# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S197
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 197

“The NIV is less than precise here: ‘The wife’s body does not be-
long to her alone, but also to her husband.’ The italicized words are nei-
ther in the [Greek] text, nor are they implied.” Their addition could be a
concession to modern Western culture, which glorifies autonomy. (“It’s
my body; I can do what I want with it.”) But Paul’s point is precisely
the opposite. He has just stated, “You are not your own”; “you were
bought for a price” (6:19).

In Christian marriage, neither the husband nor the wife alone
may impose the terms of their sexual relations. One may not grant
or deny sexual relations as a privilege. Neither may one demand
sexual relations as an entitlement or right. Sexual relations are the
physical expression of the spiritual reality accomplished by God
when He “joined” the two into the oneness of marriage. The pas-
sage emphasizes the need for agreement between husband and
wife; neither one may dictate to the other. But abstinence is only to
occur as an exception by mutual agreement; sexual relations are to
be the rule and the routine. Standing solidly upon Scripture, the
church can join a refused spouse in calling upon the refusing
spouse to repent.

The “sexual revolution” that exploded in the ’60s unleashed
enormous and ongoing damage upon our society. It sought to le-
gitimize sexual relations outside marriage and to deliver sexual
pleasure while foreclosing procreation. The satisfaction of one’s
sexual appetites was reframed as a “right”—an entitlement that
cannot be denied or infringed. (This has led directly to the homo-
sexual rights movement that now threatens to pull down the ram-
parts of marriage itself.)

In the face of this corrupting challenge the church must uphold
God’s design for sexual relations: ,

On a basis of full reciprocity, both the husband and the wife are to
fulfill their sexual obligations to one another. The context, which speaks
of power over one another’s bodies and of not depriving one another
(7:4-5), indicates that by ope1An (“marital due”) Paul has the sexual act
in mind. He emphasizes the importance of unselfish giving in the sexual
relationship (47051567): “must give, let him give,” (7:3) rather than a
self-centered seeking to get the best out of the relationship for oneself.
Paul’s stress on unselfish love and consideration for the needs of one’s
spouse is in harmony with the great.discourse on love in chapter 13. It is
in striking contrast with the modern emphasis on self-fulfillment and
the individual’s sexual autonomy.”

Neither the husband nor the wife may demand personal s Satis-
faction. Sexual impulses are strong and difficult to restrain—God
designed them to pull a husband and wife toward one another.
Since few people lack these impulses, Luther (with Christ and Paul)
underscored the importance of marriage in restraining immorality.
The self-control to deny sexual desire is a spiritual gift.

But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to
marry than to burn. (1 Cor. 7:9 NASB)

By asserting a lack of this self-control, one spouse might argue
that his or her mate’s refusal to accede to sexual relations consti-
tutes “desertion,” because this refusal fails to fulfill what one evan-
gelical writer calls “the act of marriage.” Paul proceeds to address
this search for an escape:

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, let her remain
unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband
should not send his wife away. (1 Cor. 7:10-11 NASB)

Once married, in God’s eyes, a man and woman remain hus-
band and wife to each other as long as they are living (cf. 1 Cor.
7:9, Rom. 7:32). God clearly says to the believing spouse that he or
she is not to send his or her mate away. Even if one’s refusal to
participate in the act of marriage were understood as “desertion,”
then each of them is to “remain unmarried” or else “be reconciled.”
While the instructions given here are directed in a particular man-
ner toward “‘the husband” and “the wife,” no respected scriptural
interpreter today would fail to apply these scriptural strictures
equally to both spouses. The believing husband is not to leave his
wife. The believing wife is not to leave her husband. In case we
would miss the point, Paul makes it clear that these instructions are
not from him, but from the Lord.

Only at this point does Paul provide instructions for what has
been called “malicious desertion.” (Inexcusably, the Commission’s

Opinion on this matter neglects these passages except through in- "
direct reference to its own documents.)

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, let him not send her
away. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents
to live with her, let her not send her husband away. For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanc-
tified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are
unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let
him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases,
but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether
you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether
you will save your wife? (1 Cor. 7:12-16 NASB)

Paul makes clear that he offers these comments by way of con-
cession, and not a command from the Lord. He also makes clear
that the brother (Christian man) who has an unbelieving wife who
consents to live with him should not send her away (by separation
or divorce).

Some respected LCMS theologians have indeed interpreted this
passage as permitting a Christian to divorce. Dr. John H. C. Fritz
did so in his time-honored Pastoral Theology, with some impor-
tant caveats: “the innocent party may not enact, but will suffer, the
dissolution of his or her marriage, to wit, when a spouse deserts
the other maliciously.”'® Yet even this explanation only permits the
Christian to refrain from opposing the divorce; it does not authorize
the believer to seek it. Malice must be demonstrated (rare in today’s
no-fault legal proceedings).

In a paper delivered to the Council of Presidents of the LCMS at
their meeting in Montgomery, Ala., on Feb. 11, 1980, entitled “The
Pastoral Office and Divorce, Remarriage, Moral Deviation,” the
sainted professor of exegetical theology'at Concordia Seminary, St.
Louis, Dr. Martin H. Scharlemann, challenged Fritz’s explanation
as too permissive:

Whether such an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7: 10-16 will hold is
very questionable. In any discussion of this pericope, verse 11 must
loom large. It says: “If she (the wife) leaves him, let her remain unmar-
ried or else be reconciled to her husband.” The central issues at stake
here are the two questions whether Christians were really “bound” by
the ties of the old pagan ways of life, and whether it was right for man
and wife to live together while one was a member of the household of
God and the other was not. Paul proceeds to answer these items, first, as
they pertain to Christian couples and then with respect to mixed mar-
Tiages.

This general context was forgotten when malicious desertion was
taken up into canon law and from there into European civil law. As in
the case of Schwagerehe, our fathers brought along also this item from
their European background, without having the opportunity to check
out the apostle’s words in light of the problems existing at Corinth.
Paul’s major emphasis lies at the point of insisting that the marriage tie,
once formed, should in every way possible be maintained (vv. 15b, 16).
Peace is better for a Christian than disruption even under the most dif-
ficult circumstances. There always remains the possibility of saving the
unbeliever.

In short, the apostolic discussion did not intend to offer desertion
malitiosa as a second reason for divorce. As Heinz Wendland put it in
Das Neue Testament Deutsch, “With a high degree of sensitivity Paul
insists that the continuation of mixed marriages depends on the attitude
of the unbelieving spouse.” The verses involved serve rather to under-
score the indissolubility of marriage. Under any circumstances, the
apostolic directives do not extend to the question of remarriage.

Luther’s thinking on divorce and its justification, touching also
upon “the refusal of sexual intercourse,” was ably summarized by
German theologian Paul Althaus:

On the basis of Jesus’ statement (Matthew 5:32 and 19:9), Luther rec-
ognized adultery as the only basis for the dissolution of a marriage. .. .
[But even then,] he advises those who “wish to be Christians” to follow the

‘way of reconciliation even in the case of adultery (as long as the guilty
party humbly confesses and seeks to improve himself). The partner who
seeks reconciliation will respond with Christian love and forgive as long
as there is hope that the guilty party will improve and will not misuse
this forgiveness. What is possible in a single case of adultery, however,
is not a valid response to a continuing sin against marriage, “For one
oversight is still pardonable, but a sin that takes mercy and forgiveness
for granted is intolerable.” Similarly, no one can be forced “to take back
a public prostitute or an adulterer if he does not want to do so or is so
disgusted that he cannot do so.”