Not Under Bondage, I Corinthians 7:15

Three Common Interpretations of, “the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases

There are 3 different interpretations generally given for the phrase “the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases”.  One is that Paul means…

1. The brother or sister is not so enslaved to the marriage that they have to forsake Christ to keep the marriage together.

In this view Paul is only thinking of situations where the unbeliever refuses to stay with the believer because of the believer’s commitment to Christ and so the only way the believer can save the marriage is by being unfaithful to the Lord. In this view Paul is not addressing whether or not the brother or sister can remarry someone else.

A second interpretation is not so situationally specific. It views “not under bondage” as simply meaning…

2. The brother or sister is not obligated to keep the marriage together regardless of the reason for the unbeliever’s departure.

In this view Paul is not only addressing situations where the unbeliever leaves because of the believer’s faith, but addressing any situation when the unbeliever leaves for any reason. It sees Paul simply saying the brother or sister is free to let their spouse go; the brother or sister is free to be single. They don’t have to strive to get their spouse back. This view also, like the first, does not see Paul addressing whether or not the brother or sister can remarry someone else.

The third common interpretation is that Paul is saying…

3. The brother or sister is not under the constraints of the marriage bond.

The brother or sister is free to be single or remarry someone else. This view sees “not under bondage” as the opposite of “must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled” in verse 11, and the same as “released from a wife” in verses 27-28, which means free to marry someone else, and the same as “free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” in verse 39.

Consider the 1st interpretation, “not so enslaved to the marriage that you have to turn your back on Christ to save it.”

I think we can quickly eliminate this interpretation as a possibility for several reasons.

First, we can eliminate this interpretation because Paul says “in such cases”.

The brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.” The expression “in such cases” qualifies when the believer is not under bondage. It indicates that if it is not such a case, then the believer is under bondage. This is a bondage that the believer is under in certain other cases. But a believer is never so enslaved to a relationship that they should disobey the Lord to save it. So “not under bondage” cannot mean “not needing to forsake the Lord to save the relationship.” It must refer to a bondage that believers are under in other marital cases.

Second, this interpretation assumes something that is nowhere indicated in the text.

It is assuming Paul only has in mind a situation where the unbelieving spouse confronted the believer with the options of either giving up Christ or giving up the marriage. But unbelievers can dissolve marriages for many many other reasons than just that they don’t like their spouse’s faith. And Paul does not say anything about why the unbelieving one left. It’s an assumption without evidence that Paul only has in mind the unbeliever leaving because of the believer’s faith.

Third, why would Paul even bother to say that you don’t have to turn your back on Christ to save your marriage?

That’s a no-brainer to every Christian. He wouldn’t need to say “don’t forsake Christ to stay with an unbeliever.”

So of the first two interpretations that don’t see Paul as addressing the option of remarriage, the second interpretation is definitely to be preferred over the first. Let’s…

Consider the 2nd interpretation, “not obligated to keep the marriage together regardless of the reason for the unbeliever’s departure.”

This interpretation, as well as the first, is sometimes accepted because it is believed that the 3rd interpretation (where Paul is permitting remarriage) would be a contradiction to Jesus’ divorce and remarriage teachings in the gospels. In the gospels Jesus permitted remarriage after divorce only if your divorce was because of the sexual unfaithfulness of your spouse. So it’s believed that Paul would be contradicting Jesus if he permitted remarriage in the case of one deserted by an unbeliever. But would it be a contradiction?

If Paul permitted remarriage in this case, would it contradict Jesus’ teaching?

Remember in 7:12 where Paul clearly separates his instructions to those in mixed marriages from the teachings of Jesus, which he applied to Christian married couples in 7:10-11. He prefaced this section saying, “I say, not the Lord,” meaning  “I don’t have instruction from the Lord on this situation. But I’m telling you what I think is His will here.” Since the Lord’s teaching did not cover mixed marriages, then there would be no contradiction if Paul were to say remarriage is okay for one deserted by an unbeliever.

