David Anguish
There would be fewer divorces if more people appreciated just how different the Bible's teaching about the subject is from modern views. It's not just that Scripture speaks against divorce, but that it approaches the subject in a dramatically different way from what we usually hear today.
Consider Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7: "But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. . . . " (1 Corinthians 7:10-13, NASB).
Read with modern eyes, it is possible to minimize Paul's point and see the word "leave" (vv 10, 11) as suggestive of a separation of a married couple, a cooling-off or sorting-out period. It's a way to have what we might call a "both-and" marriage, a relationship where the couple is not really together, but not officially apart either. It's a step shy of divorce, or, as is so often the case today, the step before divorce.
Such is not what Paul had in mind. There are two words for divorce here. The first, aphiemi, is translated "divorce" in verses 11 and 12, and "send away" in verse 13. It is used in a variety of ways in the New Testament, the root meaning of sending away extended to refer to such things as leaving, departure, and even forgiveness (the sending away of sins). It is also used, as here, of divorce.
The second word, ch_riz_, is translated "leave" in verses 10, 11 and 15. Its basic meaning is "depart, separate, put asunder." Significantly, it is used by Jesus in Matthew 19:6 - "what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." Writings from outside the New Testament show that it was used often in the ancient world as a term for divorce.
The use of both words in 1 Corinthians 7 reflects the customs of the day. What may be in Paul's mind is the Jewish view in which "only the husband had the right to divorce" (C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 162). Or, the word change may reflect belief in the headship of the man. As Robertson and Plummer put it, "the home is his: she can leave it, but he sends her away from it" (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 140). Whatever the reason for the change, we are safe in saying that what Paul has in mind in both words is divorce, not anything like the modern practice of separation.
Confirmation of this comes from the parenthetical statement of verse 11, offered to explain the basic teaching "that the wife should not leave her husband" (v 10). Paul says, "but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband." Unless a divorce is in view, it makes no sense to say that the wife "must remain unmarried." What Paul envisions - and remember, he invokes the Lord's instructions on this point - is that the choice one has is not the "both-and" of modern custom, but a strong "either-or" - either be married or divorced. There can be no doubt which option he favored.
There are many ways modern culture erodes the home's foundation. Some approach marriage with an attitude which says,"if it works out, fine; if not, we can always try again." Others move more slowly toward divorce, in effect allowing the modern cooling-off option to provide an excuse for not working on what needs to be fixed in a troubled marriage.
God takes another approach. With commitment more important than romantic love, he says, in effect, get in - and get in to stay - or stay out. How different would things be today if more marriages had been built around his view?