Would you address 1 Corinthians 7:15?
Does desertion by a non-believing mate grant the abandoned Christian the
right of remarriage?
In First Corinthians, chapter 7, the apostle
Paul responds to a number of questions that had been submitted to him by
various members of the church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1). Some
of these queries had to do with the relationship of a believer who is
married to an unbeliever.
For example, should a Christian leave his or
her unbelieving spouse? Paul’s answer was in the negative — not if the
unbeliever is content to keep on dwelling with the Christian (1 Cor.
7:12-13). The “sanctified” environment of a home in which the
influence of the gospel is found could lead to the conversion of the
heathen partner (1 Cor. 7:14; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1).
But what if the unbeliever should not be
content to remain with the Christian, and he “departs” (chorizetai,
literally “separates himself”)? What should the Christian do? Paul says
that the child of God “is not under bondage” in such cases (1 Cor.
7:15).
Some have argued that First Corinthians 7:15
provides a second cause for divorce (in addition to the “fornication” of
Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and so, by implication, expands Jesus’
teaching, and authorizes a subsequent remarriage on the ground of
“desertion” by an unbelieving mate. This view is commonly called the
“Pauline privilege.”
The theory certainly is not a new one. It
was advocated by Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), one of the so-called
“church fathers.” It became a part of Roman Catholic Canon law and was
defended by Martin Luther. This view, we are convinced, is unwarranted
and constitutes a compromise of the Lord’s teaching on divorce and
remarriage.
Let’s Look at the Context
This theory reads into the context that
which simply is not there.
Here are the facts. The Corinthian saints
were asking many questions relating to marriage. From the nature of
their questions, they had been influenced by a proto-Gnostic philosophy
that asserted sexual relations were intrinsically evil.
Here are some of the questions they were
asking:
Should a Christian husband and wife separate
from (chorizo) or leave (aphiemi) each other (1 Cor. 7:10-11)?
Paul’s answer was no. But should a separation occur, celibacy should be
maintained or else a reconciliation effected.
Should a Christian leave his unbelieving
mate? Again, Paul’s response was no, not if the unbeliever is willing to
remain with the believer (1 Cor. 7:12-13).
What if the unbeliever initiates a
separation? What should the Christian do? Let him go, the apostle says.
The Christian is not enslaved to that mate in the sense that domestic
proximity is absolutely required (1 Cor. 7:15). “Divorce” is not
under consideration here. The New Testament term for divorce is apoluo
(literally, to loose away; cf. Mt. 5:31-32; 19:3,7-9; Mk.
10:2-4,11-12; Lk. 16:18), and that word is meticulously avoided in
First Corinthians 7:10-15.
Paul Versus Jesus?
Was Paul issuing a teaching different than
what Christ taught? No.
Paul makes it clear that the general theme
under consideration in this context had not been comprehensively dealt
with by the Lord. The Lord had taught concerning some matters — “not I,
but the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:10), but not with reference to other
matters — “say I, not the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:12).
However, regarding divorce, Christ had
spoken comprehensively (note the “whosoever” and “every one” (Mt.
5:31-32; 19:9). Thus, the subject being reviewed in First
Corinthians 7:10-15 was not that of divorce.
Does “Not Under Bondage”
Mean Divorce Is Permitted?
The word rendered “bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15)
is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how
the word is translated in Titus 2:3 — “enslaved to much wine.”
Biblically speaking, marriage is never
viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to
the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the
Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to
maintain a togetherness (note the allusion of 1 Cor. 7:5) at the
expense of fidelity to the Lord.
Interestingly, douloo (under bondage) in
verse 15 is, in the Greek Testament, a perfect tense form, dedoulotai.
The perfect tense denotes a present state resulting from past action.
Its force here is this: “was not bound [past action] and is not bound
[present state].” The sense of the verse thus is:
Yet if (assuming such should occur) the
unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself: the brother or
sister was not [before the departure] and is not [now that the departure
has occurred] enslaved ....
Whatever the “bondage” is, therefore, the
Christian was not in it even before the disgruntled spouse left. But the
saint was married (and is) to him, hence, the bondage is not the
marriage!
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 the marriage itself will be apparent.
First Corinthians 7:15 does not expand upon
the Savior’s teaching with reference to divorce and remarriage, as much
as some wish that it were so.
Note
Some contend that the term chorizo is used
in verse 15 of divorce. The word is related to choris which means
“separately, apart, by itself.” Chorizo simply means to “divide” or
“separate” (cf. Rom. 8:35; Heb. 7:26; Philem. 15).
The term is generic, and thus may include
divorce, as Matthew 19:6 indicates, but there is no indication
that it means divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 15 (though some
lexicographers, leaving their areas of expertise and assuming the role
of commentators, have so designated it).
Professor Lewis Johnson
notes:
“It is true that the verb ‘to depart’ in the
middle voice [it is middle in verse 15] was almost a technical term for
divorce in the papyri ... This, however, really proves nothing here”
(1962, 1240).
Additional Testimony
Regarding 1 Corinthians 7:15
Here are some additional information for you
to consider.
