What Is the Meaning of “Not under Bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15)?
LIVET PÅ JORDEN ÄR ETT TEST!
Would you address 1 Corinthians 7:15? Does desertion by a non-believing mate grant the abandoned Christian the right of remarriage?
In First Corinthians, chapter 7, the apostle Paul responds to a number of questions that had been submitted to him by various members of the church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1). Some of these queries had to do with the relationship of a believer who is married to an unbeliever.
For example, should a Christian leave his or her unbelieving spouse? Paul’s answer was in the negative — not if the unbeliever is content to keep on dwelling with the Christian (1 Cor. 7:12-13). The “sanctified” environment of a home in which the influence of the gospel is found could lead to the conversion of the heathen partner (1 Cor. 7:14; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1).
But what if the unbeliever should not be content to remain with the Christian, and he “departs” (
chorizetai, literally “separates himself”)? What should the Christian do? Paul says that the child of God “is not under bondage” in such cases (1 Cor. 7:15).
Some have argued that First Corinthians 7:15 provides a second cause for divorce (in addition to the “fornication” of Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and so, by implication, expands Jesus’ teaching, and authorizes a subsequent remarriage on the ground of “desertion” by an unbelieving mate. This view is commonly called the “Pauline privilege.”
The theory certainly is not a new one. It was advocated by Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), one of the so-called “church fathers.” It became a part of Roman Catholic Canon law and was defended by Martin Luther. This view, we are convinced, is unwarranted and constitutes a compromise of the Lord’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.
Previous post: Onda andar (demoner)