“Not Under Bondage”

Cliff Sabroe

     1 Corinthians 7:15 states “Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace” (ASV).  The apostle Paul made this statement about 2000 years ago to a church in the midst of much turmoil.  Paul in his letter to the church in Corinth addresses many questions that we can be sure were asked of him.  “Some of these queries had to do with the relationship of a believer who was married to an unbeliever” (Jackson).  Paul addresses this question with the answer that is found in verse 15.  This one verse that Paul uses to address the question, has been the reason for much controversy  in the Lord’s church, and the religious community in general.  Many false doctrines have been fostered do to a lack of understanding on what the text is saying.  In this article 1 Corinthians 7:15 will be examined in light of the context of the passage, and the verse will be exegetically broken down in accordance to the original Greek, so that one can come to the understanding of the point, meaning, and purpose of the text.

     In chapter seven  the context of the passage changes from guidelines for marriage, (vs.1-11) to rules concerning those who were married to unbelievers (vs.12-16).  In verse 12 Paul makes the statement “to the rest say I, not the Lord” (ASV).  Many use this verse to suppose that what Paul is about to speak on is not the legislation of God, but the opinion of Paul himself.  However that supposition is a far cry from the truth.  Paul is not saying that this is his opinion, but “Paul now turns to deal with a problem which had not been the subject of any specific command of our Lord” (Davidson 979).  The problem is that he goes on to give guidelines and rules for those Christians who are in marriages to unbelievers.  It can be assumed that this was something that was common in Corinth or Paul would not have felt the need to address it.  Paul continues to expound on the marriage situation of a believer to an unbeliever in the verses following.  In verses 13 and 14 the beloved apostle explains and expounds that there is no need for a believer to divorce his or her spouse just for the reason that their spouse is not a saint.  It can be assumed that these marriages were “not from Christians marrying pagans, but from the conversion of one out of a pagan couple.  Paul’s command here is that the marriage stands, unless the unbeliever is unwilling and will not allow it to stand” (Coffman 103).  Paul then goes on to explain that through the marriage of the believer to the unbeliever, that the marriage is sanctified before God.  However it can be assumed that a situation may arise where the unbelieving partner leaves his or her believing spouse.  During this time in the history of the church there was vast persecution going on.  It can be concluded that during these times of persecution and distress that there would be many marriages that would be struggling because of it.  It must have been common for the unbelieving spouse of a believer during this time to leave his wife because of the continual persecution. 

     Paul in vs. 15 addresses this topic.  Paul must have known that there were many Christian people that were left by their spouses do to the persecution.  It is safe to say that the Corinthians assumed that they were obligated to follow their spouse even if they departed.  Dave Miller explains the situation this way:

          “The unbeliever now finds himself married to adifferent person (in the sense that his mate underwent a total change and began to live a completelydifferent lifestyle).  The unbeliever demands that hismate make a choice: “either give up Christ or I’m leaving!” (Miller).

      Paul gives legislation on this in verse 15.  In verse 15 the apostle states this “Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace”(ASV).  The word translated as “depart” is the Greek word Cwrizw.  Arndt and Gingrich Greek Lexicon defines Cwrizw as “divide, separate” (898), most of the time this word is in reference to divorce. 

     There has been some that have assumed that the word for “departeth” in this passage is referring to a legal separation. There is no evidence for this theory in the text, and because of the space available in this paper it will be assumed that “departeth” is referring to when an unbelieving person divorces his or her spouse.

     Paul goes on in verse 15 to state that if the unbeliever leaves, that the person is allowed to leave, “Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases…”(ASV).  The controversy arises in what is the phrase “not under bondage” in reference to.

     There is two major schools of thought on what the previously mentioned phrase is referring to.  The first group takes the position that the phrase “not under bondage” means that the believer is no longer under the marriage bond with his or her spouse.  This group says that the point that Paul is making in verse 15 is that if the unbelieving spouse of a believer leaves, then the believer is no longer obligated to be with his or her spouse, and since he or she left, the believer is now able to remarry whoever he or she sees fit.  Most supporters of this position label it as the Pauline Privilege, and in the church, this doctrine was made famous by James D. Bales.  Mathew Henry was a supporter of this position, and he justified in his commentary with statements such as this concerning the deserted spouse of an unbeliever:

          In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. And some think that such a malicious desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage-covenant as death itself.For how is it possible that the two shall be one flesh when the one is maliciously bent to part from or put away the other? Indeed, the deserter seems still boundby the matrimonial contract; and therefore the apostle says (1 cor 7:11), If the woman depart from her husband upon the account of his infidelity, let her remain unmarried. But the deserted party seems to be left more at liberty (I mean supposing all the proper means have been used to reclaim the deserter, andother circumstances make it necessary) to marry another person. It does not seem reasonable that they should be still bound, when it is rendered impossible to perform conjugal duties or enjoy conjugal comforts,through the mere fault of their mate: in such a casemarriage would be a state of servitude indeed. (Henry)

