I hear the word “bound” to the original spouse for life until death, etc….
15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
I think the verses following that command are telling also SO if you are repentant or convicted when called on, you repent…you do NOT change the situation. Your REMAIN in the situation which you were in when God called you.
Also does the part “if the unbeliever leaves (which means a lot) LET HIM NO LONGER UNDER BONDAGE…not under bondage-you are NO LONGER BOUND…because HE calls us to PEACE…you can say it doesn’t say you can remarry-I can argue it doesn’t say you CAN’T it ends with that. You are free to believe as you wish as well as I am also.
No longer under bondage in Greek (perfect passive-which refers to present state) Doolou–means no longer “enslaved” …but you are free….what does free mean to you? It means I’m no longer enslaved to that marriage or that person.
Bound (as used in Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:39) referring to the “one flesh” is a different Greek word than the word used in I Cor. 7:15 (not under bondage). Yes, in that passage we see that a person is not obligated to be a slave/servant to this person who has chosen to leave/depart. Nowhere in that passage does Paul ever give permission to marry another. If we look back on I Corinthians 7:10-11 we will see this same “allowance” given to a woman who has “departed”……….she is to remain UNMARRIED (she is not obligated to serve/be a slave) Or she can reconcile. In neither case does Paul ever state that the marriage is “dissolved” and either are free to marry another. The only place we find such an allowance by Paul is in Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:39, where Paul specifically says that DEATH dissolves the ‘one flesh’ bond—-giving right to marry another.
As to repentance, I believe when we are “called”, as sin is made known to us, we are to depart from that sin. Becoming a new creature in Christ does not turn adultery into a lawful union. Staying in “whatever situation we are called in” does not pertain to sinful lifestyles/relationships——-otherwise those homosexuals who come to Christ involved in “marriages” and believe this passage relates to them, have a right to believe such. However, I think we both agree that is NOT what Paul was talking about.
Homosexual marriage is not related and OFF topic….ALSO…you say it doesn’t say they can remarry-it doesn’t say you can’t! It states if the wife believes she is to remain unmarried in a previous situation-but in this situation of an unbeliever departing it does NOT say the believer must remain unmarried or be reconciled-why woudl he make a distinction the 1st time and not the 2nd unless it was mean you are “free” what else do you think slavery/bondage means? Of course you aren’t a slave to them physically, they left you…that doesn’t even bare mentioning-it’s a fact-Pauls telling us IF THEY ARE PLEASED to dwell with us…Paul states if the unbeliever abandons, you are FREE….no longer under bondage/slavery-this to me means exactly that…there is NO specification to remain unmarried as in previous verses is there?
Again, nowhere does Paul state that the marriage is “dissolved”. Paul already addressed the nature of the marriage bond (indissoluble until death) in Romans 7:2-3 to the Gentile Christians he was teaching. He didn’t change it with married Christians and he didn’t change it with those new converts who were married to unbelievers. The state of ones salvation does not change the nature of the bond of marriage……….it just changes our responses to whatever occurs IN the marriage. In the first part of I Corinthians 7, Paul was addressing married BELIEVERS (husbands AND wives). He called both to hold to honor marriage. However, he realized that situations may involve the necessity of “departing”(unrepentant adultery, abuse, or such possibly). This was not the will of God, but if one did depart, they were either to remain UNMARRIED (meaning they were not SERVING their marriage partner) or be reconciled. In essence, there IS a freedom from bondage in that “allowance”, yet also the acknowledgement that one is not “free” from the “bond”, hence the prohibition to remarry.
There are those who would say that BECAUSE one will not reconcile or repent fast enough to suit them, they must be an unbeliever, therefore they apply I Corinthians 7:15 to them and then further use I Corinthians 7:15 as a reason NOT to remain unmarried——believing that SURELY God wouldn’t expect me to remain unmarried for my whole life. Does God call some Christians to remain unmarried because they have a CHRISTIAN partner who won’t “change” or won’t reconcile or such, but allows other Christians to NOT remain unmarried and find another spouse? I don’t’ believe so. I believe He calls us all to the same standard, though those who are married to unbelievers may have a much tougher lot.
Paul uses the word divorce. Jesus uses the word divorce. It was clear to all the Jews that divorce meant “dissolved”. So YES, Paul and Jesus point to several places where divorce was allowable and in ALL cases, divorce meant dissolved.
The thing is, putting away does NOT dissolve the “one flesh”………..When Jesus charged those who married again (OR married divorced persons)with committing adultery, He clearly did not view the divorce as dissolving the “one flesh”…………….You can’t commit adultery if you are not married or messing with someone who is married…………..not possible. Either your understanding is wrong, or Jesus didn’t really mean what He said.
If you are divorced and cannot have peace at home, Paul is saying it is ok to remarry.
