Skip to main content

Is There an Acceptable Reason to Divorce One's Spouse (according to Paul or the 1st Century Roman Empire)?





In 1 Corinthians, Paul has a lot to say concerning men and women, sex, marriage and divorce. He begins chapter 7 by stating that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman", but goes on to say that, because of the temptation of sexual immorality, "each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband". So, in this context it seems as though Paul is saying men and women should marry only to protect themselves from the sin of sexual immorality.


This seems like a pretty bleak existence. 


The question then, is this: According to Paul and the 1st Century Roman Empire, is there an acceptable reason to divorce one's spouse? The answer is not as cut and dried as one might think. In fact, and unsurprisingly, the two groups' opinions are split on the subject.


It should be noted that Paul, as a disciple of Jesus, was taught that marriage is absolute. In Matthew 19:6 and 19:9 Jesus addresses a Pharisee who is badgering him about proper marriage and divorce proceedings as defined under the Mosaic law. In verse 7 he says, "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate". He goes on, in verse 9, to say, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery". In 1 Corinthians, it is interesting to see that, although Jesus gives an acceptable reason for divorce, Paul does not. In fact, Paul tells the Corinthians that if they do divorce their spouse, they are to never remarry.. He suggests reconciliation, but that is all.



In the case of gentile or Jewish divorce proceedings, it was often much more simple. In the Graeco-Roman tradition, a man and woman could get married on a whim and divorce each other just as easily.  The only caveat was that the man pay back the woman's dowry to either her or her father. Now, the dissolving of Jewish marriages on the other hand was slightly more complicated. In the Jewish tradition, in order to remarry, the woman had to be presented with a divorce certificate. This, however, was not a way to prevent divorce.

So, to answer the question simply: for Paul, no there was no acceptable reason to divorce one's spouse, and he made this very clear to the Corinthians, although he did offer a tiny concession. However, for Roman society, including the Jews? Yes, there were many acceptable reasons for divorce, including arguments or changes of heart.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who was Herod Archelaus and Why were Joseph and Mary Afraid of Him?

                                                                   While putting my Matthew blog together, I hit brick wall after brick wall. To be completely honest, the end result of my research on this blog topic is, partially, supposition. However, the facts that I did find, are truly fascinating.       To begin, we must first delve into a quick background of Herod Archelaus. Archelaus was the first son of Herod the Great and the principal heir  to the throne of Judea. After the,  possibly very gruesome , death of his father, Archelaus had to travel to Rome to defend his birthright. His brothers, Antipas and Philip, both made equal claims to the Judean throne. Emperor Augustus, however, recognized that he should receive the largest portion of the inheritance, but he did not go as far as to name him king. Instead, Archelaus had to settle for the lesser title of ethnarch, which is equal to the governor of a specific region. This emphasized his dependence on the Roman Empire

A discussion on Paul's teachings about marriage and his views on women's rights in general

While reading Romans chapter 7, I was first struck by the seeming contradiction in Paul's statements on what marriage should look like for believers. In 1 Corinthians, Paul gives no alternative to being married once you're married, even in the case of adultery (or so it seems), which is directly against the lessons of his teacher, Jesus. He even says that if you DO   get a divorce, then you are not permitted to marry again. Period. Of course, he does allow for reconciliation and remarriage between the husband and wife, which is, admittedly, a small concession. In Romans, however, Paul teaches that if a husband dies, the wife is free from the marriage bond and allowed to remarry. Why is there such an obvious discrepancy between Paul's teachings to the Romans, who he had not even met yet, and his teachings to the Corinthians?  Also, why does Paul only address the issue as it concerns men? Many bible scholars agree that in Romans Paul is referencing the Mosaic