Now, some acknowledge that Jesus’ teaching did not cover mixed marriages, but still would see Paul conflicting with Jesus to suggest that one deserted by an unbeliever could remarry. They believe that Jesus’ divorce and remarriage teaching covered all marriages that were acceptable marriages in the sight of God. And the only reason His teaching did not cover mixed marriages is because such marriages were not acceptable in God’s sight at the time the teaching was given. (In the Law of Moses Jews were forbidden to marry Gentiles or those outside of the covenant (Deuteronomy 7:3-4; Joshua 23:12-13).) If Jews violated that command of God and married Gentiles, they were to break up those marriages as they did in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. But many believe if mixed marriages were acceptable at the time of Jesus’ teaching then they would have been covered by Jesus’ teaching as well. And they believe now that mixed marriages are acceptable to God, Jesus would bind the same rules on them as on all other marriages.

But I see a couple problems with that line of thinking. One is that it is an unproveable assumption that Jesus would say the same thing to mixed marriages as He did to others.

Second, when Paul talks here about mixed marriages he doesn’t mean Jews married to Gentiles; he means believers in Christ married to unbelievers. While Jew/Gentile marriages were not allowed in Jesus’ day, it seems very probable that believer/unbeliever marriages did exist and were acceptable marriages to God. Listen to these passages that speak of the great many that were believing in Jesus during His earthly ministry. John 4:39, after the encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well, it says, “From that city many of the Samaritans believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified, ‘He told me all the things that I have done.’” John 7:31, “But many of the crowd believed in Him; and they were saying, ‘When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?’” John 10:42, “Many believed in Him there.” John 11:45, “Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him.” It seems very likely to me that some of those many who believed in Jesus were married to spouses who did not believe in Him. And that’s the sort of mixed marriages Paul is talking about in I Corinthians 7:12-16. And if such marriages existed and were acceptable during Jesus’ earthly ministry, which seems most likely, and Paul says the Lord’s divorce and remarriage teaching did not cover them, then the Lord’s divorce and remarriage teaching in the gospels is not universally binding on all acceptable marriages.

Some may object, saying “But the Lord said ‘whoever’ and ‘everyone.’ He said, ‘whoever’ or ‘everyone’ who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.’” But the use of the word “whoever” or “everyone” does not necessarily mean the teaching is universally binding on all marriages. The words “whoever” and “everyone” are often used in the Bible in a limited sense, in the sense of whoever or everyone of a certain category. Here are a few of many possible examples:

  • Exodus 31:15, “whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.” Not universally binding. Only applied to Jews.
  • Exodus 12:15, “whoever eats anything leavened from the first day to until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.” Same thing. Only applied to Jews.
  • Mark 1:37, when Simon and others found Jesus in a secluded place praying, they said to him, “Everyone is looking for You.” Really? Everyone? Well, everyone of a certain group.

Jesus’ use of “whoever” in His divorce and remarriage teachings appears to also be in a limited sense, because Paul says the Lord was not talking about believers married to unbelievers.

Greek term for “bondage”

Another argument made in favor of the 1st and 2nd interpretations is that Paul does not use the Greek word he uses elsewhere to refer to the marriage bond. The Greek term translated “bondage” in this verse, douloo, is not the word used elsewhere for the marriage bond, which is deo (verses 27,39; Romans 7:2). It is believed this suggests he is not talking about the marriage bond in this verse.

Certainly if Paul had used deo we wouldn’t have any question about whether or not he’s referring to the marriage bond. But could Paul have used douloo and deo to be referring to the same circumstance in this marriage context? The highly respected Greek scholar Joseph Thayer said most scholars agree that douloo probably came from deo. Thayer gives this meaning for douloo: “to make a slave of, reduce to bondage.” Thayer says deo means “to bind, tie, fasten.” Not every circumstance of slavery/bondage (douloo) necessarily involves being bound, tied, chained (deo). But certainly being bound or chained (deo) would put one under a kind of bondage (douloo), because it restricts, constrains, limits freedom. Both terms are contrasted with the word free (eleutheros) in I Corinthians (I Corinthians 7:21,39; 12:13). It is reasonable that both terms could be used to refer to the same circumstance. Context determines what kind of bondage is under consideration. We’ll further discuss the context here in a bit.