How do you reconcile what Paul (the Lord actually) said in I Corinthians 7:10-11? Another marriage was CERTAINLY NOT an option……..
Is it your view that some Christians CAN remarry after a divorce, while others cannot?
If an unbeliever leaves, go ahead and remarry. If you divorced a believer, be rejoined.
First, where does Paul EVER state that we should “go ahead and remarry”—-unless you are speaking of a woman who departs and is told by Paul that she is either to remain UNMARRIED or to be reconciled?
If you take this passage in 1 Corinthians strictly you have a problem since it contains abandonment by an unbeliever as a stipulation Jesus did not mention in Matthew 19. And what was Jesus’ comment on the decree of Moses to allow divorce? Did Jesus declare it unbiblical? No, he focused on original intent.
I agree Jesus did not address this. Paul says as much. However, the definition of not under “bondage” is what is up for debate. Paul never specifically says a believer is now free to remarry. That is something “inferred” by some interpreters, but it is not the only possible interpretation—especially when one really looks at this from a kingdom perspective, not a fleshly one. The unbeliever is sanctified (set apart for God’s purposes) due to the believing spouse. Now, would Jesus desert (move on) someone He has sanctified? No. He came to save the lost. How is it that we, who have been bought with a price—–no longer belonging to ourselves, are given the right to “move on” in order to fulfill fleshly things over the spiritual?
If an unbeliever leaves, go ahead and remarry. If you divorced a believer, be rejoined.
Where does Paul EVER state that we should “go ahead and remarry”—-unless you are speaking of a woman who departs and is told by Paul that she is either to remain UNMARRIED or to be reconciled?
If one becomes a Christian, and the other wants to leave, the Christian can remarry. You know this.
Sorry, but I know no such thing. I do not believe that I Corinthians 7:15 gives the right to remarriage. I believe ALL first marriages are joined by God. He did not make marriage just for Christians, but for ALL of mankind. A “lost” person who puts away his/her spouse and marries another is just as guilty of adultery as a Christian who does such a thing.
Concerning the “option” of taking back an unfaithful spouse, sorry, but I cannot reconcile what you believe with what the scriptures say. NOT taking back one who has been unfaithful and comes in repentance is UNFORGIVENESS—-something completely at odds with Christian teachings on reconciliation and restoration.
You are right in that God does not wait forever, but the scriptures do teach this……..until the wedding occurs and the doors are shut, there is time made for repentance(Matthew 25:10, II Peter 3:9). The same heart and mind that is in Christ is supposed to be what leads our thoughts/actions—even to the sacrificing of our own dreams and wants.
However the first issue is … they shouldn’t have been leaving their spouses. Paul was talking to the Christians in the Corinthian church who had been divorcing their unbelieving spouses or who were in the process of doing so, for no good reason. He said No! do not do this! … if however you have … he was saying … you need to remain unmarried now or reconcile with your former spouse.
Actually in that section of scripture, Paul is speaking to two BELIEVERS (I Corinthians 7:10-12). In the next part he deals with one who is married to an unbeliever. He doesn’t give instruction to the unbeliever because they do not submit to God and it would be pointless. He however does address the believer and their role in such a marriage.
What does it the Bible mean when it says that if your spouse an unbeliever and they want to leave that you are not bound? Couldn’t they indicate that they could remarry? I don’t know, my belief has always been that you shouldn’t remarry, but I am not so sure anymore.
I am in agreement with what you “always believed”…….I believe that if faced with abandonment that we are not in “bondage”—-slavery/servitude to our marriage partner, but we are certainly not “freed” in the sense of the marriage “bond”—being tied together/wound together (Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:39).
Not “under bondage” as used in I Cor. 7:15 and “bound” as used in Rom. 7:2-3, I Cor. 7:39 are not the same Greek words, with different meanings. Notice also in I Cor. 7:15, never does Paul give an inkling that the “not under bondage” person is free to remarry. Instead, at the end of the chapter on marriage, he reaffirms the permanency of marriage until death (I Cor. 7:39).
Our lives matter to God and He doesn’t apply His Word to situations regardless of the circumstances. 1 Cor 7 is a great example of this. Paul addressed different life situations of those in the congregation and gave instructions to each. The advice was not all the same. The differentiating factor was their lives – their station in life.
The commands do not change for the believer. What Paul was doing was acknowledging that with an unsaved, the Lord’s commands will not be adhered to. When Paul addressed the marriage of I Corinthians 7:10-11, the LORD, through Paul was speaking to those who professed Christ and how they were to conduct themselves—-wives cannot remarry, husbands are not to divorce their wives.