“We are not, however, to suppose ... that
the marriage was, in such a case, ipso facto dissolved, so that the
believing party might contract a fresh one. This is alike at variance
with the letter and spirit of our Lord’s decision (Matt. 5:32);
and, indeed, with the Apostle’s own words in this Chapter ... the
conjugal union is not to be dissolved by reason of difference in
religion; yet if the unbelieving party be disposed to separate, the
believing party may blamelessly submit to such separation” Bloomfield
1837, 119).
“If the heathen husband or wife is resolved
upon separation, they must be allowed to separate. The Christian is not
a slave in such matters, although the Christian’s duty is to labor for
peace and agreement. The separation here spoken of is not a separation
allowing the Christian man or woman to marry again during the lifetime
of the heathen spouse. It is separation, not divorce” (Woodford 1881).
“In such circumstances, where the unbeliever
was unwilling for cohabitation, the believing partner did not need to
feel bound to persist in seeking reconciliation since God’s calling was
to peace, not discord ...” (Harris 1971, 535).
“Many have supposed that this means that
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” (Barnes 1956, 119).
“We cannot safely argue with Luther that ou
dedoulotai implies that the Christian partner, when divorced by a
heathen partner, may marry again ... All that ou dedoulotai clearly
means is that he or she is not so bound by Christ’s prohibition of
divorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathen partner insists on
separation” (Robertson and Plummer 1958, 143).
“Paul has not said in that verse (7:15)
or anywhere else that a Christian partner deserted by a heathen may be
married to someone else. All he said is: ‘If the unbeliever departeth,
let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage (dedoulotai)
in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.’ To say that a deserted
person ‘hath not been enslaved’ is not to say that he or she may be
remarried. What is meant is easily inferred from the spirit that
dominates the whole chapter, and that is that everyone shall accept the
situation in which God has called him just as he is ... If an
unbelieving partner deserts, let him or her desert. So remain” (Caverno
1939, 866).
“What does ‘not in bondage’ mean? The
fathers, at least to some extent, the Catholic and older Protestant
interpreters, understood it to mean not in bondage to keep up the
marriage connection, and hence, at liberty to contract a new one. The
interpretation has had wide effects. In the canonical law a believing
partner was allowed, if thrust away by an infidel one, to marry again;
and as the early Protestant theologians extended the rule, by analogy,
to malicious desertion in Christian lands, an entrance-wedge was here
driven into the older ecclesiastical laws, and much of the shocking
facility of divorce in some Protestant countries has flowed from this
source. But we reject the interpretation. We hold ... that the apostle
means ‘not under bondage’ to keep company with the unbeliever at all
events, without having the thought of remarriage in mind. This must be
regarded, we think, as settled by the soundest modern exegesis”
(McClintock and Strong 1968, 841).
Works Cited
Barnes, Albert. 1956. First Corinthians.
Grand Rapids: Baker.
Bloomfield, S. T. 1837. The Greek New
Testament With English Notes. Vol. II. Boston: Perkins & Marvin.
Caverno, C. 1939. International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia. James Orr, Ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Harris, M. J. 1971. The New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Colin Brown, Ed. Vol. III. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan.
Johnson, Lewis. 1962. The Wycliffe Bible
Commentary. Charles Pfeiffer & Everett Harrison, Eds. Chicago: Moody.
McClintock, John & James Strong, Eds. 1968.
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol.
II. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Robertson, Archibald and Alfred Plummer.
1958. I Corinthians. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh, T. &
T. Clark.
Woodford, J. R. 1881. “The Epistles to the
Corinthians.” Commentary on the New Testament. New York: E. & J .B.
Young.
Scripture References
1 Corinthians 7:15; 1 Corinthians 7:12-13; 1
Corinthians 7:14; Matthew 5:32, 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11; Matthew
5:31-32, 19:3, 7-9; Mark 10:2-4, 11-12; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians
7:10-15; 1 Corinthians 7:10; 1 Corinthians 7:12; Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9;
Titus 2:3; Romans 8:35; Hebrews 7:26; Philemon 15; Matthew 19:6; 1
Corinthians 7:10-11, 15; Matthew 5:32
Other Articles
by Wayne Jackson
Do We
Delight to do His Will?
Growing Doubts About the Resurrection of the Dead
False Ideals Regarding Death
Will Heaven be on
Earth?
Is the Restoration Plea
Valid?
Are We Under Law or Grace?
Apostasy - A Clear and Ever
Present Danger
Three
Dimensions of Love
What is Truth? A Question
for the Ages
The Challenge of Agape Love
That Mysterious Disciple
The Value of the Kingdom of Heaven
Did the Early Church Observe the
Lord's Supper Daily?
- Caffin,
B.C. (1950), II Peter – Pulpit Commentary, H.D.M. Spence
and Joseph Exell, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
|
For Past Auburn Beacons go to:
www.aubeacon.com/Bulletins.htm
|
Anyone can join the mailing list for the Auburn Beacon! Send
your request to:
larryrouse@aubeacon.com |
