The Bondage of 1 Corinthians 7:15

Whole books have been written on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage (MDR for short), but I’m going to quickly overview the subject here in this opening paragraph. First of all, the New Testament, contrary to conventional wisdom, promotes the permanency of marriage. In Matthew 19:6, Jesus says, “What God has joined together, let not man separate.” Marriage is a lifelong commitment, “till death do us part.” Indeed, the marriage bond is not severed until the death of one’s spouse. “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” (Romans 7:2). This point is echoed in 1 Corinthians 7:39. To show how serious this issue is, the scriptures reveal that if a person violates the permanent marital bond by divorcing their spouse and then remarrying, they are guilty of adultery (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Rom. 7:3). So these are the basic rules: 1) marriage is for life, 2) divorce is wrong, 3) death severs the bond of marriage, and 4) to divorce and remarry is to commit adultery. However, there is one exception: divorce is always wrong except when you divorce your spouse for the cause of adultery (Matthew 19:9). If you divorce your spouse for the cause of adultery, you are free also to remarry (assuming that you marry someone who also has the right to marry). It may sound complicated, but it really isn’t…and it especially isn’t complicated when folks respect their marriage vows and stick to God’s plan.

Having said that, is there a second exception in addition to adultery? Is there another instance where a married person can endure a divorce and lawfully remarry? Some would answer in the affirmative, pointing to 1 Corinthians 7:15. Let’s read this verse in context:

“But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 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. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:12-16).

Some believe, based on verse 15, that if a Christian is married to an unbeliever, or non-Christian, and the unbeliever divorces the Christian, that the Christian is free to remarry. After all, when the unbeliever leaves the Christian, the Christian is no longer “under bondage.” This must refer to the marriage bond. Since the Christian is freed from the marriage bond, it is inferred that they are free to remarry. Although this conclusion is not unreasonable, I do believe that it is wrong…and very dangerous.

In order that we might understand what this verse really means, we have to study the context. After all, this verse doesn’t stand alone, and I’m afraid that some folks are grabbing onto the phrase “not under bondage” and applying it in such a way that Paul never intended.

Please notice that Paul is in no way discussing divorce and remarriage here in this passage. The apostle’s not talking about marital problems that culminate in divorce—the non-Christian divorces his/her Christian spouse and the now-divorced Christian is free to remarry. Nothing is actually said about remarriage here. In fact, if we’re going to be technical, there is no specific reference to divorce.

So what is Paul saying in this passage?

Well, there is an obvious theme, beginning in verse 12. Paul affirms what our common-sense tells us: being married to an unbeliever is challenging. In fact, in other places, it is inferred that we ought not marry unbelievers at all (1 Cor. 7:39; 9:5; 2 Cor. 6:14-18). But perhaps these were folks who had already been married when they became Christians and sadly, their spouses refused to adopt the faith of Christ. Or maybe these were Christians who, against the advice and wisdom of scripture, had married an unbeliever anyways and now were faced with the consequences of such a perilous union. Maybe it was “love,” or the hope that they could convert their unbelieving spouse in time. Whatever the case may be, these were believers that were married to unbelievers…and it wasn’t easy.

Paul urged these Christians not to divorce their unbelieving spouse. The implication is that this must have been something that these Christians were considering as an option, and I can understand why they were tempted to take this route. Think about it. An unbelieving spouse is going to be a constant source of temptation: tempting you to sacrifice your values and to abandon your faith. During the first century, persecution posed a serious threat. If you were a Christian and your faith “threatened” the family’s safety, your spouse would probably encourage you to give it up for the sake of the family. This could easily have resulted in DAILY fights. You’re wanting to go on the offensive, to convert your spouse, to convince them to adopt the faith of the Lord, but all too often, you’re forced to defend your faith, to explain your reasons for embracing such a dangerous and illogical religion. These are the very reasons that Paul told the Corinthians later (in the same chapter) that there was wisdom in remaining unmarried “because of the present distress” of the times (vs. 26). Having a family during a period of instability and intense persecution would pose many challenges, especially if your spouse was an unbeliever.

Add to that the presence of children. If your spouse is an unbeliever, they’ve got influence over your children. You want to keep your children safe. You want to raise them in the “training and admonition” of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). These objectives might seem unreachable if your spouse is an unbeliever and is resentful of your faith.

So it’s easy to see why a Christian might consider divorcing their unbelieving spouse, especially during a time of “distress.” It’s not that the Christian doesn’t respect the permanency of marriage—they would love to convert their spouse and remain married—but human reasoning might lead an honest believer to conclude that divorce would be “the lesser of two evils.” Paul, however, warned against this train of thought. He told the Christians to remain married to these unbelievers. First of all, the marriage bond was permanent and they were bound by God to remain in the relationship. God had joined those two individuals together, and man was not to separate that bond (Mt. 19:6). Second, as Paul articulates here in 1 Corinthians 7, there was always the possibility that you might convert your spouse by your example. It would even be better for your children, Paul says (perhaps the Christian spouse would be at a legal disadvantage if a divorce were to occur; in an anti-Christian society, the unbeliever would be more likely to gain custody of the children; I don’t know).

As challenging as it might be, the Christian was to remain married. They were to continue to live with their spouse (vs. 12-13). They were to sanctify their unbelieving spouse and children by setting a daily example of Christian excellence and purity (see 1 Peter 3:1-4).

But that didn’t prevent the unbelieving spouse from hitting the road, and Paul wants to make it very clear that under such circumstances—if the unbeliever leaves—the Christian spouse is not required (under bondage) to chase them and “make it work.” In other words, Christian husbands/wives were to remain devoted to the marriage and were to make every effort to sanctify (convert) their family, but if, despite your best efforts, your spouse leaves you and your family is torn asunder, there’s nothing else you can do; you’re no longer “enslaved” (under bondage) to your spouse, and all of those marital responsibilities cease.

Why does Paul stress this to such an extent? Why does he go out of his way to assure the Christian that he/she is “not under bondage” and that “God has called us to peace” (vs. 15b)? Paul had just urged them to stay with their unbelieving spouse and to make every effort to convert them to Christ, but as you might imagine, one might take that too far. A Christian, whose unbelieving spouse has left, or is threatening to leave, might resort to pleas of desperation, bribery, and debate; they might pursue their spouse and insist on the family staying together. There might be the pangs of guilt and self-loathing. Why couldn’t I convert them? What could I have done differently? I am such a failure! Now my children will assuredly be lost!

The apostle, here in verse 15, when he tells these Christians that they’re “not under bondage” in such cases, is simply echoing a principle found elsewhere in scripture. “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men” (Romans 12:18). Even in 1 Peter 3:1-4, wives are told not to nag their husbands to the point of conversion, but to exemplify their faith on a daily basis. Sometimes, there’s not much you can say to someone that will convince them to accept the gospel; all you can do is quietly and peacefully live out your faith, hoping that, over time, your pure conduct and unwavering convictions will impact them. Again, God has called us to peace, and that includes the manner in which we try to win souls.

So the phrase “not under bondage” in 1 Corinthians 7:15 has nothing to do with the marriage bond itself, nor does it imply that a Christian, who has been divorced by their unbelieving spouse, is permitted to remarry. These points are evident by a careful examination of the context.

In fact, just a few verses earlier, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul wrote, “Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: a wife is not to depart from her husband. But if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.” If a person finds themselves in a divorce situation, or in a situation where their spouse has left them, or they have left their spouse, there are just two options: remain unmarried or be reconciled. While separated from your spouse, you’re not obligated to fulfill the usual marriage duties, but nor are you free to remarry some other person. Why would Paul forbid remarriage in verse 11 but then permit remarriage (even though nothing is actually said about remarriage) just a few verses later in verse 15?

Finally, sometimes a position (which is already weak) can be proven false by the natural consequences that stem from it. In other words, an unstable doctrine will have exponentially unstable effects. For example, I can already see Christians using this doctrine to justify marrying non-Christians. “If it doesn’t work out, and we get a divorce, I’m free to remarry based on 1 Corinthians 7:15,” or what about the new Christian who’s spouse has not yet been converted? It sounds like God’s marriage plan does not apply to this new Christian the same way it’s applied to everyone else? Or what if you’re Christian spouse leaves the faith and becomes an unbeliever? This false interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is basically saying that God’s plan for marriage is only applicable when both spouses are devout Christians (and remain so). If one is an unbeliever, or if one becomes an unbeliever, then God’s marriage laws are thrown out the window, or at least weakened considerably.

As we study difficult passages such as this, we have to lay our emotions aside and embrace the position that is most consistent with the context and the rest of the inspired record. With this issue—with any issue regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage—we must not make such major decisions (who to marry) when we are not confident that the relationship is absolutely permissible by God. As Jesus says back in Matthew 19:12—and I’m paraphrasing here—there are some people who will have to remain unmarried “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” not because they have taken a vow of celibacy necessarily, but because of difficult circumstances that have made it impossible for them to be lawfully joined to another in marriage.