JBL 100/4 (1981) 601-606

THE DIVORCED WOMAN IN 1 COR 7:10-11

JEROME MURPHY-O'CONNOR, O.P.
ECOLE BIBLIQUE, JERUSALEM, ISRAEL

S the earliest attestation of the dominical prohibition of divorce, 1 Cor 7:10-11 has been the object of much discussion. However, to the best of my knowledge, no commentator confronts all the questions raised by these verses. In consequence, the literature offers no more than a series of partial, and often incompatible, solutions. The purpose of the present note is to propose a new interpretation designed to do justice to all aspects of the text. When 1 Cor 7:10-11 is read critically certain questions are inescapable. Why does Paul begin tois de gegamkosin parangell, which he then has to qualify by ouk ego alla ho kyrios, when it would have been easy to write tois de gegamkosin ho kyrios parangellei? Why does he introduce a dominical logion? Why does he mention the wife first when the reverse order (followed in 7:12-13 and in Mark 10:11-12) would have been more natural? How is me christhnai to be translated? Why is the refusal of remarriage introduced in a parenthetical clause and apropos of the woman when the synoptic form of the dominical logion (Matt 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18) contains this element as an integral part referring to the husband? Finally, how are we to understand the relationship between the prohibition in 7:10-11 and the permission in 7:15? In any attempt to deal with these questions the translation of parangell . . . gynaika apo andros m christhnai has an obvious claim to priority. The RSV rendering, "I command . . . that the wife should not separate from her husband," is typical of the modern versions (NAB, NEB, WV, JB, SB], TOB, Goodspeed, Spencer, Osty) and reflects the consensus of the commentators. However, J. A. Fitzmyer1 has pointed out that christhnai is the aorist passive infinitive which should be translated "the wife should not be separated from her husband."2 The present infinitive chrisesthai (which could justify the RSV translation) in fact appears in a number of witnesses (A D F G 1881 2945) but is obviously a lectio facilitans. Copyists saw the aorist infinitive as a problem since it did not harmonize with 7:13 which

1 2

"The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence," TS 37 (1976) 200. Similarly W. F. OrrJ. A. Walther, 1 Corinthians (AB 32; Garden City: Doubleday, 1976)

211.

602

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

envisages the wife as possessing the right to initiate a divorce action. By changing the original aorist infinitive (which can only be passive) into the present infinitive (which could be taken as middle) the copyists achieved a perfectly balanced version of the dominical directive which at the same time brought it into the same cultural context as 7:12-13. The weight of manuscript evidence has forced exegetes to accept the reading christhnai, but their interpretation has obviously been influenced by the same unjustified assumption that gave rise to the reading chrisesthai, though few are as explicit as H. Lietzmann who says bluntly, "Das christhnai muss parallel dem aphienai die aktive Handlung der Scheidung bedeuten."3 Why this must be so is not explained. It is certainly not as if the passive voice makes nonsense of the text. On the contrary, it yields perfect sense, particularly when we recall that in Paul the passive is sometimes used with the connotation "to allow oneself to be" (e.g., 1 Cor 6:7, Rom 12:2).4 If we translate 7:10a "the wife should not allow herself to be separated from her husband" we have the reverse side of a coin whose obverse is inscribed "the husband should not divorce his wife" (7:11c). If it is wrong for a husband to issue a writ of divorce, it must be equally against the divine intention for his wife to accept it; willing acceptance would be cooperation in disobedience to God. In opposition to 7:13, which supposes a Greco-Roman cultural setting in which a wife could initiate a divorce action, 7:10b reflects a Jewish milieu in which the right to divorce belonged exclusively to the husband.5 As might have been expected, the original dominical precept concerning divorce was addressed to the husband (Matt 5:31-32; 19:9; Luke 16:18),6 and it is perfectly possible that the logically necessary extension to the wife (7:10b) was effected in Palestine and reached Paul in the form in which we find it here. But if such logic had in fact been the motive for the extension we should expect the husband to be mentioned first, since the premise naturally precedes the conclusion. Hence, it seems more probable that gynaika apo andros m christhnai should be attributed to Paul and that his formulation was inspired by something other than a concern for abstract logic. The reversal of the normal order (woman-man rather than man-woman; compare 7:12-13) in itself suggests that Paul had a particular case in mind, and this hint is confirmed by the parenthetical clause, ean de kai christhi menet agamos t andri katallagt "if she should have been divorced let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband"
An die Korinther 1-U (ed. W. G. Kmmel; Tbingen: Mohr, 1949) 31. BDF 314. 5 Yebamot 14:1 (=H. Danby, The Mishnah [London: Oxford University, 1933] 240), Josephus, Ant. 15:259. The wife could only petition the court, which had no authority to dissolve the marriage, to oblige her husband to give her a divorce (Ketub. 7:9-10; Git. 9:8; Arak. 5:6 = Danby, Mishnah, 255, 320, 548). 6 Mark 10:12 is a later development reflecting a Greco-Roman setting.
4 3

