Wyatt Houtz (The PostBarthian) asks, ‘Why is it so difficult for Christians to accept that Paul abandoned his wife?’

Houtz’s thesis is that it is likely, from the available evidence, that Paul had been married but that he had his wife had separated following his conversion to Christ.

Here are the main steps in the argument.

1. Paul had been married.  It is unthinkable that Paul, as a strict Pharisee (Phil 3:4-6; Gal 1:13-15; Acts 9:1f), would not have been married.  *Houtz regards this proposition as sufficiently uncontroversial as not to require specific evidence.

2. Paul was not a widow at the time of his conversion.  If his first wife had died then again, as a strict Pharisee, he would have remarried.  But there is no indicaton that he did so.

3. Paul was not single (i.e. unmarried) at the time of his conversion.  In 1 Cor 7:8 he does indeed describe himself as ‘unmarried’, but v 11 clarifies that the word can be used of a person who has separated from their spouse.

4. Paul abandoned his wife after his conversion in order to pursue his calling as an apostle.  Immediately after his conversion he proceeded to Damascus for three years (Gal 1:18) and from there to Arabia for 14 years (Gal 2:1).  Only then did he return to Jerusalem.  It would appear that Paul had an influential family in Jerusalem, and they came to his aid while he was imprisoned (Acts 23:16).  We may infer that his wife remained in Jerusalem throughout the 17 years he was an outcast.  It is reasonable to suppose that this extended separation was by mutual agreement.

5. Paul’s wife was not supportive of his ministry.  This is latent in 1 Cor 7:8-16, where, it is reasonable to suppose, Paul is defending his own actions.  Paul and his wife agreed to separate over irreconcilable differences.

6. Paul’s unbelieving wife may be contrasted with Peter’s believing wife.  Part of the background to 1 Cor 7 may well be that when Paul addressed issues relating to marriage and sexuality in Corinth he was sensitive to the charge of hypocrisy, since he had separated from his wife.  He was aware that Peter’s wife traveled around with him (1 Cor 9:3-5): ‘Paul, why don’t you bring your wife with you?’

7. Paul’s wife is testified to in the early church.  Those who mention her include Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), Eusebius of Caesarea / Pamphilus (c. 260/265 – 339), Ignatius of Antioch (died c. 108/140), Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253).

Remarkably, Jesus himself mentions those who have ‘left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of God’s kingdom’ (Lk 18:29).

Implications

If Paul was separated from his wife, then certain things follow:

• Paul was a man who knew failure (just like the rest of us!).
• Paul should not be used to promote singleness as an ideal.
• People with broken marriages should not be shunned or ostracised.
• Christians leaders with moral failings should not be treated unduly harshly by the ultramoralistic who cannot tolerate such failings in anyone (except themselves).

Comment

I found this article a bit over-stated.  Some of the steps in the argument are more secure than others.

The article itself suggests that Paul and his wife separated by mutually agreement.  Therefore, ‘abandonment’ is an unnecessarily emotive word, suggesting as it does a one-sided and selfish action on the part of Paul.

Nevertheless, a plausible case is made for the notion that Paul and his wife separated by mutual agreement.  I would quite like to believe this, if only to remind us that he, great apostle that he was, was sinner like the rest of us (Jesus Christ alone excepted).

*On the assertion that Pharisees were invariably married, Fee (1 Corinthians, 1st ed.) writes:

‘On the thorny question of whether Paul was ever married (which includes the related question of whether he was a rabbi—he almost certainly was, and therefore had to have been married), see J. Jeremias, “War Paulus Witwer?” ZNW 25 (1926), 310–12; idem, “Nochmals: War Paulus Witwer?” ZNW 28 (1929), 321–322; Ford, Trilogy, pp. 82–84; Arens, “Married?”; all of these argue that Paul was both a rabbi and a widower. Hurd, 275, thinks otherwise, but his case rests on his dubious reconstruction of the earlier teaching of Paul in Corinth. That Paul is not now married is certain; that is supported both by this text and the normal reading of 9:5. But this passage suggests that formerly he very well may have been married.’

See also this by Denny Burk, who argues that Paul was a widower.