(KJV) 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.
This text has been a challenge to many who seek to learn and teach the truth regarding the question "Who may marry?" It may be that in the last two decades I have written more dealing with the above question than anyone, yet I have avoided writing on this text. Indeed, there is much variance in the explanations given for this text, even though what is said appears to be clearly set forth. Perhaps one reason for lack of agreement is that some seem to be compelled to explain the text to harmonize with what they think Jesus taught, or maybe something they think Paul taught; so if they have misunderstood these texts they are sure to be wrong in their exegesis of the text under study. Yet several great commentators who might have been tempted to "explain away" this key text, have nonetheless dealt with it forthrightly. It is important that we understand that any view one might have on this passage cannot be true if it does not allow for harmony of the Scriptures. Thus, it is imperative that the reader endeavor to set aside preconceived ideas and simply seek to know and accept what the text actually says, which may help in fully understanding what Jesus and Paul taught regarding marriage.
In this dissertation we shall first look at how chorizo (depart, separate) is defined - to include comments from some respected commentators. Second, we will look at how various versions render the text. Third, the comments from several scholars are presented. Fourth, the author's exegesis of the texts followed by the application we might make to those whose spouses have done what Paul addresses in the scenario. Finally, there will be a brief explanation of some things that both Jesus and Paul taught that should be helpful to those looking for harmony of the Scriptures.
The meaning of the Greek word "chorizo" (depart, separate):
Below is a quote from Albert Barnes who explains the situation Paul addresses in 1 Cor. 7:10, 11 regarding the situation where a woman simply leaves her husband. In Barnes' final statement he indicates that divorce is a different situation.
Albert Barnes New Testament Commentary:
(But and if she depart: if she have withdrawn by a rash and foolish act; if she has attempted to dissolve the marriage vow, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled. She is not at liberty to marry another. This may refer, I suppose, to instances where wives, ignorant of the rule of Christ, and supposing that they had a right to separate themselves from their husbands, had rashly left them, and had supposed that the marriage contract was dissolved. Paul tells them that this was impossible; and that if they had so separated from their husbands, the pure laws of Christianity, did not recognize this right, and they must either be reconciled to their husbands, or remain alone. The marriage tie was so sacred that it could not be dissolved by the will of either party.
Let her remain unmarried: that is, let her not marry another. Or be reconciled to her husband: let this be done, if possible. If it cannot be, let her remain unmarried. It was a duty to be reconciled if it was possible. If not, she should not violate her vows to her husband so far as to marry another. It is evident that this rule is still binding, and that no one who has separated from her husband, whatever be the cause, unless there be a regular divorce, according to the law of Christ (Matthew 5:32), can be at liberty to marry again.
Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary:
But and if she depart: or "be separated." If the sin of separation has been committed, that of a new marriage is not to be added (Matthew 5:32).
Strong (quoted from SwordSearcher):
[Grk. 5563] chorizo (kho-rid'-zo) from 5561; to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away: - depart, put asunder, separate.
Another highly respected scholar (below) notes that chorizo has reference to separation rather than divorce.
Bloomfield [The Greek New Testament]
From the use of καταλλ [reconcile] and the air of the context it is plain that the apostle is not speaking of formal divorces, affected by law, but separations whether agreed on or not, arising from misunderstandings or otherwise.
Versions:
(ASV) Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.
(BBE) But if the one who is not a Christian has a desire to go away, let it be so: the brother or the sister in such a position is not forced to do one thing or the other: but it is God's pleasure that we may be at peace with one another.
(CEV) If your husband or wife isn't a follower of the Lord and decides to divorce you, then you should agree to it. You are no longer bound to that person. After all, God chose you and wants you to live at peace.
(ESV) But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.
(GNB) However, if the one who is not a believer wishes to leave the Christian partner, let it be so. In such cases the Christian partner, whether husband or wife, is free to act. God has called you to live in peace.
(GW) But if the unbelieving partners leave, let them go. Under these circumstances a Christian man or Christian woman is not bound by a marriage vow. God has called you to live in peace.
(ISV) But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not bound; God has called you to live in peace.
