In previous articles on the subject of divorce and remarriage, we have studied Matthew 19:9. That passage reads:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

From this verse we conclude: (a) Whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than fornication and marries another is guilty of adultery; (b) Whoever divorces his wife for fornication and remarries does not commit adultery; (c) Whoever marries a person put away commits adultery.

This teaching has been undermined in recent years by redefining "adultery" to mean "the act of divorcing and remarrying" and by limiting the application of Matthew 19:9 to the marriage of two Christians. Both of these false doctrines previously have been examined.

1 Corinthians 7:15

Another false doctrine which undermines the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage pertains to a unique interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:15. That passage reads as follows:

But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

James D. Bales' book Not Under Bondage was published in 1979 and already its influence is being felt among conservative brethren. (For example, see the 18 October 1987 issues of Coburg Road Bulletin published by the church which meets at 1005 Coburg Rd. in Eugene, Oregon, in which Jerry Bassett took the same position as brother Bales.) In this book, brother Bales takes the position that Matthew 19:9 is limited in application to two Christians and that Paul legislates for a Christian married to a non-Christian in I Corinthians 7:10-15. Last issue's editorial responded to this teaching of brother Bales. Brother Bales continues to assert that "not under bondage" refers to the marriage bond in 1 Corinthians 7:15, concluding that the Christian who is divorced by an unbeliever is free from the marriage bond and has the right to remarriage. Bales wrote,

The bondage from which the believer was freed if the unbeliever departed is the very bondage the believer is in if the unbeliever does not depart (p. 63).

Paul said desertion by the unbeliever so changed the believer's situation that the believer was free, and since free this left the believer with the right to remarry if the believer so desired (p. 92).

Let us examine the doctrine that "not under bondage" gives the believer the right to remarriage in the event that the unbeliever deserts him.

If Brother Bales Is Correct. . .

If brother Bales is correct that desertion by an unbeliever frees the Christian, giving him the right to remarriage, the following are logical conclusions:

1. It is better to many an unbeliever. If a Christian woman marries a believer and he deserts her, she must "remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband" (1 Cor. 7:11). However, if she marries an unbeliever and he departs, she is "not under bondage," which Bales explains to mean that she is free to remarry. Hence, the Christian would be in a better situation, should a desertion occur, to have married an unbeliever than a believer.

2. If the unbeliever left because of a legitimate complaint against the believer, the believer would still have the right to remarriage. If a Christian man married a non-Christian woman but beat her unmercifully until she was content to depart, the Christian man would have the right to remarriage, according to the implications of brother Bales' teaching.

3. The interpretation creates a double standard for two different Christians. If two Christian women married, one to a believer and one to an unbeliever, and both were deserted by their husbands, the one married to the believer would not be free to remarry but the one married to the unbeliever would be free to remarry (even if she was the cause of him deserting her). This creates a double standard, undermining God's righteous judgment (Acts 17:30).

To Whom Does 1 Corinthians 7:15 Apply?

The interpretation given 1 Corinthians 7:15 by brother Bales makes the Christian not under bondage when he is deserted by an unbeliever for any reason. This is not the condition under discussion in the passage.

If brother Bales is correct in his conclusion that "not under bondage" gives the deserted party the right to remarriage, the application is limited to the believer whose mate left because of hisfaith in Jesus. The text is speaking about an unbeliever being content to dwell with, a Christian. Because of the present distress (v. 26) - a persecution aimed at Christians - some unbelievers would be unwilling to be subjected to mistreatment because they were married to believers. Consequently, they would not be content to dwell with their believing spouse. If "not under bondage" is understood to give the believer the right to remarriage when the unbeliever departs, it is limited to the departing under consideration in the text - departing because the mate is a Christian. The text cannot be used to give the believer the right to remarriage if the unbeliever departs for any other reason, such as him deciding he no longer wants to be married, character flaws in the Christian, marital conflicts, etc. If brother Bales is correct in his understanding of "not under bondage," the most that could be concluded would be that there are two reasons for divorce which allow the person a right to remarriage: fornication and desertion because one is a Christian. If he is correct with reference to this latter point, the application is so rare that few such divorces would qualify to meet the exception. In twenty-three years of preaching, I have never met a Christian who was divorced because he was a Christian.

Does "Bondage" Refer To The Marriage Bond?

Having considered some of the consequences of brother Bales' doctrine, let us look at the text. When Paul said the believer is "not under bondage" was he discussing the marriage bond, as brother Bales asserts?

1. The word "bondage" (Greek. douleo) does not refer to the marriage bond. When Paul speaks of the marriage bond, he uses the word deo, as in these passages:

For the woman which hath an husband is bound (deo) by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband (Rom. 7:2).

Art thou bound (deo) to a wife? Seek not to be loosed . . (1 Cor. 7:27).

The wife is bound (deo) by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39).

The word douleo carries a different connotation than deo, as seen from the following passages:

(1) Acts 7:6 - "they should bring them into bondage. . .

(2) Rom. 6:18 - "ye became servants to God"

(3) Rom. 6:22 - "and became servants to God"

(4) 1 Cor. 9:19 - "I brought myself under bondage to all"

(5) Gal. 4:3 - "were held in bondage under the rudiments"

(6) Tit. 2:3 - "not enslaved to much wine"

(7) 2 Pet. 2:19 - "of the same is he brought into bondage"

The word "bondage," from douleo, is defined by the lexicons and other Greek authorities in this manner:

(1) Thayer: "to make a slave, reduce to bondage. . . 1 Cor. 7:15 to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity, in some matter" (p. 158).

