By Weldon E. Warnock
Those brethren who see another cause for divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15 claim that “bondage” in v. 15 is the marriage bond and they assert that when Paul said, “is not under bondage,” the apostle meant, “not under the bondage of marriage,” and the believer is free to marry again. James Bales wrote, “The only bondage this believer had ever been in to this unbeliever was the bondage of marriage . . . the context proves that “bondage” refers to marriage . . . the only bondage discussed in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 was the marriage bondage” (Not Under Bondage, pp. 62,68,91).
The Greek word for “bondage” in the text is dedoulotai, 3rd per. sing. perfect, ind. pass. of douloo. Thayer says it means “to make a slave of, reduce to bondage” (p. 158). After Thayer gives the definition of douloo he interprets its usage in 1 Corinthians 7:15 as “to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter.” He does not say this is the marriage bond. Vine states “to make a slave of, to bring into bondage.” Arndt-Gingrich define it to “make someone a slave of (doulos), enslave, subject” (p. 205). They say it means figuratively, “be bound (as a slave).” Kittel says, “The basic meaning is ‘to make a slave,’ ‘to enslave… (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 279).
It becomes apparent to me, after reading the preceding definitions, that Paul did not have the loosening of nuptial vows in mind when he said “not under bondage.” When the apostle spoke of being bound in marriage (1 Cor. 7:25,39), he used deo, not douloo. It is odd that Paul switched words in the same chapter if “bondage.” (douloo) in v. 15 is speaking of marriage also. The word dedoulotai (bondage) suggests that the believer was not a bond servant to the unbeliever or a slave to man, even though the person was a marriage partner. Paul said the same thing in a general way in 1 Corinthians 7:23, “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants men.” This principle is specifically applied to the marriage relationship in v. 15.
Neander wrote, as quoted in Lange’s commentary: “The Apostle only means, that in matters of religious conviction, one person cannot be the slave of another, (that a married Christian person cannot be forced to remain with a heathen consort, if the latter will not allow the exercise of his own religious views. Under such circumstances separation should be allowed: but concerning liberty to marry again, nothing is said”).
Grosheide wrote that “the members of the church of Christ are not subject to an unbeliever” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 166). Barnes said, “Many have supposed that this means they would be at liberty to marry again when the unbelieving wife or husband had gone away. . . . But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle” (1 Corinthians, p. 119). Robertson and Plummer state all that is meant is “that he or she need not feel so bound by Christ’s prohibition of divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on separation” (Commentary on First Corinthians).
Caverno, in the LS.B.E. (Vol. 2, p. 866) said, “But Paul has not said in that verse or anywhere else that a Christian partner deserted by a heathen may be married to someone else. All he said is: ‘If the unbelieving depart: the brother or sister is not under bondage (dedoulotai) in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.’ To say that a deserted partner ‘hath not been enslaved’ is not to say that he or she may be remarried. ” Cavemo also says that “Paul has not modified Christ in any respect.”
None of the preceding commentators thought that “not under bondage” meant “loosed from the marriage bond with a right to remarry.” There are a few commentators who differ, but the evidence to me is too strong that “bondage” is not referring to the marriage bond, but rather it means that a Christian is not a slave to men, even a marriage partner.
The tense of the word dedoulotai would not permit it to mean the marriage bond. The word is in the perfect tense. The perfect tense would mean the brother or sister had not been in bondage and is still not under bondage to the unbeliever. However, the believer would certainly have been in bondage if the marriage bond is indicated.
Monroe Tharp, professor of Greek at the Bear Valley School of Preaching (Denver, Colorado), as quoted by Roy Lanier, Sr. said: “The Greek perfect tense is used here to show the meaning: ‘The brother or sister has not been enslaved and is still not enslaved.’ One could not be released from slavery who had never been enslaved.’ One could not be released from slavery who had never been enslaved” (Your Marriage Can Be Great, p. 471).
Marshall’s Interlinear translates “not under bondage” to mean “has not been enslaved.” The Pulpit Commentary says, “has not been enslaved.” Since the word dedoulotai means “to make someone a slave, enslave, subject” (Arndt and Gingrich), the only kind of slavery that a believer had ever been under was before conversion. From the time of conversion, the Christian has not been enslaved. Keep in mind that Tharp, Marshall’s Interlinear and the Pulpit Commentary said the believer “has not been enslaved.”
The perfect tense is a combination of punctiliar action and durative action (Davis’ Greek Grammar, p. 152). Dedoulotai is perfect tense. Therefore, it has punctiliar (completed) action and durative (linear) action. The idea would be that at conversion the Christian becomes free from bondage (completed action) and continues free (durative action) from bondage. As a Christian, one has never been in moral and spiritual bondage to men, but is a servant or slave of the Lord Jesus Christ. Quoting the apostle Paul again, “Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants (slaves) of men.” A Christian is not under bondage to any man, whether it be in marriage, slavery, government or business. In 1 Corinthians 7:15 Paul simply means that the believer is not to give up Christianity or compromise truth in order to save the marriage with an unbeliever. He or she is “not under bondage in such cases” or any other case or matter that has to do with human relationships.
Nobody has proved that the marriage bond is broken or loosed on the basis of an unbeliever divorcing a believer. Brethren arbitrarily make the word “bondage” mean the marriage bond. There is no evidence that “bondage” means the marriage bond. Their position sanctions the remarriage of believers who have been deserted by unbelievers -without proving that “bondage” means the marriage bond. This is dangerous business. Their view permits the deserted believer to marry ‘an unbeliever who has divorced a dozen wives or husbands. The result of this kind of thinking has God showing more favor to Christians deserted by unbelievers than he does to Christians deserted by Christians. The former can remarry as many times as he/she is deserted, but the latter cannot remarry unless the deserter is put away for fornication.
Concerning brother Bassett’s illustration of a college football coach and his players, all the players are on the team and all play by the same rules. The coach would not give one set of rules for football to the veteran players and a different set of rules for the new players. Yet, this is what brother Bassett has Paul doing for married couples.
The believers married to believers (illustrated by veteran players) must remain unmarried if there is a divorce or be reconciled to his/her mate. This is one set of rules for a married couple. However, for the believers married to unbelievers (illustrated by new players), they may remarry someone else if the unbeliever departs. Here is another set of rules for a married couple, according to brother Bassett. This is the same team (the married team, per brother Bassett’s illustration), but brother Bassett has it playing by different rules. I believe the football example better illustrates my position than it does brother Bassett’s.
I had proposed to brother Bassett that we discuss this issue on a broader scale, namely, whether unbelievers desiring to be baptized who have divorced and remarried without the cause of fornication, may remain together (cohabit) as husband and wife, but he informed me that he had agreed to have an exchange on this topic with brother Ken Leach in Sentry Magazine. In my judgment it would have been profitable to discuss the proposition in both papers Guardian of Truth and Sentry Magazine.
Alien sinners, having divorced their wives/husbands without the cause of fornication, and are living with their second, third or fourth marriage-partner, are told by brother Bassett, as well as others, that they may continue to live together (cohabit) after they are baptized. This position affects far more people than whether “bondage” in 1 Corinthians 7:15 means the marriage bond. I have never seen, personally, a case where the unbeliever put away his/her mate on the grounds that he/she was a Christian.
Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 466-467
August 3, 1989