MURPHY-O'CONNOR: THE DIVORCED WOMAN IN 1 COR 7:10-11

603

(7:llab), which is best understood as a reference to a specific incident at Corinth.7 Ean with the aorist subjunctive can be used in conditions "referring to something which was impending in past time,"8 and this meaning is most appropriate here; a divorce was about to take place when Paul's informants left Corinth and it could have been finalized by the time his response reached the city.9 Does the context provide any clue that would enable us to discern the concrete situation of the couple in question? In my opinion, 7:1-9 provides just this information. The allusion to the Corinthian letter in 7:1 obliges us to treat 7:1-9, not as pure exposition of Paul's mind on marriage, but as a reaction to a situation which had developed at Corinth, and entitles us to deduce the outline of that situation from the emphases in Paul's response. Paul's insistence that a married couple owes something physical to each other (7:3-4), and his stress that not all have the gift of celibacy (7:7b), permit us to infer that some at Corinth were advocating that married couples should not have sexual intercourse.10 Since this is precisely what is said in 7:1b, kalon anthrp gynaikos m haptesthai "abstinence from sexual intercourse is a moral good,"11 the phrase should be taken as a Corinthian slogan introduced to indicate to the Corinthians the point in their letter that Paul is about to discuss.12 As in 1 Cor 6:13c, Paul introduces his qualification by de (7:2).13 His principal concern in this whole chapter is to transform doctrinaire idealists
7 Ean de hai is used to introduce a generic condition in 1 Cor 7:28 and this sense is maintained here by exegetes who read 7:10-11 in isolation from the context. Thus, J. Dupont (Marriage et divorce dans Y vangile. Matthieu 19,3-12 et paralleles [Bruges: Abbaye de Saint-Andr/Descle de Brouwer, 1959] 59 n. 4) writes, "La nuance d'antriorit se mesure non par rapport au temps o Paul formule cette prescription, mais par rapport au devoir qui s'imposerait la divorce." Always a little forced, this view loses all plausibility when the passive christhnai is given its true value because it is the one initiating the divorce who is suspected of an interest in remarriage. BDF 373. 9 See in particular E.-B. Alio, Saint Paul. Premire pitre aux Corinthiens (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1956) 163; H. Conzelmann, J Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 120; D. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 90: C. Senft, La premire pitre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT; Neuchtel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1979) 92. 10 Not all in the community shared this view because a very different attitude towards sexuality appears in the previous chapter; see my study "Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20," CBQ 40 (1978) 391-96. Even on particular issues it is unwise to assume unity of opinion at Corinth. 11 This paraphrase is an effort to bring out the full force of kalon-, see the full discussion in J. C. Hurd, Jr, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965) 158-61. 12 Hurd, Origins, 67, 163. 13 C. H. Giblin (In Hope of God's Glory [New York: Herder, 1970] 147) maintains that 7:2 is also part of the Corinthian statement but this I find difficult to accept. Not only does the point of 7:3-6 become completely obscure, but it attributes to the Corinthians a measured reasonableness which I find impossible to reconcile with the doctrinaire attitude that Paul combats through the whole of chap. 7.

604

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

into realists, what is best in theory is not always the best in practice for particular individuals His personal preference (7 7a, 8) might incline him to sympathize with the ascetics at Corinth but his pastoral responsibility obliges him to subordinate it to the recognition that not all have been given the gift that he enjoys (7 7b) It is not clear whether the ascetics were advocating divorce but at the minimum we must assume that Paul had received information that intolerable situations were developing 7.3-4 clearly hints that there was at least one marriage in which the two partners did not agree on abstinence from sexual intercourse If a wife with common-sense persisted in demanding her conjugal rights, it is easy to imagine a husband in the first flush of ascetic enthusiasm preparing to divorce her, her nagging would be just as much a distraction from the ideal as passion Should the divorce go through, even against the opposition of the wife, it seems inevitable that she, unwillingly excluded from the nuptial couch, should think very seriously of remarriage In this reconstruction we have a situation which explains all the aspects of 7 10-11 Paul first mentions the wife who may have been dismissed As the injured party she was likely to take precipitate action which could produce an impossibly complicated situation Paul's desire is, and hers should be, that the misguided husband should undergo a change of heart Should this occur, true charity demands that the marriage be reestablished Hence, it is imperative that the wife should remain "unmarried" because only this state permits full "reconciliation "14 She should not accept the divorce, and to drive this home Paul has to insist that she should not contract a new marriage because a legal divorce automatically conferred the right of remarriage 15 No mention of remarriage is necessary with regard to the husband, since he had renounced sexual relations it would have been superfluous
14 Precisely the same type of solution is presented in the Shepherd of Hermas (Mandatum IV, 1, 4-11) The situation envisaged is one in which a wife commits adultery The husband has to divorce her because otherwise he would be cooperating in her sin He cannot, however, remarry because he would then make complete forgiveness impossible "if the husband does not receive her back he sins and covers himself with great sin, but it is necessary to receive the sinner who repents, but not often, for the servants of God have but one repentance Therefore, for the sake of repentance, the husband ought not to marry This is the course of action for wife and husband For this reason it has been enjoined you to remain by yourselves, whether husband or wife, for in such cases repentance is possible " The complete text is given in Q Quesnell, "'Made Themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven' (Mt 19, 12)," CBQ 30 (1968) 350-51 11 For Roman and Greek law, see PW 5 1241-45, 2011-13 The relevant passage from the Mishnah is Git 9 3, "The essential formula m the bill of divorce is 'Lo, thou art free to marry any man R Judah says 'Let this be from me thy writ of divorce and letter of dismissal and deed of liberation, that thou mayest whosoever thou wilt ' The essential formula in a writ of emancipation is, 'Lo, thou art a freedwoman lo, thou belongest to thyself" (Danby, Mishnah, 319) The understanding of a writ of divorce as a "deed of liberation" justifies the juxtaposition of the two cases (wife and bondwoman) and explains why Paul wrote ou dedoultat (rather than ou dedetai cf 7 27, 39) as the counterpart of chnzesth in 7 15

