1 Corinthians 7:10

An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: The Nuance of Separation and Divorce

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: The Nuance of Separation and Divorce is based on a b-greek discussion from October 6, 1999.

The initial inquiry from a participant in an online discussion forum focused on the grammatical structure of 1 Corinthians 7:10b, specifically the phrase `γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι` (a wife from a husband not to be separated). The question centered on why the verb `χωρισθῆναι` (choristhēnai), being in the passive voice, is often translated actively in English, such as “a wife must not separate from her husband,” rather than a more literal “a wife must not be divorced by/from her husband.” A related query concerned the role of the preposition `ἀπό` (apo) with the genitive `ἀνδρός` (andros), questioning whether it functions as an agent or merely denotes separation.

The central exegetical issue revolves around the precise semantic range of the aorist passive infinitive `χωρισθῆναι` (v. 10b) and the aorist passive subjunctive `χωρισθῇ` (v. 11a) in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Specifically, it concerns whether these forms denote a strictly passive action (“to be divorced/separated by another”) or carry a middle sense (“to separate oneself,” “to get a divorce”). Further complexity arises from the interpretation of the prepositional phrase `ἀπὸ ἀνδρός` (apo andros) and `ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρός` (apo tou andros), which requires determining if `ἀπό` indicates agency (“by”) or merely source/separation (“from”). The discussion highlights the challenge of accurately translating Greek idioms, especially those involving the passive voice with a potential middle force, into English while maintaining contextual fidelity and theological precision regarding marital dissolution.

Τοῖς δὲ γεγαμηκόσιν παραγγέλλω, οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ Κύριος, γυναῖκα ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς μὴ χωρισθῆναι (ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ, μενέτω ἄγαμος ἢ τῷ ἀνδρὶ καταλλαγήτω), καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μὴ ἀφιέναι.
(1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Nestle 1904)

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• For the specific phrases under discussion (χωρισθῆναι, χωρισθῇ, and ἀπὸ ἀνδρός), the Nestle 1904 text and the SBLGNT 2010 are identical. Minor orthographic variations, such as the capitalization of `Κύριος` in Nestle 1904 compared to `κύριος` in SBLGNT, do not impact the exegetical analysis of the verbal forms or prepositional phrases.

Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG)

The textual apparatus of NA28 (Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition) reveals no significant variants for the critical verbs `χωρισθῆναι` or `χωρισθῇ`, nor for the prepositional phrase `ἀπὸ ἀνδρός` in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. The textual integrity of these forms is well-attested, meaning the exegetical challenge lies in their interpretation rather than in reconstructing the original text.

Lexically, the verb `χωρίζω` (chōrizō) is central to the passage. BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon) provides a comprehensive semantic range:

• “To cause to be separated, separate, divide, part.”
• “To be separated from, become divorced from” (e.g., 1 Cor 7:10, 11, 15). This indicates an understanding of the passive voice forms potentially carrying a middle or reflexive force in specific contexts, particularly concerning marital separation.
• “To separate oneself from, leave, go away from, divorce.” This explicitly supports an active/middle interpretation for forms that are morphologically passive but semantically denote self-initiated action.

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) further elaborates on `χωρίζω` within the Greco-Roman and Jewish contexts. It highlights that in secular Greek, the passive form could indeed convey a middle sense, especially when referring to personal actions like “departing” or “divorcing oneself.” In the New Testament, particularly in Paul’s writings, `χωρίζω` often carries the sense of separation or divorce, and the passive voice is frequently employed in contexts where the subject is actively separating or divorcing, even if the grammatical form suggests being separated *by* another. This usage suggests an idiom where the passive voice effectively functions as a middle, emphasizing the state or action undertaken by the subject rather than merely an action inflicted upon them by an external agent. The preposition `ἀπό` with the genitive typically signifies separation “from” a source or person, reinforcing the idea of a parting rather than explicit agency.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical analysis of `χωρισθῆναι` (aorist passive infinitive) and `χωρισθῇ` (aorist passive subjunctive) is crucial. While morphologically passive, many verbs in Koine Greek, including `χωρίζω`, can assume a *middle* voice function when in the passive form, especially in the aorist. This phenomenon is often termed a “deponent passive” or a “passive with a middle sense.” The active voice `χωρίζω` means “I separate (someone/something else),” while a true middle `χωρίζομαι` would mean “I separate myself.” In the aorist, the middle and passive voices often share the same morphological endings (e.g., `-θη` forms). Therefore, it is exegetically plausible that `χωρισθῆναι` and `χωρισθῇ` here imply a self-initiated action: “to separate oneself” or “to get divorced.”

The prepositional phrase `ἀπὸ ἀνδρός` (from a husband) further supports this interpretation. `Ἀπό` with the genitive case primarily denotes separation “from,” “away from,” or “originating from.” While `ἀπό` can, in certain contexts (particularly with perfect passive verbs), indicate agency (“by”), its more common and natural usage in constructions like `χωρίζω ἀπό` is to specify the source of separation or the person/thing one is separating from. If Paul intended to convey clear agency (“divorced *by* her husband”), he might have used `ὑπό` (hypo) with the genitive, which more explicitly denotes personal agency in passive constructions.

Rhetorically, the choice between a passive “be divorced by” and a middle/active “separate from” has significant implications for understanding agency and responsibility within marital dissolution. Translating these forms with an active or middle sense (“separate,” “divorce oneself”) aligns with the broader context of mutual responsibility and agency in Paul’s directives regarding marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul addresses both wives and husbands, indicating that both parties have a role in maintaining or dissolving the marriage. Attributing agency to the wife in her separation (as in “she must not separate”) seems consistent with the instruction for the husband not to divorce his wife immediately following (`καὶ ἄνδρα γυναῖκα μὴ ἀφιέναι`, “and a husband must not send away his wife”). This parallel structure suggests symmetrical agency where possible.

English translations commonly reflect this middle interpretation. For example, the NIV renders 7:10b-11a as: “A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.” Similarly, the NASB translates: “a wife should not leave her husband. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband).” These translations acknowledge the Greek idiom, prioritizing idiomatic English for clarity over a strictly literal, but potentially misleading, passive rendering.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analysis of the aorist passive forms of `χωρίζω` exhibiting a middle semantic force, and the typical function of `ἀπό` with the genitive denoting separation from a source, the most accurate and contextually appropriate understanding of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 attributes an active or middle agency to the wife regarding separation or divorce. The passage primarily instructs both spouses against initiating separation.

Here are three suggested translations for 1 Corinthians 7:10b-11a, reflecting various interpretive nuances:

1. “A wife must not separate from her husband; but if she separates, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.”
   This translation emphasizes the wife’s active choice to initiate the separation, aligning with the common interpretation of the Greek passive with a middle force.
2. “A wife is not to divorce her husband; but if she does divorce, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.”
   This rendering uses the more direct English term “divorce” to reflect the nature of the marital separation implied, while still attributing agency to the wife.
3. “A wife should not leave her husband; but if she leaves, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.”
   This option opts for a slightly less formal verb “leave,” which is a common English idiom for initiating marital separation, effectively conveying the middle sense of the Greek verb.