"Not Under Bondage"

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

“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” (1 Corinthians 7:15).

A current misconception with regard to divorce and remarriage is the notion that 1 Corinthians 7:15 is
a “later revelation” that “modifies” or “clarifies” Matthew 19:9. It is argued that 1 Corinthians 7:15
permits the Christian, who is deserted by a non-Christian mate, to remarry on the sole ground of that
desertion. On the other hand, it is suggested, Matthew 19:9 (which permits remarriage only on the
ground of fornication) applies strictly to a Christian married to a Christian, and therefore is not to be
considered applicable to the Christian who is married to a non-Christian. Several factors make this
position untenable.

First, the context of Matthew 19 is divorce (Matthew 19:3), while the context of 1 Corinthians 7 is not
divorce but the propriety of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1ff.). Jesus applied God’s original marriage law
(Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6) to the question of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:9). But Paul
applied God’s marriage law to several different questions that related to celibacy and the legitimacy of
marriage for widows/widowers, Christians/non-Christians, and singles.

Second, it is incorrect to hold that if 1 Corinthians 7:15 pertains to a Christian married to a non-
Christian, then Matthew 19:9 must refer exclusively to a Christian married to a Christian. Matthew
19:9 was uttered in context to a group of Jews seeking an answer to their question concerning Jewish
divorce (Matthew 19:3). Jesus gave them an answer that was intended for them, as well as for those
who would live during the Christian age. He appealed to Genesis 2, which resides in a pre-Jewish
context and clearly applies to all people—i.e., the totality of humanity. Genesis 2 is a human race
context. It reveals God’s ideal will for human marriage for all of human history—pre-Mosaic, Mosaic,
and Christian.

Though divorce and remarriage for reasons other than fornication was “permitted” (epetrepsen—
Matthew 19:8, though not endorsed) during the Mosaic period, Jesus made clear that the Jews had
strayed from the original ideal because of their hard hearts. He further emphasized (notice the use of
de—“but” in Matthew 19:9) that the original marriage law, which permitted divorce and remarriage for
fornication alone, would be reinstated and would be applicable to all persons during the Christian age.
Prior to the cross, ignorance may have been “unattended to” (huperidon—Acts 17:30), that is, God did
not have a universal law, like the Gospel (Mark 16:15-16), but with the ratification of the New
Testament, all men everywhere are responsible and liable for conforming themselves to God’s
universal laws of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. God’s original marriage law was, and is,
addressed to all people (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:4-6). Christ’s application to the question of divorce
was implied in the original law, and is addressed to all people (Matthew 19:9). Paul’s application to
questions of sex, celibacy, and non-Christian mates is addressed to all people (1 Corinthians 7).
Scripture harmonizes beautifully, and God treats all impartially. Thus the phrase “to the rest” (1
Corinthians 7:12) cannot be referring uniquely or solely to non-Christian marriage relationships, since
Jesus already referred to all marriages (whether Jew or non-Jew, Christian or non-Christian).

Third, 1 Corinthians 7 does not address different “classes” of marriages. The Corinthian letter was
written in response to correspondence previously sent to Paul by the Corinthians (cf. 1:11; 5:1; 7:1;
8:1; 12:1; 16:1). Thus, 1 Corinthians amounts to a point-by-point response to matters previously
raised by the Corinthians themselves. When Paul referred to the general question of sexual
activity/celibacy (7:1), he was alluding to the method by which he organized his remarks in direct
response to questions asked by the Corinthians. Thus, “to the rest” (7:12) refers to the rest of the
matters or questions about which the Corinthians specifically inquired (and to which Jesus did not
make specific application while on Earth). These matters (not marriages) are easily discernible from
what follows. The “rest” of the questions would have included the following:

Should a Christian male who has a non-Christian wife sever the relationship (vs. 12)?
Should a Christian female who has a non-Christian husband sever the relationship (vs. 13)?
Are Christians somehow ceremonially defiled or rendered unclean by such relationships (vs. 14)?
Are children born to such relationships ceremonially unclean (vs. 14)?
Is a Christian guilty of sin if their non-Christian mate severs the relationship (vs. 15-16)?
Does becoming a Christian mean that one should dissolve all conditions and relationships that were
entered into before becoming a Christian (vss. 17-24)?
What should be the sexual and/or marital status of virgins and widows in light of the current period
of distress (vss. 25-40)?

All of these questions may be answered in light of, and in harmony with, Jesus’ own remarks in
Matthew 19. Jesus did not specifically make application to these unique instances (vs. 12—“to the rest
speak I, not the Lord”). He did not address Himself to the application of God’s general marriage law to
every specific situation (specifically to the spiritual status of a Christian married to a non-Christian).
Yet, His teaching applies to every case of marriage on the question of divorce.

