of a native race that practised polygamy learned the truth and sought baptism. What would be his position with regard to his wives? Such a problem has had to be met by representatives of religious bodies who, as missionaries, have gone to other than European races. We need not go into the solutions they have reached, but simply pose the problem.

PAGE 73

At this point we would draw attention to the teaching of Dr. Thomas. In Elpis Israel he says:

"While Paul enjoins this unqualified obedience (on the part of the wives) he exhorts their husbands to return them due benevolence, not to treat them with bitterness, but to love them 'even as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it'. If unbelieving wives, however, were disobedient and perverse, and chose to depart, 'let them; a brother is not under bondage in such cases'."

[Unfortunately, ever since Bro. C.C. Walker revised Elpis Israel along lines that he preferred or thought was more correct, the above quotation from Elpis Israel has been misleading and misrepresenting what Bro. Thomas really said. In this passage, Bro. Thomas actually is teaching something beyond the limitations that we find in this corrected form. Please consider what we have written introducing this passage and the correct passage itself. -- Bro. J.B. Scaramastro]

The whole context would suggest that Dr. Thomas understood this to mean that by such departure the marriage was dissolved. But his mind is stated without ambiguity in a letter published in The Christadelphian in 1866 in which the following occurs:

"The law of Moses allowed a plurality of wives, and divorce, and punished the 'social evil' with death. Jesus, who was 'made under the law' did not interfere with the law, but forbade divorce upon any other ground than the wife's unfaithfulness. The apostles, whose authority he declared equal to his own in teaching the things of Deity, allowed divorce on another ground, and for the sake of peace to the Christian party. But to carry out this gospel liberty would place a man or woman as a criminal at the bar of Gentile justice and law. Therefore, Peter has said: 'Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake'; provided, of course, that in so doing his precepts were not transgressed: this apostolic tradition applies also to their ordinances of marriage. They forbid two contemporary wives, allow divorce on unscriptural grounds, and tolerate the 'social evil' to any extent without punishment. Hence, a saint regulated by the word, would have only one wife at a time; he would seek divorce only on scriptural grounds; and avoid 'social evil' as the plague. After this manner is the human amativeness regulated by the Word, and placed by the New Man in subordination to it."

PAGE 74

We are all so apt to read back into first century conditions the circumstances of our own life that we fail to recognize the very real problems that confronted the first preachers in a pagan world. The epistles show the apostles grappling under divine guidance with the difficulties in this and that place in both teaching and practice. In the epistles we see the principles of the teaching of the Lord applied to the hard facts of life as they found them.

It must be evident that if the above considerations of the "Pauline privilege" are correct, we cannot ignore them in any attempt at interpreting the words of Jesus on the subject of marriage.

There are two other statements by Paul which are usually quoted when reviewing his teaching. In Rom. 7:1-3 Paul gives an illustration from the Law of Moses on marriage to illustrate the changed relationship of a believer by his acceptance of Christ. Paul's words seem absolute that "a woman who hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth". He makes no exception. We know, however, that the Law of Moses did regulate proceedings for divorce, and Paul was not ignorant of those regulations. The purpose of his illustration was served by the general rule. The omission of any mention of the exception under the circumstances of Paul's reference should warn us against pressing beyond what is intended the other passages in the gospels of Mark and Luke where the exceptive clause is not mentioned.

In the pastoral epistles the qualifications of bishops and deacons are set forth, and these include that either bishop or deacon "should be the husband of one wife"

PAGE 75

(1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6). What possible situations may the words conjure up to the twentieth century reader? Was polygamy practised in the early church? Did it mean, as some modern translations suggest, that a church official must only have been once married? A parallel rule for widows generally overlooked, certainly rules out polygamy. Only a widow who had "been the wife of one husband" had to be admitted to the roll of the church. Since polyandry was not practised, the corresponding rule for church officers cannot refer to polygamy. May not the meaning of Paul be found in the ways of life in the first century? A man who had exercised the current freedom for divorce and had married again was as a result regarded as thereby unsuited for official position, in which personal example played so important a part. Such divorce and remarriage must have taken place before baptism, for as we have seen Paul had forbidden divorce for believers, or if this had taken place there must not be a marriage with another partner (1 Cor. 7:11).

But while the injunction about "the husband of one wife" was a restriction concerning ecclesial office, it did not exclude from membership.

It must be evident from this discussion that the whole subject of divorce and remarriage has presented difficulties in all ages. From Paul's handling of the problem (under the guidance of the Spirit) it seems clear that the unions of men and women of the first century which were entered into as a contract which was dissolvable by either at will, had not the binding obligation of a marriage in which the partners recognized the divine rule formulated in Eden. When such a husband and wife together came to know the

PAGE 76

divine will their partnership assumed a more binding character: but when only one received Christ as Lord, a decision of the pagan partner to dissolve the marriage had to be accepted. It is clear there are marriages and marriages; and since there is the same absolute ignorance of the Bible on the part of many today who go through a Registry Office form of marriage and who also treat the bond they make as just as dissolvable as did the pagans of the first century, we might yet find that Paul's guidance has value today for us, even though a generation ago it was regarded as having to do with only a distant past.

CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT