What Is the Meaning of “Not under Bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15)?

In First Corinthians 7:15, Paul affirms that if an unbelieving spouse abandons his/her Christian companion, the Christian is “not under bondage.” Some allege that this provides an additional cause for divorce – other than fornication (Mt. 5:32; 19:9). But is there real evidence for this position?

“Would you address First Corinthians 7:15? Does desertion by a non-believing spouse grant the abandoned Christian the right of remarriage?”  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 questions had to do with the relationship of a believer who is married to an unbeliever.

For example, should the Christian leave the unbeliever? Paul’s answer was in the negative – not if the unbeliever is content to keep on dwelling with the Christian (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 unbelieving partner (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 (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.

A Look at the Context

First of all, this theory reads into the context that which simply is not there. Here are the facts. Some of the Corinthian saints had been influenced by a proto-Gnostic philosophy which asserted that sexual relations were intrinsically evil. These brethren, therefore, wanted to know the following:

1. Should a Christian husband and wife separate from (chorizo) or leave (aphiemi) each other (10-11)? Paul’s answer was, No; but should a separation occur, celibacy should be maintained, or else reconciliation effected.
2. Should a Christian leave his unbelieving spouse? Again, Paul’s response was, No; not if the unbeliever is willing to remain with the believer (12-13).
3. 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 spouse, so that domestic proximity is absolutely required (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.

In the second place, 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” (v. 10), but not with reference to other matters – “say I, not the Lord” (v. 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.

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (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 “togetherness” (note the allusion of v. 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.

For those who want to believe that Paul does indeed affirm that the marriage has been severed i.e., they are no longer One Flesh, please ask yourself the following questions:

a)    Why does Paul in verse 11 tell the departing spouse to ‘remain single’, and or ‘reconcile’ with her husband…  But then contradicts himself in verse 15?

b)     Why would Paul say only “death” can sever the marital bond?  But then say ‘separation’ does the same thing?

c)     Why did Jesus say Divorce is NOT permitted, but then His Apostles give all kinds of exceptions?

Finally, the Word of God does not contradict.  Jesus tells us Divorce is not possible; Jesus and Paul tell us only “death” can sever the marital bond.  Why does the church insist on telling us that Jesus and Paul didn’t mean what they said???

In the End, Marriage is a Natural Law. This Natural Law is created through Sexual Intercourse. Sexual intercourse is the vehicle by which two flesh become one. “Divorce” is a Legal Tool. Divorce does not occur in Nature. It is a man made tradition, which is Subjective, not Objective.

Only the Death of the man, allows a woman to take a second man/husband.