Some have argued that 1 Corinthians 7:15 gives a Christian justification for marrying again, after a divorce from an unbelieving spouse. The passage says, “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.” You will notice that there is no explicit mention of remarriage in the text. Proponents claim that the phrase “not under bondage” implies that remarriage is possible. The reasoning is that God establishes the marriage bond. If God dissolves that bond (“not under bondage”) then the believer is free to remarry. This is often referred to as the Pauline privilege. Is this what the passage teaches?
First, note a companion passage also penned by Paul. He wrote in Romans 7:2-3, “For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.” This is what we may refer to as God’s law on marriage. It is God’s intent that a man and woman who marry should stay married until they are parted in death.
You will notice the word “bound” in the text. When a man marries a woman, the two are bound (or joined) together by God. Where the idea of joining might not be understood as a lifetime commitment, the idea of a binding certainly does. In fact, the idea of joining, when it is understood scripturally, also carries with it that idea of a lifetime obligation. Jesus said in Matthew 19:6, “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
So, in Romans 7, what does the word “bound” indicate? Thayer defines it: tie, bind, fasten; to bind with chains. So, speaking metaphorically, the binding in marriage is a permanent one.
Jesus weighed in on this, offering only a single exception to the law. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9). The single exception, fornication, is rightly considered by faithful Christians as the only reason one could divorce their mate, and remarry.
God hates divorce. In Malachi 2, He condemned the Jews for their treatment of their wives. “‘For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,’ Says the Lord of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously’” (2:16).
So, what does 1 Corinthians 7:15 actually teach? The answer is found in context, and the actual meaning of the phrase “not in bondage.” First, the context. In his writing, Paul lobbies hard for Christians to remain married, even if their spouse is an unbeliever. In verse 10, “A wife is not to depart from her husband.” In verse 11, if the woman does depart (disregarding Paul’s instructions), she is to remain unmarried or to reconcile. In verse 12, if an unbelieving wife is willing to live with her believing husband, “let him not divorce her.” Verse 13 indicates the same if the genders are swapped, “let her not divorce him.” Verse 14 indicates that the marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is legitimate in God’s eyes. The idea that the two are bound for life remains.
So, with these thoughts in mind, the Christian is obviously not given the right to divorce their mate because they are unbelievers. With this in mind, there is one scenario that has not been addressed. What if an unbeliever is not willing to stay married to a Christian? Then, the Christian is left with one of two choices:
-
Leave the Lord to stay married to the unbeliever.
-
Let the unbeliever depart, and stay faithful to the Lord.
With this in mind, we come to the phrase, “not under bondage.” A different word than that found in Romans 7, the Greek word douloo is defined by Thayer as: to make a slave of, reduce to bondage. Interestingly, Thayer refers to the metaphorical meaning as: give myself wholly to one’s needs and service. Make myself a bondman to him.
There is a difference between a tie or fastening together, and the necessity of a Christian to make themselves a slave to their spouse. God has never intended for a man or woman to make themselves slaves to their spouses. We are only slaves to Jesus Christ. In the scenario, the only acceptable option is for the believer to choose the Lord over their unbelieving spouse.
Therefore, the phrase “not in bondage” says nothing about the option of remarriage. It simply states that if an unbeliever is unwilling to live with a believer, the believer does not sin in choosing to live for the Lord rather than choosing to submit to the unbelieving spouse. The only statement made about remarriage in the context of the marriage between a believer and unbeliever is found earlier in verse 11, “let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.”
The only exception that allows for remarriage is when a spouse has committed fornication. Then, and only then, the innocent one has the right to remarry. There is no Pauline Privilege in this, or any other passage.
