One of the most controversial expressions found in First Corinthians 7 is in verse 15, which reads: "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." What exactly does "not under bondage" mean in this context? To be sure, there are quite different views among some members of the church of Christ as well as in the religious world in general. Let us consider this important topic, allowing the context to be the determining factor in our conclusion.

Is Paul Giving Another Scriptural Reason For Remarriage?

Is Paul's declaration that "a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases" giving another reason for divorce and remarriage? There are some who would answer, "Yes, Paul is giving another reason for divorce and remarriage in addition to the only reason Jesus gave, which was fornication (Mt. 5:31-32; 19:9)." In many circles this claim is called the "Pauline privilege." One writer said in no uncertain terms that "the believer is no longer bound in marriage if deserted by an unbelieving companion."1

In examining this view, a reminder of God's intent in marriage is helpful. Marriage was not instituted with the New Covenant of Christ. God ordained marriage on the sixth day of creation. Because Eve was a special creation for Adam (Gen. 2:18-23), a special relationship was needed, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen. 2:24). From this we note that marriage is to be a monogamous, heterosexual relationship ("a man...his wife"); a companionship relationship (Eve was to be Adam's "help meet," not his slave, Gen. 2:18, 20); an interdependent relationship ("leave...father and...mother" in order for husband and wife to rely on each other); a commitment relationship ("cleave"); and a permanent relationship ("one flesh"). While the term "one flesh" certainly includes the privilege of sexual intimacy, there is more to it than that. The fact that the two become "one flesh" lets us know that husband and wife are to be permanent as long as they are in the flesh. For this reason, when Jesus was asked a question about whose wife a certain woman would be in the afterlife, He said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Mt. 22:30). For this reason also marriage vows usually say, "Till death do us part." For a time, because of the "hardness of...hearts," God permitted a "writing of divorcement," but "from the beginning it was not so" (Mt. 19:7-8 cf. Deut. 24:1-4). There are only two Scriptural reasons that permit remarriage, and both have to do with the breaking of "one flesh." First, when a spouse dies, the "one flesh" is broken, and remarriage is allowed for the surviving spouse (Rom. 7:1-4). Second, fornication also breaks the "one flesh" relationship; thus, Jesus gives an option for the innocent of fornication spouse to remarry (Mt. 19:9). The "Pauline privilege" violates the permanency of marriage God intended from the Garden. The mere fact that an unbelieving spouse departs from the marriage in no way breaks the "one flesh" permanency of marriage. Thus, to say that the believer is free to remarry goes against the teaching of God "from the beginning" (Mt. 19:8-9).

Paul Gives No Additional Reason for Remarriage

As with any Bible subject, the context of a passage must be allowed to determine its meaning. In First Corinthians 7:15 there are two contextual reasons from the verse itself that refute the "Pauline privilege."

Vocabulary does not support another reason for remarriage The verb translated "under bondage" is from a Greek word (douloo) that is nowhere else used to refer to the marriage bond! This word is a verb form of a noun that means "slave," thus it means to be "enslaved" (as the ESV translates it). However, marriage was never intended by God to be a master/slave relationship (1 Cor. 7:3-5)! For additional light, see the use of the noun "slave" (doulos, "servant," KJV) later in this same chapter (1 Cor. 7:21-23). The Greek word translated "bound" (deo) in marriage contexts is from a completely different word (1 Cor. 7:27, 39; Rom. 7:2). Thus, the vocabulary in "not under bondage" does not mean "not bound in marriage"!

Verb Tense does not support another reason for remarriage The verb "under bondage" is in the Greek perfect tense, and coupled with the word "not" forms what is called a "perfect tense negation."2 The perfect tense by itself refers to completed action in the past that has continuing results (same tense as 1 Cor. 7:27, 39). However, when the perfect tense is negated, as in "not under bondage" (1 Cor. 7:15), the tense declares that no such action has ever taken place in the past, thus has no continuing results. In other words, "a brother or a sister" has never been in the type of "bondage" here contemplated! Notice that Paul did not say that a brother or sister is "no longer under bondage," or that he or she is "set free from bondage."

What Then Does Paul Mean By "Not Under Bondage"?

As we have seen, "bondage" here cannot refer to the marriage bond because of the vocabulary and verb tense that Paul uses. Instead, "not under bondage" refers to the fact that when an unbelieving spouse departs, the Christian must not think that his or her spouse (or anyone else) has absolute power over him or her when it concerns faithfulness to God. Because the unbelieving spouse departs from the marriage does not mean that the Christian spouse is compelled ("enslaved") to also depart the marriage-two wrongs do not make a right! This is exactly what Paul says a few verses later, "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants [slaves, NKJ] of men" (1 Cor. 7:23).

End Notes

1 Jimmy Allen, Survey of First Corinthians, 3rd ed. (Searcy, AR: Harding College, 1989) 89.

2 Adapted from Gary Workman, "Key Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 7:1-40," Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, Jim Laws ed. (Memphis: Getwell Church of Christ, 1992) 391-397.