Tense of the Greek verb for “not under bondage”

Another common argument for the 1st and 2nd interpretations has to do with the Greek tense of the verb translated “under bondage.” It is in what is called the perfect tense, which is commonly defined as action completed in the past with continuing results in the present; past action with abiding results. Many have argued the sense of it is that the brother or sister was not under bondage even before the unbeliever left and is still not under bondage now that the unbeliever has left, and thus “bondage” cannot be referring to the marriage bond if they weren’t under it even when married. Wayne Jackson makes the argument like this, “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 to him; hence, the bondage is not the marriage!”

But according to several renowned Greek scholars, this is a false assertion. They say the perfect tense here does not point back to before the unbeliever left, but rather points back to the time when the unbeliever left and indicates that from the time the unbeliever left, until now, the brother or sister has not been under bondage. Lenski, in his commentary on this passage, says “The perfect tense states more than the present used in our versions. The perfect reaches back to the day when the unbelieving spouse entered upon the desertion and states that from that moment onward the believing spouse has not been held bound. From that day onward the fetters of the marriage tie have been broken and remain so, now and indefinitely. The deserting spouse broke them.” A.T. Robertson writes in his Word Pictures on 1 Corinthians 7:15: “’Is not under bondage (ou dedoulootai).’ Perfect passive indicative of douloo, to enslave, ‘has been enslaved, does not remain a slave…Willful desertion of the unbeliever sets the other free.’” Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, “The meaning clearly is that willful desertion on the part of the unbelieving husband or wife sets the other party free.”

Also, I don’t see how it could possibly mean “has never been under bondage” because Paul says “in such cases”. That phrase implies that if it is not such a case, the brother or sister is under bondage. So there are certain marital cases when one is under bondage and there are certain martial cases where one is not under bondage. What makes it such a case that one is not under bondage?  It’s “if the unbelieving one leaves.” It’s the departure of the unbeliever that releases the believer from bondage.

Does context suggest remarriage is not under consideration in this verse?

It is also argued for the 1st and 2nd interpretations that the context indicates remarriage is not under consideration in this verse. It’s argued:

“Those who advocate (from this verse) the authority to remarry seem to ignore the context. Paul is not addressing people who want to get into marriage, but who are anxious to get out of marriage… Paul’s response and admonitions to this inquiry about dissolving marriage may be seen throughout the first sixteen verses. Thus, Paul is not really addressing the issue of remarriage since it is not on the minds of his readers. What he says in verse 15 does not explicitly reflect his view concerning the possibility of remarriage. He need not address the issue in this verse because he writes to a group of people who have no desire for remarriage. We might also conclude that Paul’s silence on the issue of remarriage may also be seen as a ‘given.’ In other words, he need not specify the impossibility of their remarrying since it is obvious that they have no biblical authority for it.” (Guy Orbison “I Corinthians 7 No. 3” article in September 2010 Working in the Word).

The beginning of the chapter does make it appear that Paul is responding to the thinking of some Corinthians, that it’s better to live a celibate life. But I don’t think it’s a correct statement to say that Paul did not think remarriage would be on the minds of his readers, because in the first 9 verses Paul advised each man to have his own wife and each woman her own husband, and said it was better to marry than to burn with passion. Paul’s advice that it’s wiser for them to be married than to try and live single would put remarriage on the minds of the divorced. Those deserted by unbelievers would want to know whether or not it was lawful for them to follow Paul’s advice in the first 9 verses.

And why, if Paul thought remarriage was not going to be on the minds of his readers, did he address it in the case of the unmarried and the widows (verses 9,39) and in the case of believers divorced from believers (verse 11)?

Also, I don’t think it’s correct to say that Paul’s silence on the issue of remarriage may be seen as a “given,” that “he need not specify the impossibility of their remarrying since it is obvious that they have no biblical authority for it.” Paul saw the need to address the issue of remarriage in the case of divorced believers (verse 11), and mentioned that this was covered by Jesus’ teachings (“not I, but the Lord”). But then at verse 12 he made mixed marriages a different category called “the rest” and said they were not covered by Jesus’ teachings (“I say, not the Lord”). How could Paul tell those in mixed marriages they have no instruction from the Lord on their situation and then expect them to just know what the Lord’s will is for their situation? If the Lord’s revealed will, concerning believers divorced from believers, was not too obvious to mention, then how could the Lord’s unrevealed will concerning believers deserted by unbelievers, be too obvious to mention?