     This position held by Bales, Henry and others is not without legitimate criticism.  The best criticism against the Pauline Privilege position is found in the word “bondage”.  Unlike Henry, James D. Bales does take the position that when the word “bondage” is used that it has direct reference to the marriage bond.  This interpretation however could not be any farther from the truth.  The word bondage is from the Greek word doulow. doulow is defined as meaning one who is a slave, a bondservant (Arndt 205).  This word is never used in the Bible to refer to the marriage bond.  The word that is used for the marriage bond is the Greek Word deo. deo is used in verse 27, but it is not the word that is used for bondage in verse 15.  Most scholars would agree that if Paul was trying to emphasize the marriage bond that he would without a doubt use the word deo as apposed to doulow.  Another legitimate argument against the idea that bondage is referring to the marriage bond, is the fact that the word doulow is in its perfect tense form as dedoulwtai.   Moulton’s Analytical Greek Lexicon states that dedoulwtai is a the “3^rd person singular, perfect passive indicative” (85).  The beautiful thing about the perfect tense is that it is very precise. To translate “not under bondage” literally, because of the perfect tense it could be better translated “never were under bondage, and you never will be”.  This is a big hit to the argument that bondage is referring to the marriage bond.  Because of the perfect tense of the word, we would have to admit if bondage was referring to the marriage bond it would be literally translated, “you were not married and never were married”.  If bondage was referring to the marriage bond, it would make verse 15 stand in direct contradiction with what was mentioned in the previous verses.  In the previous verses Paul makes it very clear that the marriage is God approved.  Verse 14 states “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy” (ASV).  So if bondage was referring to the marriage bond it would negate what Paul said earlier in the chapter.  Martin Luther took the previously stated position concerning remarriage.  However A.T Robertson when analyzing the perfect tense of the word, made this statement. “Luther argued that the Christian partner, thus released, may marry again. But that is by no means clear…” (Robertson).

     Many try to say that even if bondage is not referring to the marriage bond, that the believer is still allowed to remarry.  For one to make this assumption is to add things to the text.  Nowhere in chapter 7 of First Corinthians does Paul make any reference to the remarriage of the believer. Later on in the chapter Paul does legislate on the remarriage of a widow in verse 39 when he states “A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord” (ASV).  Even though Paul does legislate on the remarriage of a widow, nowhere does he even mention the remarriage of a deserted believer.  It is safe to say that if Paul was trying to add to the Lord’s law on marriage divorce and remarriage that he would very clearly state that the deserted believer is authorized to remarry.  None of the language that Paul uses in this passage could be legitimately interpreted to authorize remarriage.

     Anyone can see that 1 Corinthians 7:15 is a verse that is in the midst of much controversy.  Poor interpretations of this verse has caused several congregations to split and many individuals to get the false hope that the marriage relationship that they are in is approved by God.  The solution to the problem of false teaching on this verse, is good unbiased exegesis.  If one comes to this text and casts off any previous opinions that they had and looks at the text in light of the original language, without a doubt they would be able to come to a truthful conclusion.

     All lovers of God’s holy word have an obligation to teach the truth on this topic to all those that are holding to false views. For one to teach a false position on this verse is to lead people to hell.  There are many people that are lead astray by the false teaching on the subject of what does “not under bondage” mean.  Let us all stay true to God’s word till life is taken from us, and let us never relent in pointing out the soul condemning error that is found in false teaching of 1 Corinthians 7:15.

Works Referenced

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilber Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.  Chicago: University   Press, 1952.

Bercot, David W.  A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs.Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 1999.

Bales, James D. Not Under Bondage. Searcy: James D. Bales      Publications, 1979.

Canter, Don. 1 and 2 Corinthians Class Notes. Taken by:Cliff Sabroe, Bear Valley Bible Institute of Denver, 2004.

Coffman, James Burton. Commentary on First and Second Corinthians. Houston: Firm Foundation Publications,     1977.

Davidson, F. The New Bible Commentary. E. F. Kevan, A. M.Stibbs. Grand Rapids: W.M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963.    

Edwards, John L. An in Depth Study of Marriage and Divorce.St. Louis: John L. Edwards Publications, 1985.

Halley, Henry H.  Halley’s Bible Handbook. 24 ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965.

Jackson, Wayne. Christian Courier. “What is the Meaning of “Not under Bondage””      http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/notUnderBond    age.htm. 2003.

Lipscomb, David. Commentary on Fist Corinthians. Nashville:   Gospel Advocate Company, 1979.

McClintock, John & Strong, James. Cyclopedia if Biblical,Ecclesiastical, & Theological Literature Vol. 1. Grand    Rapids: Baker, 1968.

Miller, Dave. Apologetics Press Online. “Not Under Bondage”      http://www.apologeticspress.org/scrspeak/2004/ss-04-09.htm.2003.

Orr, James. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol.1. Grand Rapids: WM B. Eerdmans Publishing,   1946.

Teney, Merril C. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary.Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Fifth Printing 2002.

Vine, W.E. Vine’s Amplified Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers,   1991.