(LITV) But if the unbelieving one separates, let them be separated; the brother or the sister is not in bondage in such matters; but God has called us in peace.
(MKJV) But if the unbelieving one separates, let him be separated. A brother or a sister is not in bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace.
Commentators:
Some scholars say the word "depart" (chorizo) does not mean divorce, while others insist that it does. Some declare that "bondage" does not refer to marriage, yet others contend otherwise. Regarding the phrase "not under bondage," some have said it means that the believer, being abandoned, cannot prevent the unbeliever from leaving and simply is not under responsibility to continue support, etc., but is NOT free to marry. Others say the believer and unbeliever were "never under bondage" because God does not recognize mixed marriages. The more likely meaning is that the believer (under the circumstances noted) is not bound (married), and is free to marry. This view was held by Clark and Gil, two commentators that are generally held in very high esteem for their scholarship and general sound teaching. Foy Wallace Jr. also held this position. To harmonize the text with his idea of what Jesus taught, Wallace maintained that the abandonment "presupposes a state of adultery."
Many other scholars have expressed the same sentiment regarding the abandoned one's freedom and right to marry. Below are quotations from those mentioned, above, that commented on the phrase "not under bondage," followed by the comments of several other scholars:
Gil
being in such circumstances, that either Christ must be forsaken, or the unbeliever will depart, are they obliged to yield to such an one, but rather suffer a departure; nor are they bound to remain unmarried, but are free to marry another person, after all proper methods have been tried for a reconciliation, and that appears to be impracticable; desertion in such a case, and attended with such circumstances, is a breach of the marriage contract, and a dissolution of the bond, and the deserted person may lawfully marry again; otherwise a brother, or a sister in such a case, would be in subjection and bondage to such a person:
Clark
But if the unbelieving, depart - Whether husband or wife: if such obstinately depart and utterly refuse all cohabitation, a brother or a sister - a Christian man or woman, is not under bondage to any particular laws, so as to be prevented from remarrying. Such, probably, the law stood then; but it is not so now; for the marriage can only be dissolved by death, or by the ecclesiastical court.
Foy Wallace Jr.:
Verses 15-16, in the case of the abandonment of the believer by the unbeliever, whereby the believer is "not under bondage" and is therefore set free. If the bondage here does not refer to the marriage bond, then the believer would still be in the bondage of it. To advocate, as some do, that the passage means the believer is not bound to live or remain with the departing unbeliever would be a truism, for it is set forth as a case of abandonment and the abandoned one obviously could not abide with the one who had departed. It appears evident that when the unbeliever so departs it presupposes a state of adultery which exists in the principle previously discussed, and here the apostle's inspired teaching is again projected beyond the Lord's own strictures and declares the abandoned believer "not under bondage." If that does not mean that the believer in these circumstances is free to marry, then it cannot mean anything, for if the one involved is not altogether free the bondage would still exist." (The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State; p. 45)
"The word adultery in New Testament usage does not necessarily refer to the sinful physical [sexual] act, it is not restricted to the one way of violating the bond. In the four passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke the term adultery is given the sense of ignoring the bond, of which a man is guilty who formally puts away his wife unjustifiably and regards himself unhitched. The passages n Matthew 19: Mark 10 and Luke 16 discuss hypothetically the man who manifests this view by marrying again. His sin of adultery consisted in treating the original contract as null and void when it was not. The phrase "put away" in the verses means to formally divorce, not merely to "send away," or separate, and he thereby assumed the bond to be wholly dissolved." (The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State; p. 42)
"With no course of action legislated, revealed or prescribed, we cannot make one without human legislation. The course of some preachers in demanding separations and the breaking up of family relations, and the refusal to even baptize certain ones whose marriage status does not measure up to his standard of approval, is a presumptuous procedure. It reveals the tendency to displace God as the Judge of us all, and a preacher ascends to the bench. More than teaching the moral principles involved, the preacher has no course of action revealed, and to establish one would result in human legislation, more far reaching in evil consequences than the moral effects of divorcement limited to the persons involved. There are some things that are not subject to the law of restitution, things done in certain circumstances which cannot in later circumstances be undone, which remain as matters between God and the individual, and therefore reserved for the judgment. It is certain, however, that if the Lord Jesus Christ had intended a course of action in these cases, he would not have left it for preachers to prescribe, but would have himself legislated it." (The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State; p. 41)
Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
1 Corinthians 7:15. Is not under bondage, &c. - That is, says Hilary, "The Christian in this case is free to marry to another Christian." "He is free," says Photius, "to depart, because the other has dissolved the marriage." "If he depart," say Chrysostom, OEcumenius, and Theophylact, "because thou wilt not communicate with him in his infidelity, be thou divorced, or quit the yoke, &c." But it must be remembered, that the present subject refers only to marriages between Christians and those who were professedly heathens. A brother or sister, in the case above mentioned, after all due means of peace and reconciliation have been in vain attempted, (for God hath called us to peace,) is not enslaved.
Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary
The meaning is, 'let the unbeliever depart, rather than by attempting to retain the union, endanger that peace of household and peace of spirit, which is part of the calling of a Christian.'
Observe, (1) that there is no contradiction, in this licence of breaking off such a marriage, to the command of our Lord in Matthew 5:32, - because the Apostle expressly asserts, 1 Corinthians 7:12, that our Lord's words do not apply to such marriages as are here contemplated. They were spoken to those within the covenant, and as such apply immediately to the wedlock of Christians (1 Corinthians 7:10), but not to mixed marriages.
Heinrich Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
1 Corinthians 7:15. Paul had before enjoined that the Christian partner should not make a separation if the non-Christian consents to remain. But what, if the non-Christian partner seeks separation? In that case they were to let such an one go without detention (χωριζεσθω, permissive, see Winer, p. 291 [E. T. Since desertion (χωριζεται) appears here as an admissible ground for divorce, this has been thought to conflict with Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9, and various explanations have been attempted (see Wolf in lo(1134)). But the seeming contradiction vanishes, if we consider 1 Corinthians 7:12, according to which Jesus had given no judgment upon mixed marriages; Matthew 5:32, therefore, can only bind the believing consort, in so far that he may not be the one who leaves. If, however, he is left by the non-believing partner, then, as this case does not fall under the utterance of Christ, the marriage may be looked upon as practically dissolved, and the believing partner is not bound.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible
If the unbelieving husband or the unbelieving wife will leave his or her correlate, that is, so leave them as to return no more to live as a husband or as a wife with her or him that is Christian, let him depart. Such a person hath broken the bond of marriage, and in such cases Christians are not under bondage, they are not tied by law to fetch them again, nor by the laws of God to keep themselves unmarried for their perverseness. But it may be objected, that nothing but adultery, by the Divine law, breaketh that bond.
Answer. That is denied. Nothing but adultery is a justifiable cause of divorce: no man may put away his wife, nor any wife put away her husband, but for adultery. But the husband's voluntary leaving his wife, or the wife's voluntary leaving her husband, with a resolution to return no more to them, breaks also the bond of marriage, frustrating it as to the ends for which God hath appointed it; and, after all due means used to bring again the party departing to their duty, doth certainly free the correlate. So that although nothing can justify repudiation, or putting away a wife or a husband, and marrying another, but the adultery of the person so divorced and repudiated; yet the departure either of husband or wife without the other's consent for a long time, and refusal to return after all due means used, especially if the party so going away doth it out of a hatred and abomination of the other's religion, will justify the persons so deserted, after due waiting and use of means to reduce him or her to their duty, wholly to cast off the person deserting; for no Christian in such a case, by God's law, is under bondage.
The Bible Study New Testament
However. This is the "Pauline privilege." Note that it only covers the specific condition of an unbeliever deserting the Christian partner. There was and is much controversy about Christianity (compare Matthew 10:34-36), and sometimes the unbelieving partner is so fanatically opposed to Christianity that he or she refuses to continue the marriage. Is free to act. The Christian partner ABANDONED by the unbeliever is free from the former relationship. The marriage has terminated.
Marriage Matters (1 Corinthians 7:6-24) (Copied from Bible.org)
But although the believer should not initiate the divorce, if the unbeliever should do so, the believer is no longer bound to the marriage (7:15). Paul granted permission for divorce in the case of a believer being deserted by an unbeliever.28
This is stated in 7:15, where Paul writes that the believer is "not bound in regard to marriage" (i.e., free to remain single or to remarry).29 In 7:39-40, there is a conceptual parallel where a wife is said to be "bound" (a different word in Greek, but the same concept) as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is "free" to marry as she wishes, only in the Lord. If the parallel holds, then not bound in 7:15 also means "free to marry another."30
The greater part of the commentaries understand "not under bondage," to deny the necessity of remaining unmarried, and infer from it the lawfulness of taking another spouse under the conditions specified by the apostle Paul.
Lenski ( 1 Cor. P. 294 and 295) and Fisher (p. 219) support the idea that "not under bondage" is that the marriage bond has been severed and that the believer is no longer enslaved to it.
The Text
After dealing with various questions regarding marriage, that addressed various groups, Paul then addresses the "rest." Included in this group would be those disciples whose spouses were not Christians and did not want to continue the marriage. The text speaks of the non-Christian spouse as departing, leaving or separating. Based on the meaning of the word used here, the fact that one can depart (desertion) and not divorce and the fact that a divorce certificate (a requirement for divorce according to Deut. 24:1, 2 and Jer. 3:8) is not mentioned, it would seem to be presumptuous to conclude that legal divorce is what is meant by "depart" in the particular scenario addressed. In view of what the text says, our concern now is to determine whether the abandoned spouse is free to marry, needs to divorce, or may not marry even with a legal divorce. The text addresses the situation in which a child of God is married to an unbeliever. It may be possible that neither spouse was a Christian at the time they married but that one obeyed the gospel. In either case Paul, through inspiration from God, addresses a problem for which the solution, it would seem, is one that would benefit Christians rather than the devil who opposes all that is good.
Under most circumstances the Law did not allow God's people to intermarry with unbelievers. Such marriages were "unlawful" and considered to be "fornication." The New Testament contains examples of illegal marriages: 1 Cor. 5:1 and Matt. 14:4. Clark contends that the former case was one of incest - a man's marrying his father's divorced wife. The latter verse refers to Herod, who married his brother's divorced wife, which was contrary to the Law as long as the brother was living. In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes about being unequally yoked with unbelievers. While marriage may not be under consideration, the reader has to be impressed with God's thinking regarding ties with the heathen.
2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
While we might conclude from the above passage that it is sinful for a Christian to marry an unbeliever, we cannot conclude that such a marriage necessarily should be terminated. Paul makes it clear in his remarks preceding the statement that while "a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases" the marriage is nevertheless genuine and the Christian should remain in hopes of converting his/her mate. But considering what Paul said, above, and that it has never been God's will for his people to marry unbelievers, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a divorce would not be needed if an unbeliever abandoned a believer. (This would certainly be applicable in a case in which there was no divorce law or it might be impossible to get a divorce, such as a Jewish man who sends away his wife [apoluo] but refuses to give the "git" or divorce paper so he does not have to pay back the dowry she brought to the marriage.) This reasoning is also supported by the example of the Jewish priests who acknowledged their sin of taking foreign wives. Ezra told the priests to separate.
"And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives" (Ezra 10:10-11).
It seems apparent, from this reading and the preceding verses, that the priests understood that they were not legally/scripturally bound to those women and that it was their duty to separate from them. We recognize today that where no legal marriage exists there is no need for divorce proceedings. For example, at one point in our history marriage between two men was not legal. It was an "illegal marriage" (fornication). But after a state made it legal several homosexuals married. Later there was a national ruling that such unions were "not lawful." The couples did not need to divorce because there was never a legal marriage. A more applicable situation would be a case wherein a brother and sister learn they had married each other. They would need only to separate. While this is not entirely applicable to the situation in which a Christian has been abandoned by the unbelieving spouse, it makes it understandable that when the unbeliever abandons the believer (leaves, departs, separates with the intention of ending the marriage) then the bond is broken and a legal divorce proceeding, at least in the situation Paul addresses there at Corinth, was not needed.
Those who seek to defend the traditional position on MDR insist that chorizo means divorce in 1 Cor. 7:10, 11 and in verse 15. But if this is true, that chorizo means divorce, then it logically follows that "not under bondage" should be interpreted to mean freedom from the marriage bond and freedom to marry.
Unlike the case in verses 10-11, where the Christian married couple separate and are exhorted to remain "unmarried" (or in the state they are in), verse 15 deals with the situation in which an unbeliever separates. Paul says the believer is not bound to the marriage. Marriage is what Paul had in mind, not some imaginary bond that releases the brother only from his obligation to keep house for the ungodly unbeliever. There is no indication in the text that Paul intended to put a limit on the believer's freedom from the unbeliever. Paul said the believer is "not under bondage." To put limits on the believer's freedom, or the freedom of anyone that is legally divorced, is to make laws where God did not legislate and is presumptuous action.
Understanding the Teaching of Jesus
As we noted in the beginning, some are not able to accept the teaching of 1 Corinthians 7:15, because this would be "another cause for divorce" and thus contrary to what Jesus taught. But did Jesus really teach that a divorce is not a divorce unless it is for adultery? After many years of careful and diligent study I came to the conclusion that Jesus' concern was with the Jewish men who had not only perverted God's ideal (marriage for life) but had disregarded Moses' command to give a divorce certificate in cases wherein the man intended no longer to love and support the wife. This is based on the true meaning of the word "apoluo," which is translated "put away" in most of the older, trusted versions. Of course, "put away" (send away) does not mean divorce, as defined by Moses and confirmed by God Himself, using a personal example (Deut. 24:1, 2; Jer. 3:8). Putting away is only one of the parts noted and LACKS the "bill of divorcement" that makes it legal and final.
The words "put away" are used 52 times in the KJV. In most instances they refer to getting rid of false gods. Only in a few instances is the phrase even assumed to mean divorce. Translating "apoluo" as divorce has Jesus contradicting the Law that allowed the woman to "go and become another man's wife" (Deut. 24:1, 2). This is something Jesus, before He taught on this issue, promised not to do (Matt. 5:17-19) so that there would be no misunderstandings. The Jews, who sought reason to kill Jesus, evidently did not misunderstand His teaching because they did not charge Him with contradicting Moses on this issue.
The Exception Clause
Below is the quotation from the KJV, followed by my paraphrase of this passage:
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 I say unto you, whoever shall put away his wife without a certificate of divorcement, except for the cases of an illicit or illegal marriage, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her that is put away without a certificate of divorcement doth commit adultery.
Two versions lend support to the accuracy of the above paraphrase: The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American with Apocrypha.
In my book, Put Away But Not Divorced, I devote four chapters to dealing with the exception clause. Many believe Jesus taught that the only time God recognizes a divorce is when fornication has been committed, which they insist has to be the cause of the divorce and that it frees only the initiator of the divorce to marry. This is based on their conception of what Jesus was teaching in Matthew 19:9. This idea has many hermeneutical problems, the first being that "apoluo" has to be FORCED to mean divorce. The logical meaning is that the man whom Jesus said "committeth adultery against her" (Mk 10:11) would not be guilty of so doing if the "putting away" (apoluoing) is a situation in which the marriage is not legal, resulting in fornication. (Two New Testament examples were previously noted.) Thus, Jesus never taught only one reason for divorce (that being fornication) and that if a divorce is not for said reason it is not a divorce at all. The New Testament does not actually give a reason for divorce. Rather, Jesus pointed Jewish men, who were abusers of wives and violators of the Law, to God's ideal from the beginning. In addition, Paul taught men to "love your wives" and women to "honor your husbands." Nevertheless, God designed divorce for a reason and it still does what it was designed to do, when His definition is followed. The believer who has been abandoned, in cases wherein divorce is not possible, seems to be an exception - a case in which divorce is not needed. The text says the believer whose spouse has abandoned him/her is not under bondage in such cases. While many scholars have sought to explain or define bondage (douloo) to harmonize with their ideas of what Jesus taught, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia stayed true to scholarship and conscience when they wrote, "(c) Marriage is once referred to as a bondage (1Co_7:15) (verb δουλοóω, doulóō)."
|