In the next part of that passage he was speaking about a believer’s conduct towards the unbelieving spouse……….Paul acknowledges that the Lord does not hold sway over the unbeliever (They don’t follow Him). However, even in that passage Paul never gives permission for the believer to go against the Lord admonishments to a believing woman/man as spoken in I Cor. 7:10-11. Never does he say that the deserted believer is allowed to join themselves with another. To the contrary, Paul acknowledges that the union of believer and unbeliever is “joined” by God and the unbeliever is sanctified due to the believing spouse. The “not under bondage” clause allows the believer the freedom not to try and MAKE the unbeliever reconcile or to serve them in any capacity if the unbeliever does not desire to dwell with the believer. Paul was very clear at the end of his teachings on marriage in I Cor. 7 that DEATH is what severs a marriage bond.
You’re taking Paul totally out of context. In Romans 7 the discourse is about Law vs. grace he’s not making a case for some unbreakable “no matter what” law of marriage union. he was using it as analogy.
If this were so, it would be contradictory to 1 Cor. 7:14-15, an unbelieving spouse is FREE TO LEAVE, if he/she chooses to. He then says the brother IS NOT UNDER BONDAGE (to the marriage covenant) in such cases…ie. the unbelieving has left.
You are putting your own spin on I Corinthians 7:14-15. Paul NEVER states that the marriage is dissolved, only that one is not in bondage (servitude). We see Paul acknowledging that though a woman departs she may remain unmarried (not serving her husband), yet she is NOT free from the marriage bond—hence it would be adultery for her to remarry as Jesus proclaimed (remember, Paul specifically said in that case, “not I, BUT THE LORD”……………so Paul was reaffirming what was already a teaching in the church.
READ verse 40 as well, his clinching statement ” 39 ¶ The wife is bound 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. 40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God”.
Yes, note the language Paul used here is exactly like the language he used in Romans 7:2-3 regarding the permanency of the marriage bond—-til death. Rom. 7:2-3 is for sure not a discourse on marriage, but Paul’s use of “the law of marriage” is consistent in both passages—–in both cases he speaks of marriage being lifelong. In the first case, even with an adulterous wife. In the second case, he makes it abundantly clear that a woman is NOT released from her husband until he dies—-THEN she can remarry—if she likes.
You keep forgetting the last half of the chapter…. the one that addresses abandonment and marriage after being released from a marriage…
No, I don’t forget it. Paul never releases one from the bond of marriage. He releases one from serving WITHIN the marriage. There is no obligation on the part of the believer when that believer is abandoned. Paul never teaches that the abandonment dissolves the marriage God joins together.
In the case of some – we acted out verses 12-15. We are free from the unbelieving spouse and no longer bound to the dead covenant.
Where do we ever see God state that the covenant of marriage we enter into, the One in which God Himself is a part, is “DEAD”?
You are misrepresenting Paul now. Paul said specifically that after divorce the other spouse is “no longer in bondage”. You have a habit of twisting things it seems. You have twisted them again.
Paul said that to the “unmarried and the widows” that he thinks they would do well to remain single, but that they could get married, and if they could not control themselves, they should get married.
First, you are quite insistent that putting away and a lawful divorce are not one and the same thing. Did Paul speak of getting a writ of divorcement in I Corinthians 7:15-16? He says, “if they DEPART”. Again, Paul does not give a license to marry a different spouse in such cases. Not having to serve someone is VERY different than having the bond between husband and wife( the bond GOD made) dissolved.
Secondly, do you believe Paul is contradicting himself? He just got done telling the “unmarried” of I Cor. 7:10-11 that their only two options (per the Lord’s command) are to remain unmarried OR be reconciled to her husband. Do you think it very possible that their is more than one group of “unmarrieds”—–ie; never been marrieds…………..and DIVORCED? It seems clear that unless Paul contradicts himself, there are indeed 2 different groups of “unmarrieds” and each group is given different instructions concerning marriage.
In 1 Cor 7, Paul did give a license for “the unmarried and the widows” to marry. Those unmarried, as I have shown include any singles as the specific case for the “virgins” is referenced later in the chapter.
The “unmarrieds” here refer to single/never been married persons, not divorced persons whom Paul references in I Corinthians 7:10-12.
It is not a matter of serving. Paul uses the analogy of being in slavery in regard to marriage. He is not literally talking about one spouse serving the other. He is talking about their binding union.
The Greek word used there means “servitude/slavery”………..Paul is saying that the person is not under obligation to serve, give one’s all to towards their marriage partner (unlike what is expected in a marriage where two are dwelling together). We see this same issue dealt with when Paul names the “departed” wife (I Cor. 7:10) as UNMARRIED. Clearly, Paul shows that a bond still exists to her husband, thus the prohibition to remarry. She “not under bondage” to her spouse, however, she is commanded to remain unmarried or reconcile with her husband.
Why did you leave off the next part? You know the part in verse 9 where it says:
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Just curious. Did you think others would not look it up?