Fourth, the specific context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 relates to the person who becomes a Christian, but
whose mate does not. The unbeliever now finds himself married to a different person (in the sense
that his mate underwent a total change and began to live a completely different lifestyle). The
unbeliever demands that his mate make a choice: “either give up Christ or I’m leaving!” Yet to live in
marriage with an unbeliever, who threatens departure if the believer does not capitulate to the
unbeliever (i.e., compromise Christian responsibility or neglect divinely ordained duty), is to be
involved in slavery (i.e., “bondage”). But neither at the time the marriage was contracted, nor at the
present time (the force of the perfect indicative passive in Greek), has the Christian been under that
kind of bondage. God never intended nor approved a view that regards marriage as slavery. Christians
are slaves only to God—never to men or mates (Matthew 23:10; Romans 6:22; Ephesians 6:6;
Colossians 3:24; Philemon 16; 1 Corinthians 7:15). So Paul was saying that although a believer is
married to an unbeliever (and continues to be so), the believer is not to compromise his or her
discipleship. To do so, at the insistence of the unbelieving mate, would constitute slavery that was
never God’s intention for marriage.

To suggest that dedoulotai (“bondage”) refers to the marriage bond is to maintain that in some sense
(or in some cases) the marriage bond is to be viewed as a state of slavery. But God does not want us
to view our marital unions as slave relationships in which we are “under bondage.” We may be “bound”
(1 Corinthians 7:27,39; Romans 7:2), but we are not “enslaved” (1 Corinthians 7:15). So Paul was not
commenting on the status of a believer’s marital relationship (i.e., whether bound or loosed). Rather,
he was commenting on the status of a believer’s spiritual relationship as a Christian in the context of
marital discord that is initiated by the non-Christian mate. Paul was answering the question: “How does
being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a Christian if he or she threatens to leave?” He
was not answering the question: “How does being married to a non-Christian affect my status as a
husband/wife (and the potential for remarriage) when the non-Christian departs?” Jesus already
answered that question in Matthew 19:9—divorce and remarriage is permitted only upon the basis of
sexual unfaithfulness. Paul, too, spoke more directly to this question earlier in the chapter when he
ruled out remarriage: “Let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband” (vss. 10-11).

To summarize: although God’s marriage law is stringent (for everybody), and although God hates
divorce (Malachi 2:16), nevertheless, there are times when an unbelieving mate actually will force the
believer to make a choice between Christ and the unbelieving mate. To choose the mate over Christ
would be slavery (i.e., “bondage”). Yet, the believer is not now, and never has been, in such
enslavement. Thus, the believer must let the unbeliever exit the relationship in peace. The believer
must “let him depart”—in the sense that the believer must not seek to prevent his departure by
compromising his loyalty to Christ. Of course, the Christian would continue to hold out hope that the
marriage could be saved. If, however, the non-Christian forms a sexual union outside of marriage with
another, the Christian is permitted the right to exercise the injunction of Matthew 19:9 by putting
away the non-Christian on the sole grounds of fornication, and may then marry another eligible
person.

One final factor needs to be addressed. Verses 17-24 cannot be requiring an individual to remain in
whatever marital state that person is in at the time of conversion. Paul used the examples of slavery
and circumcision to show that merely because a person becomes a Christian, he or she is not absolved
of pre-Christian circumstances. If a person is a slave prior to baptism, that person will continue to be a
slave after baptism, and should not think that becoming a Christian gives one the right to shirk legal
status as a slave. This is why Paul instructed Onesimus to return to his position of servitude (Philemon
12). Thus Paul was encouraging the person who becomes a Christian, but whose mate does not
become a Christian, to remain in that marriage rather than think that becoming a Christian somehow
gives him or her the right to sever the relationship with the non-Christian mate. Being married to a
non-Christian mate is not sinful in and of itself (see Miller, 2002).

Paul was not placing his stamp of approval upon relationships, practices, and conditions that were
sinful prior to baptism; nor was he encouraging Christians to remain in those relationships. Such
would contradict what he later told the Corinthians concerning unequal yokes (2 Corinthians 6:17) and
repentance (2 Corinthians 7:8-10). Rather, he was referring to relationships and conditions that were
not sinful prior to baptism, and was telling Christians that they still had the same obligation to
conduct themselves appropriately (i.e., according to God’s laws) within those situations, now that they
were Christians. Such instructions apply to any relationship, practice, or condition that was not sinful
(i.e., in violation of Christ’s laws) prior to baptism. But it does not apply to any practice or relationship
that was sinful prior to baptism (i.e., adultery, homosexuality, evil business practices, etc.; cf. 1
Corinthians 6:9-11).

May God grant us the humility and determination to conform our lives to His will concerning marriage
—no matter how narrow it may seem (Matthew 7:14). May the church of our day be spared any further
harm that comes from the promotion of false theories and doctrines that are calculated to re-define
God’s will as “wide” and “broad” (Matthew 7:13). May we truly seek to please, not men, but God
(Galatians 1:10).

REFERENCES
Miller, Dave (2002), “Be Not Unequally Yoked,” Apologetics Press,
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1802.

Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or
in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be
designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3)
the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly
forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual
property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the
person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g.,
running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available,
without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered
for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for
posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is
given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

http://www.apologeticspress.org