(2) Arndt & Gingrich: "make someone a slave, enslave, subject . . . be bound as a slave, 1 Cor. 7:15" (p. 205).

(3) Kittel: "to make a slave, to enslave. . . . In 1 Cor. 7:15 douloun expresses total binding by another" (Vol. 11, p. 279).

(4) "The situation called for a word of strong meaning ("enslavement"), but there is no indication in the history of the use of the word, or the context in which Paul is using it, specifically of the breaking of the marriage bond. Rather it speaks of the Christian's liberty; they are not totally enslaved when married to unbelievers. Remarriage is not the scope of Paul's language here" (R.L. Roberts, "The Meaning of Chorizo and Doulon in 1 Cor. 7:10-17," Restoration Quarterly, VIII:3 [3rd Quarter, 1965], p. 183).

The evidence from the lexicons does not support the conclusion that the "bondage" of the text refers to the marriage bond.

2. The tense of the verb prohibits the verb from referring to the marriage bond. The tense of the verb dictates against the meaning given by brother Bales to "not under bondage." Brother Bales would have on "not under bondage" from the moment that the believer is deserted by the unbeliever. The tense of the verb makes this impossible.

The tense of the verb is perfect. "The perfect combines in itself, so to speak, the present and the aorist in that it denotes the continuance of a complete action" (Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the N. T. and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 175). The perfect tense of douleo looks back to the time of the marriage. The apostle is saying, "The believer was not bound and is not now bound." The believer was never and is not now enslaved to the unbeliever. Why? Because marriage is not an institution of slavery.

If "not under bondage" refers to the marriage bond, we should be able to substitute the marriage bond in the place of "not under bondage" and the text express the truth. "Let the reader substitute the word 'marriage' for 'bondage,' giving the full force to the perfect tense [i.e., 'has not been married and is not married'] and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as marriage will be readily apparent" (Wayne Jackson, "The 'Pauline Privilege' - So Called," The Beacon [28 March 1985], p. 2). Hence, "not under bondage" does not and cannot refer to the marriage bond.

3. The text can be explained without applying the word "bondage" to the marriage bond. Here are the interpretations given to the verse by various commentators on 1 Corinthians 7:15:

(1) C.K. Barrett: ". . Ahe Christian brother or sister is not enslaved, that is, to a mechanical retention of a relationship the other partner wishes to abandon" (p. 166).

(2) J. Agar Beet: ''To be obligated to force oneself on a reluctant heathen husband or wife, would be a bondage inconsistent with Christian liberty" (p. 118).

(3) G.G. Findlay, Expositor's Greek Testament: "the stronger vb. of this passage implies that for the repudiated party to continue bound to the repudiator would be slavery . . . . Whether the freedom of the innocent divorced extends to remarriage, does not appear" (p. 827).

(4) H.L. Goudge: "is not under bondage: To continue bound to a heathen, who wishes to repudiate the connection, would be slavery. Whether S. Paul by these words allows remarriage to the Christian may be doubted" (p. 56).

(5) Albert Barnes: "Many have supposed that this means that they would be at liberty to marry again when the unbelieving wife of husband had gone away. . . But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle" (p. 119).

(6) Robertson & Plummer (ICC): "We cannot safely argue with Luther that ou dedoulatai implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by the heathen partner, may marry again. . . . All that ou dedoulotai clearly means 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" (p. 143).

(7) Cf. also Fred Fisher (pp. 108,109); H.A.W. Meyer (p. 161); James Moffatt (p. 84); S.T. Bloomfield (Vol. 11, p. 119); Henry Alford (p. 525; though taking many similar positions to those being reviewed, says, "the question of remarrying after such a separation, is here left open").

Honesty demands that we note that some commentaries do hold that the verse allows the right to remarriage. Commentaries favoring the right to remarriage include the following: T.C. Edwards (pp. 174-175); Leon Morris (Tyndale Com.); Jean Hering (p. 53); Charles Hodge; John Parry (Cambridge Greek N.T., p. 113).

Not A Necessary Inference

The very best that could be argued from this text is that "not under bondage" may be inferred to mean that the marriage bond is broken and the party is free to remarry. This is not a necessary inference. Since "not under bondage" cannot be conclusively proved to mean that the deserted Christian is freed from marriage and has the right to remarriage, one is no more justified in preaching his inference that desertion frees the Christian to marry again than is the infant baptizer who preaches his inference that there were infants baptized in the household of Lydia, which authorizes infant baptism. Both are preaching an inference, but not a necessary inference. Such inferences are mere human opinions which should not be taught.

Conclusion

Men are injecting their own liberal views into the text of 1 Corinthians 7:15 to conclude that this passage authorizes remarriage for a Christian who has been deserted by his unbelieving mate for any reason. Such a view leads to illogical conclusions (see section "If Brother Bales Is Correct"). It is not a necessary inference from the text; rather, it is a mere human inference - an inference with which many respected scholars are disagreed. To begin preaching such a doctrine opens the floodgate to preach any and every inference, necessary or unnecessary, one can make from any text, undermining the plea for the unity of God's people based on the restoration of the ancient order. Such preaching is a departure from book, chapter, and verse preaching which determines authority from command, example, or necessary inference. Consequently, we reject brother Bales interpretation of "not under bondage" in 1 Corinthians 7:15.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 14, pp. 418, 437-438
July 21, 1988