I don’t leave that off. Paul is dealing with SINGLE, never been married people………not divorced people. In the passages following the “burning” passage, Paul commands the husband NOT to divorce his wife and if a wife departs, they are to remain UNMARRIED. Are you saying that if people “burn”, they can then disobey that direct command from the Lord and marry other people, though in the Lord’s eyes they are already married?
I think it most probably given the connection to widows that the group of “unmarried” includes those that have been married (i.e. divorce and widows) and is not limited to “never been marrieds”.
why do you feel you must include the divorced with the widowed?
Paul references 4 groups of people in 1 Cor 7: the unmarried (i.e. divorced and widows), the married believers, the married with one believing spouse and one unbelieving spouse, and the virgins (i.e. never been married).
Who are the “unmarried” in I Cor. 7:11? If you say divorced, Paul gives a CLEAR command—-from the Lord, these are NOT to remarry. They are to remain UNMARRIED or be reconciled with their spouses.
You have been corrected on this before. Please stop telling people this. It’s wrong.
The Greek words are only different words in the same sense that bound, bounded, bond, bonds, bondage, binding ,bindings to bind (etc.) are different in English: Tense, mood, voice, noun vs. verb, adjective vs. adverb, etc. Have you ever heard of “is, are, was, were, be, been and am”? Those are the “being” verbs, in English (from an old quip I learned in grade school — and so did a lot of other people my age). They are all different words, but, then again, they are all the same, too.
The root word for “bondage” in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is the same root word as that for “bound” in the passages you cited: deo. If you don’t believe me, click here to see the Greek definition for the word used in 1 Corinthians 7:15.
Then, click on the “G1401” link under “Root Word (Etymology)”. That word also has a “Root Word (Etymology)” section, with a link G1210. Click it as well. This brings you to this page.
If you had clicked on the word definition out of verse 39 of chapter 7 (or, any of the other passages you cited), you get to this page.
As you can see, the pages are exactly the same. That’s because the words are the same (the root word, that is).
2nd NOTE: It is not always true that a word carries the same meaning as its root word. For example, “this person is in a bind” has a different meaning from “bind” in the list I showed above. It COMES from the same idea, but means something a little different. However, this is not the case with the words used in 1 Co 7.
They are different greek words and as you stated in the last part of your post, the differences CAN be significant in regards to the meaning or a root word and a word which is taken from the root.
In Rom. 7:2 and I Cor. 7:39, the Greek Word is Deo(bound)….that is the root word for #1401, which in turn is the root word for #1402 (bondage—I Cor. 7:15).
You say the differences are minor…..I say they are not. How one interprets bound/bondage based upon the definitions given for each word can COMPLETELY change how one will respond to the Word of God. The fact is that in quite a few translations I have researched, when the word “bondage” is not used in translating I Cor. 7:15, SERVITUDE is used.
With that said, saying the bond of marriage is dissolved OR one is not compelled/obligated in the sight of the Lord to continue SERVING/Meeting the needs/wants of a spouse who has departed are HUGE differences of opinion. Seems to me that some of the translators do not see the bond of marriage dissolved, but see that a deserted one is not obligated before the Lord to seek after the departing spouse and give of themselves. That is the translation of the word “bondage” that to me, fits with the rest of scripture dealing with marriage and the marriage “bond” which remains until the death of a spouse.
You show your prejudice here, (name deleted). On the one hand, you admit that a word coming from a root sometimes means something different, yet here you say it doesn’t mean something different. How do you KNOW you are absolutely correct?
Because I know a little Greek. Plus, every major translation uses some form of “bond” for that word.
For those who might care:
The word dedoulwtai is “to make a slave of”. It is a slavery step (a person is made into a slave/bondslave). The tense, voice, and mood are perfect passive indicative. Passive simply refers to the object (in this case, the spouse left behind). Indicative is an indication of simple fact. Perfect tense means having been completed in the past. The word can be woodenly translated “made a slave” (an action that has occurred in the past, in this case, the marriage).
The word comes directly from the word for a slave (dulos). This is a person in slavery or .
THAT word, in turn, comes from the word for bound/bond (dew, pronounced dA-oh), which is root word of the one used in Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 (dew is NOT the word used in 7:39 and Romans — it’s dedetai — but that’s a form of dew just as dedoulwtai is a form of doulow). The way one “makes a slave” is by putting them in .
The Greek words have direct English counterparts:
A slave can be called a “bond-man” (or, bond-woman). The way one “makes a slave” is by putting them in .
So, the passage is trying to say that the “left” spouse is no longer “(made) a bound person” or “made a slave to”. The word in 7:15 is linguistically directly descended in this way (the parallel in English is very close) from the word in 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3
We can go back and forth all you like on this issue, but I believe you are prejudiced in your interpretation. The fact of the matter is that the root word, deo, used in Rom. 7:2-3 and I Cor. 7:39 speaking of the marriage bond itself means to tie, knit, wind together. That is NOT the definition of “under bondage” which is used in I Cor. 7:15. That word has to do with servitude/slavery in regards to WORKS/ACTIONS, not relationship (meaning the bond of marriage is dissolved as you believe). The translators of the many different versions know Greek, and I would think, quite well and that is why some of them use SERVITUDE/SERVE instead of “under bondage”.
Those who believe the marriage bond itself is dissolved in such cases are INFERRING that, but Paul certainly never gives any indication there or in any other place that a marriage is dissolved outside of the death of a marriage partner.
A well-known self-evident principle is “what is important is plain.” That means not using the obscure to overturn the obvious.
A second principle is to view everything in it’s context. When determining what a word or phrase is meant to convey, there are at least five contexts to consider: 1) the complete sentence, or verse; 2) the paragraph; 3) the chapter, or section; 4) the book, or letter; 5) the entire New Testament; in this topic, not just the marriage texts, but the N.T.teaching on inter-personal relationships etc., on which there is a massive amount of teaching.
This is particularly necessary when looking at MDR. I am aware that there are scholars with Phd’s in N.T. language who examine how 1st century pagans used a particular word, and who then transfer that pagan understanding into their teaching. It is clear that the N.T. writers had to use existing vocabularies. But if the N.T.writers intended that pagan ideas of human behaviour should be the default way for christians to view life, then why did God bother to give us the N.T? Christians were not meant to replicate pagan conduct. While etymolgy has it’s place, if it contradicts clear teaching elsewhere in the N.T., it must yield to that teaching.
Looking at 1Cor 7:15,” But if the unbelieving one separates him/herself, let him/her be separated: the brother or sister has not been enslaved in such matters; but God has called you in peace”. Using the above criteria produces the following.
1.A) Paul writes to christians.(1 Cor 1:2) Unbelievers are outside his jurisdiction. He has nothing to say to them.That is why he does not directly address the unbeliever. He regarded them as ‘sons of disobedience’ and ‘children of wrath’.(Eph 2:2,3) Incapable of carrying out God’s will.
2.B) This section is introduced in v12 with, “I say, not the Lord..” Whatever v15 means, it cannot be divorce because Christ spoke very clearly about divorce, and Paul acknowledges this in vv10,11. He wouldn’t dream of contradicting the Lord.
3.B) Paul is answering a question, which we can only guess at. Probably something like, “Will our children be disadvantaged having one unbelieving parent”? and, “Should we leave our unbelieving spouse”? Paul’s answer is “no”.
4.C) If the unbeliever is undermining the faith of the believer, resulting in strife, and the unbeliever wants to put space between them, then don’t resist their action.His use of the term [apistos ] “unbeliever” means ‘without christian faith’. If the unbeliever insists on making the christian’s profession of faith in Christ a matter of conflict, then it is better to let them go rather than reneging on Christ. Because marriage ideally involves serving each other, to serve the unbeliever by kowtowing to their gods would create unbearable strife for the christian. The verb “let him/her go” is passive imperative. It is not a command for the believer to eject them. A passive verb denotes an action being done to a person, not by a person. The action is being done to the believer.The believer is not participating in the action. To force them to stay would create strife, so Paul advises take no action, allow peace to reign.
5.D) The bondage or enslavement is to pleasing the unbeliever in ways that create strife for the christian.The literal translation is “has not been enslaved”.Indicates something that has been going on before the departure.It is the perfect passive indicative 3rd person singular, meaning something that has happened in the past and is now a current state. If it referred to divorce how could the divorce have occurred before the leaving? But if it is the striving due to trying to keep the unbeliever happy by giving oneself wholly to their needs, then that strife diminishes with the unbelievers intent to leave. The believer does not stand obligated to continue that striving, and in that way they facilitate peace.
Wonderful post! This is exactly what I see fits with the entirety of scripture on the issue of marriage. Many seem to forget that when Jesus discussed marriage, He was speaking to MANY unbelievers……..yet for some reason, people seem to believe that what Jesus taught on marriage only pertains to believers. He taught that His commands on the use of marriage pertains to ALL of mankind.
The LAW shows unquestionably evidence that remarring was common practice. All Jesus is saying in Mat 5 is that remarriage should only occur for adultery and Paul adds for abandonment… Clear as day.
Paul never said any such thing in regards to remarriage. Paul, at the end of his teaching on marriage/singleness, etc in I Cor. 7 ends with the admonishment that marriage is FOR LIFE………and only when one has a spouse that dies, THEN they may marry again—in the Lord, if they are Christian. This aligns perfectly with what he spoke in Rom. 7:2-3 (two teachings to two different groups of believers—-in agreement).
As for the so-called exception clause, why is the wife of Mt. 19:9 prohibited from marrying again? The example Jesus gives us is that an INNOCENT wife is put away (then her husband marries another woman). ANYONE who marries the put away woman will commit adultery. If adultery dissolved what God joined together—–or gave allowance for divorce/remarriage, and here Jesus gives the example of a man committing adultery against his wife—-why is SHE prohibited from remarriage and why would it be adultery for another man to take her——if she was free to marry again, due to her husband’s ongoing adultery(remarriage)?…………….
Again, we go back to Paul’s words in Rom. 7:2-3 when he gave the analogy of marriage/law-Christ. Paul either used a faulty analogy which would have confused his listeners, OR he spoke truth when he said that marriage ALONE dissolves what God joins together and allows for another union after that point. Until that point, any relationship entered into out side the marriage is adultery.
quote: “The word in 1 Corinthians 15:7 is “douloō” and has an entirely different meaning from “deō.” Douloo refers to servitude or physical slavery while deo literally means to bind together.” Quote
Thanks for your posting but it is incorrect. I made sure to look up “bound” in both verses before I posted to double check that bound= “deo” in both and infact it does.
No, the quote is quite correct in the various usages of “bound/not under bondage”. Check out the passages using “bound” in the Weymouth version from the site you posted. Anyone can clearly see that I Cor. 7:27-28 is in regard to those who are FREE from the bond of marriage………..look at the other passages which deal with freedom. They ALL speak of DEATH that frees one from the bond of marriage.
It can be more easily understood when a wife, for example, has been divorced by a crazy non-christian man. To tell her that although he has divorced her (freed her from the slavery bondage of this sin-filled marriage) that she is still bound to him (enslaved) is really bad, in my opinion. To say that it is God demanding this of her is even worse. Even a bad human father can muster up more compassion than that. An unjust judge wouldn’t even do that.
I cannot agree with you on the “unjust” part. Jesus clearly commands that a believing wife who departs (one must assume she is departing due to terrible marriage situations), must remain “UNMARRIED” or reconcile with her husband. If she is married to a confessed believer who is beating her/committing unrepentant adultery, etc, do you feel it “unjust” that the Lord commanded that she is NOT free to find a “better” husband? Or do you feel that only those bound to unsaved persons should receive more “compassion” , which you feel is manifested by someone being able to marry again? In regards to “unmarried” in I Cor. 7:10-11, what do you think that means in regards to the marriage bond? Do you believe it is dissolved? If so, why is she then not allowed to marry another? Do you believe that the Lord is allowing such a woman to be “unmarried” in regards to wifely duties, etc, but is still “bound” to life to that husband? Do you not believe that this type of “freedom” granted is possibly the same freedom granted for the one left by an unbelieving spouse?
I can’t really answer that question because I don’t believe it is the Lord who said that.
You don’t believe I Cor. 7:10-11 is from the Lord?
Those who are bound to unsaved spouses and are released, should rejoice if it was an ungodly relationship and those believers who were connected to “believers” who acted like unsaved spouses and are released should rejoice as well. I believe both are in a position where compassion can be received.
It appears to me that you do not believe what the scriptures say in regards to believer/believer marriages—-but are adding allowances to the commands of the Lord that are just not there in scripture. To say that the marriage bond is dissolved in I Cor. 7:10-11 is amazing to me in light of the prohibition to join with another—–both in I Cor. 7 and in Jesus’ teachings on marriage/divorce/remarriage, as well as Rom. 7:2-3.
Well, I don’t believe that she is not allowed to marry another based on 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. At the same time, I do believe that the spirit behind the letter is to leave room for reconciliation.
Again, wow, I don’t’ know how anyone can hold that position when Paul just got done saying that a woman who departs is to REMAIN unmarried OR reconcile with her husband……and then tells the husband he is NOT to divorce his wife. You honestly believe Paul then turns around telling such divorced persons that if they marry another they will NOT sin??? Even though Paul clearly states that the command he gives is not from him, but the Lord Himself—–who taught that to remarry WAS sin—-the sin of adultery.
I believe marriage is all about the duties performed towards one another. If a wife is not performing her “wifely duties” then in fact, she is no true wife. The same would be true for a husband. It’s like saying I’m a Christian but not fulfilling/obeying the Word. God certainly would not consider me a follower of Christ if I don’t obey His Word and I can tell him all day that I am a Christian. What makes a man a true follower as opposed to one who only says they are is obedience. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter but only He who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Bad correlation. There IS plenty of scripture which states that not all who name the name of Christ are Christians, but there is NOT scripture which states that if a wife/husband does not perform marital duties, then they are not a wife/husband. Can you provide such scriptures?
Obviously, I have not read through all 220+ pages of this thread. But I just have two questions for those of you who believe that remarriage is a sin. What is your response to 1) Matthew 19:9, “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. ” and 2) 1 Corinthians 7:15, “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” My interpretation of these scriptures is 1) in the case of fornication, remarriage is allowed, and 2) if the unbeliever leaves, remarriage is allowed. If this is NOT your interpretation of these two particular scriptures, please tell me your interpretation and why.
Well, since we know that scripture interprets scripture, then we know that no one verse stands alone, if there are many other contradictory passages. The modern day popular interpreting of Mt. 19:9—to not only give permission to divorce, but also to remarry due to adultery committed within the marriage conflicts with good biblical interpreting methods. We can look at all the other “marriage” passages and find that Jesus gives NO allowance to remarry without those remarrying committing adultery (adultery meaning joining oneself with another who is NOT your spouse—unlawful relations)—-Mk. 10:1-12, Lk. 16:15-18). We also have another “witness” in Paul’s teachings—-actually 2 witnesses, that marriage endures “til death”—-Rom. 7:2-3, and I Cor. 7:39. Lest people say that in Rom. 7 Paul was merely teaching about the law/Christ, Paul also taught another church—-the Corinthian church, that the marriage bond endures until the death of one of the spouses. For those who say in Rom that Paul was merely using a type of analogy when speaking of marriage, they do not know how to explain the fact that Paul did not just use any ol’ marriage in his illustration of freedom/bondage, he used an adulterous wife as an example……….and, he maintained in such cases that the marriage bond endured til the DEATH of the spouse. Then, and only then, could the “left one” marry without committing adultery. If they did so while the spouse remained alive, they would be called an adulteress/adulterer……….. So, what does Mt. 19:9 mean? That is the question of the day, isn’t it? What we do know for sure is that Jesus used 2 different words in that text—moichea (adultery) and porniea (a form of sexual immorality, including: pre-marital relations(fornication), incest, adultery, homosexuality, etc). We also know that in Matthew we find the ONLY so called “allowance” to divorce and possibly to remarry. We also know that in Matthew we are given an example of betrothal divorce (Mt. 1:18-24). We also know that Jesus’ disciples were SHOCKED at His teachings………and they KNEW the practices of the day—putting away wives for ANY cause and putting wives away for adultery. If they knew these customs, and if they knew how the conservative applied Moses’ law (only for adultery), why were they so shocked at Jesus’ teachings? We must remember that some of them were followers of John the Baptist………the same one who confronted Herod about having his brother Philip’s wife! They KNEW the MOST conservative viewpoint! As for I Cor. 7:15, I do not believe a believer is entitled to remarry. There is absolutely no evidence that the marriage bond, the one Paul just got done speaking about, is somehow dissolved. As a matter of fact, it appears that Paul’s focus is on winning the lost—-through peaceful means. I dont’ see where he teaches anything different than what he has been teaching—-the marriage endures til death. What I do see him teaching is that if an unbeliever leaves, the believer is to let them go—-peacefully…..that the believer is not obligated to maintain the marital relationship (they are to “remain unmarried”). The believer is guiltless in the eyes of God. What we also know is that “remain unmarried” in I Cor. 7:10-11 does NOT entitle one(a believer) to remarry, though they are given permission to “remain unmarried(to not have to fulfill the marital obligations). Blessings……….
Sometimes these passages are difficult to interpret because of what was not said, for example, in 1 Co. Paul makes provisions for a believer who is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse. Is the declaration by the unbelieving spouse about their intent to leave enough to break the vow, or does some amount of time need to pass before the vow is irrevocably broken? Does there need to be a “certificate of divorce” or is abandonment enough? If some amount of time needs to pass, how long is it? Is this only applicable when a non-believer becomes a believer and their spouse does not, or does this include cases where a believer (in sin) chose to marry an unbeliever? What is pretty clear in this passage is that Paul made an allowance when an unbeliever leaves a marriage, but the details of this are something we are going to have to struggle with. My point is that not everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of these passages does so with the intent to.
Personally, I would rather err on the side of NOT sinning. If scripture IS clear that marriage endures until the death of one spouse……..even in the face of adultery (Rom. 7:2-3), then I would rather NOT end up committing adultery. I would rather “remain unmarried”………..and serve the Lord wholeheartedly with a clean heart and clean conscience.
Because you are advocating that a spouse who has remarried divorce so that they may be reconciled to their first husband/wife, it is not quite so simple to declare that you err on the side of not sinning. If the divorce that you are advocating is sinful because the covenant is valid then you are actually participating in sin when you advocate that someone should choose to divorce a spouse from a second marriage. I do respect that you view this second covenant as invalid, but it is the proverbial straw man to suggest that this is only erring on the side of not sinning.
Yes, as for advocating the forsaking of an adulterous union, I will do that………..just like I will advocate a fornicating couple to end the fornication………..just like I would advocate a person who is in a homosexual relationship to forsake that relationship……….etc, etc. You see the “covenant” of a second union as valid, thus forsaking that union is sin, but you have not provided any scripture which shows that what God declares is sin, is no longer a sinful relationship. What changes an adulterous marriage into a lawful, 2 joined into 1 union by God? In other words, at what moment, does the illicit relationship turn into a lawful one—in God’s sight?
The warning is for man not to separate what God has joined. Is there anywhere that says God will not bring about that separation Himself? There is scripture that indicates that when an unbelieving spouse has departed, that the believer is not bound. So from this scripture it appears that either there are cases where we are not truly bound together by God, or that God does this separation himself. This is consistent with God’s warnings and with what scripture is saying. This is why I believe some are NOT unbound by God because God wants them to stand and others are, because God knows the heart of their spouse and has a different plan for them. The two can (and I believe do) co-exist without providing a contradiction in the Word of God.
People are not unbound by God, because they are ONE in His sight, not because He has a “different” plan for some of His children. Yes, we all may have different circumstances that the Lord allows into our lives, but the Lord’s Word, to me, is very clear that He only allows DEATH to separate what He has joined together. Notice I say, what He has joined together. I do not apply the unlawful joining in what I believe about the permanency of marriage. If God did not join it (and it appears in I Corinthians 7:15, that God DID join that union together, otherwise it would be fornication for the believer to remain in the relationship), then they are not ONE. Scripture seems to indicate that in such cases where one marries a divorced person, they are having illicit relations with someone else’s spouse in the eyes of God—hence, Jesus calls the new relationship, adultery—even though man may say it is lawful marriage. I do not believe “not under bondage” relates to the marriage bond that Paul speaks of as enduring for a lifetime. The phrase in the Greek has to do with slavery/servitude, not the joining of two into ONE by God as used in Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:39. Blessings………
And when pastors and counselors confronted him (ex-husband), Matt.18 process, they could get nowhere with him. This is not only a very wounded man but also a hard-hearted man, and you are supposed to treat him as an unbeliever then. Skip over to Corinthians, and you see that when an unbeliever departs, the believer is not bound, no longer bound to the marriage, unmarried, free to marry. Simple as that. You seem to think I am still bound to my ex when the Word is clear that I am not.
I’ve addressed this type of thinking before as it is SOOOO troubling to me that people use God’s word in such a way to discard an erring/wayward spouse—so they can then find another spouse who is “good”. This is not at all Jesus’ heart. And as to the Not under bondage passage, that is not what it means—that one is now free to find another spouse. It means that one is not guilty in such cases where an unbeliever leaves the home. The “left” one is not under obligation to continue serving the abandoning spouse.
The take that is being offered is that there is no release…why does it say that they are then????
I Corinthians 7:15 does not say the marriage is dissolved. That is something people infer for various reasons. The interesting thing is that though many of the reformers believed adultery gave an “out” in marriage, they did not believe I Cor. 7:15 was an “out”. If you’re ever so inclined, study the VERY early church down through the reformation church and see just how much has changed. It’s really quite an interesting study—-one that may take you into other doctrinal areas as well……and yes, the church has changed in other areas as well. Some for the better, most for the worse.
I am not sure why you can not see in Gods Word that if the unbeliever leaves, the one left is not bound. Also, that the one that has been loosened is free to marry in the Lord, and it is not a sin. How can you overlook that?
I am not overlooking it. I have looked into the Greek and it is not the same word Paul used in regards to the marriage bond. This word in the Greek refers to SERVITUDE. That is VERY different than the dissolution of what God joined together. Understanding the Greek word, which means servitude, aligns perfectly with what Paul just got done teaching………remain “unmarried”…….. verse 10-11. An “unmarried” BOUND spouse, is not SERVING the one they have departed from………but that does not mean they have been freed from the other person. To the contrary, Paul tells us the Lord commands such a one to either remain unmarried OR reconcile to one’s spouse.
I would disagree that there is no “hint” of the allowance of remarriage in the 1 cor 7 passage.
Yes, if I Corinthians 7:15 stood ALONE, then it may be assumed that one may marry again—IF we didn’t have all of Jesus’ teachings and Paul’s teachings to the contrary.
I do find it interesting that v 39 says she is “bound by the Law” (Nomos) which refers to the Law of Moses or Torah, which most say is done away in the NT. Please remember the verse and chapter divisions were not in the original . What do you do with this, (and I am not taking this out of context)
I don’t believe this “law” Paul is referring to is the law of Moses. Jesus was pretty clear that He was bringing marriage back to the creation purpose for marriage—which is: 1 man/1 woman, leaving their families and cleaving to each other until death parts them. This is what Paul taught in both Romans 7:2-3 and I Corinthians 7:39—–to the CHRISTIAN Church, not to those under the mosaic law.