MURPHY-O'CONNOR: THE DIVORCED WOMAN IN 1 COR 7:10-11

605

The awkward formulation of 7:10a and the fact of a dominical logion have yet to be considered. It is undeniable that Paul felt sympathetic to the ideal proposed by the ascetics, but he could not permit it to be imposed as a general rule; The most he could counsel was temporary abstinence (7:5). This led him t a reference to his personal option (7:7a) which side-tracked him still further into a statement regarding "the unmarried and the widows" (7:8-9). A new introduction (tois de gegamkosin, 7:10a) to his original topic was necessitated by his realization that he had not dealt with a crisis situation involving one particular marriage. Parangell "I give charge" indicates that he intended to make a personal statement. Then it suddenly struck him that the authority of a dominical logion would reinforce his position and that it could be expanded to cover precisely the case at issue.16 Hence, he switches, ouk ego alla ho kyrios (7:10a). Finally, we come to the relationship between 7:10-11 and 7:15. Acting on the assumption that Paul cannot be inconsistent, efforts have been made to reconcile the prohibition of 7:10-11 with the permission of 7:15. According to the classical Roman Catholic interpretation a distinction is made between the two cases; divorce is forbidden when there is unity of cult but permitted when there is disparity of cult.17 In other words, Paul conceived the saying of Jesus on divorce as applicable only to marriages between Christians. That Paul thought in terms of such a distinction is highly unlikely, even if he was unaware of the synoptic tradition that in the saying on divorce Jesus was speaking to Jews and based his conclusion on an argument which envisaged humanity as such (Mark 10:1-12; Matt 19:1-9). J. K. Elliott, on the contrary, makes a distinction between aphimi (7:11b) and chrizesth (7:10, 15); the former meaning legal divorce, the latter simple desertion.18 In other words, Paul forbids divorce but permits separation. This explanation is untenable because, while chrizesth can mean "depart," it is well attested as a technical term for "divorce" in the strict sense,19 and must have this meaning here because of the correspondence between m christhnai (passive) and m aphienai (active) in 7:10-11. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the same meaning must be assumed in 7:15. A very different line is taken by Dungan who claims that Paul saw the dominical logion principally as a prohibition of remarriage and, in consequence, had no difficulty in permitting a divorce (7:11, 15) provided that it

A specific incident is necessary to explain why Paul cites the saying of Jesus because elsewhere (1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2) he takes it for granted that everyone agrees that marriage is for life. 17 See, for example, St. Thomas I Aquinas, Super Epstolas S. Pauli Lectura (8th ed. cura R. Cai; Taurini/Romae: Marietti, 1953) I, 299, para. 336. 18 "Paul's Teaching on Marriage in I Corinthians: Some Problems Reconsidered," NTS 19 (1972-73) 223-25. 19 See the references assembled by Fitzmyer, "Matthean Divorce Texts," 211.

16

606

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

was not followed by another marriage.20 It is clear from Dungan's exposition that 7:15 is interpreted in the light of 7:11a understood as a general principle.21 However, 7.11a is not a general principle, Dungan having forgotten his earlier correct observation that "Paul is not speaking theoretically any longer, but is dealing with an actual situation at Corinth."22 As an injunction directed to a particular case 7:11a cannot be applied to a very different type of situation and so 7:15 must be interpreted in terms of the right to remarriage implicit in a legal divorce The truth of the matter is that Paul is not consistent, and recognition of this point is of crucial importance for a correct understanding of Paul's attitude, towards the dominical logion. Paul refuses a divorce in 7 10-11 because in this instance he considered the grounds to be insufficient In 7 15, on the contrary, he permits a divorce because he found the reason convincing The dominical logion does not control Paul's thought in 7 1-11, it is brought in as an afterthought because of its pastoral utility. Nor does the logion constrain him in 7.15; he does precisely what the logion forbids. We are forced to the conclusion that Paul considered Jesus' prohibition of divorce, not as a binding precept, but as a significant directive whose relevance to a particular situation had to be evaluated by the pastor responsible for the community Paul found it useful in one case but inappropriate in another.
Sayings of Jesus, 89-99 "It is clear that one of the things that this word of the Lord means to Paul is that it forbids additional marriages after divorce" (Sayings of Jesus, 91his italics) 22 Sayings of Jesus, 90
21 2,)

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.