Let’s…

Consider the 3rd interpretation, “not under the bondage of the marriage bond.”

(The opposite of “must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled” in verse 11, but the same as “released from a wife” in verse 27, and “free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” in verse 39.)

We saw already that this passage does not have to be interpreted in a way that fits under Jesus’ one exception for remarriage after divorce, because Paul clarifies that the Lord’s teachings in the gospel did not cover mixed marriages.

We saw that while the word used here for bondage (douloo) is not the usual word Paul uses for the marriage bond (deo), it’s reasonable to think that Paul could have used both terms to refer to the same circumstance. Being bound or chained (deo) puts one under a kind of bondage or slavery (douloo). Not being under bondage or slavery (douloo) involves not being bound or chained (deo).

We saw that the perfect tense of the phrase does not tip the scales in favor toward any of the 3 interpretations we’re considering.

The context must be the biggest deciding factor for which interpretation we choose.

Is it expected in the context, for Paul to address the marital options of “the brother or sister in such cases”?

It is expected because Paul addressed the marital options of the other cases. He addressed what the marital options are of the unmarried and the widows (7:8-9). He addressed what the marital options are of a believer separated from a believer (7:10-11). So we would expect Paul in this context to also address what the marital options are for one deserted by an unbeliever.

It’s also expected for Paul to address this because it would be very much needed instruction, since in verse 12 Paul said mixed marriages were not covered by the teachings of Jesus. So the Corinthians had no instruction on whether one deserted by an unbeliever could remarry or not. They had no way to know for sure whether they could follow the advice of verses 2-9 and marry rather than burn with passion, or if their situation was like the divorced believers in verse 11 who must remain unmarried or else be reconciled. They needed instruction on what their marital options were if deserted by an unbeliever.

Also, wouldn’t Paul be using very confusing language to say that the separated believer in verse 11 must remain unmarried or else be reconciled (which sure sounds like a kind of bondage), and then say that the deserted believer in verse 15 is not under bondage, though he also must remain unmarried or else be reconciled?

So I’m confident interpretation 3 is correct. I cannot in good conscience bind Jesus’ divorce and remarriage teachings in the gospels on those married to unbelievers. Paul says Jesus was not addressing such marriages. Please let me know if I’ve overlooked something that may change my understanding.

– James Williams

3 thoughts on “Not Under Bondage, I Corinthians 7:15

  1. Brother Williams this was a great study of the issue, and I must say that I agree with the overwhelming majority of your conclusions. However, I have one slight disagreement. It seems to me that Jesus` teachings on marriage in the gospels must to some extent encompass mixed marriages. For instance, if an unbeliever was sexually unfaithful to his or her believing spouse or vice versa; on which grounds could either of them get a divorce? Since, if your understanding is correct, Jesus`divorce exception for fornication would not apply to their marriage. Could it be that Jesus, in his exception clause, was describing how the innocent party can initiate the divorce, whereas Paul was describing the innocent party as being a passive recipient of the divorce. Since, in the context of 1 Cor 7: 15, it is the unbeliever who initiates the divorce by the action of desertion. In this view, the mixed marriages would fall under the purview of Jesus` teachings but Paul would be giving an addendum, as it where, in the special circumstance of marital abandonment.

  2. I remarried on the basis of the abandonment clause but sometimes struggle with fear of misunderstanding this and fear of going to hell for remarrying

  3. Powerful, straight arrow thinking. It doesn’t take away from the simple reading in the English of the word bondage and bound in relation to marriage(Rom. 7:2, 1Cor. 7:15,27,39).

    And even if Christ IS forbiding all divorce except in the lone case where premarital sex has been undisclosed til the wedding night(Daniel R Jennings “Except for Fornication” view) this would only be for marriages where both individuals are Jewish/believers this the teaching of Christ and Paul flow without condratdicting each other in a straight clear line. This understanding of Christ’s words(Jennings) would still line up exactly with your view here of Paul’s teaching, and him talking about unmixed marriages 1st, and mixed marriages 2nd.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *