HOME | MAIN BOOKS PAGE | SITE MAP | EMAIL

MAIN PAGE | NEXT

Much discussion has taken place among the followers of Christ concerning certain aspects of this chapter. Brother Thomas and Brother Roberts disagreed on v15 of this chapter.

Herald - 1860/61, Page 202 - Dr. Thomas-

"...Paul says 'If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away *** for the unbelieving wife is sanctified by her husband. But if the unbelieving depart let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage to such' 'Art though loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But, and if thou marry, thou has not sinned.' 1 Corinthians 7:12, 14, 27, 28. This is of course for brethren in Christ-not outsiders; for, says Paul, 'what have I to do to judge them that are without?' Still, on the principle of being 'subject to the ordinances of men for the Lord's sake, it would be necessary for such not to marry a second contemporary wife without a legal divorce."

Ambassador of the Coming Age - May 1866 - Dr. Thomas-

"...The Apostles, whose authority he declared equal to his own in teaching the things of the Deity, allowed divorce on another ground, and for the sake of peace in the Christian party."

Ecclesial Guide, Robert Roberts, in Marriage section-

"The truth may come to man or woman in the married state: in that case, the man or woman is not to leave the unbelieving wife or husband if there be willingness on the part of the partner to continue the association. This, Paul plainly lays down (1 Cor. 7:12-13). But if the unbelievers depart, he says, "Let them depart: a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: God hath called us to peace." This departing, however, does not release from the matrimonial bond. "Remain unmarried" is, in such a case, the apostolic command (verse 11)."

We should note they did not make their differences a matter of division amongst them in principle.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim 3:16,17.

I sincerely believe that we are meant to understand 1 Cor. 7:15. Paul ordained the advice given from v1-17 in all the ecclesias. How could they follow his advice if they did not understand what he had said; how could we?

Some have stated that if a brother or sister didn't like their gentile partner they could make life hard for them and the gentile partner would leave and they would be free; meaning if 1 Cor. 7:15 allowed divorce in the circumstances of the unbelieving partner leaving the believing partner it would be open for abuse. Those who state this also say 'not to be under bondage' does not mean to be free of the marriage but only that a man or woman does not have to fulfil the other aspects of marriage, i.e., supporting one's wife, caring for one's husband etc. If this was the case wouldn't it still be open to abuse?

For example, what if a brother did not want to support a gentile wife so he makes it hard for her and she departs? The same thing has taken place. Abuse of liberty. Commandments and permissions of Christ can be abused at every turn if the scriptures are applied in the spirit of fulfilling the lust of the flesh. Much has been said about the fact that if a brother or sister finding themselves in the situation mentioned in v 15 and believing they were free to remarry did so, they may cause a division amongst brethren and sisters who differed as to the meaning of this verse. This is not necessarily so, those who cause a division are those who obey not Yahweh's word.

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20.

Scripture and experience has taught me that in the application of principles, it nearly always opens the floodgate of Sadusaical and Pharisaical minds; we are all in danger of adopting these attitudes when it comes to fornication and any of its application to the marriage question. Yahweh had left certain basic aspects of walk very clearly stated for us, i.e., "Thou shalt not kill" etc. Other aspects of walk take a lot more study and thought, yet other aspects of walk are determined by Scripture and the state of the heart that has been formed by Scripture. For example the woman taken in adultery. According to the letter of the law she should have been stoned. Notice Christ's answer: "He that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7. Notice v9 it was the eldest who went out first.

It was the condition of their heart and their response to a given situation that determined their actions. Christ did not give them a clinical exposition but appealed to the effect of the Word on their hearts. Let us keep this in mind as we examine 1 Cor 7.

v 2 - To avoid fornication let every man have his own wife

v 3, 4 - Neither had power over their own body

v 9 - If they cannot contain let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn

This burn here means to burn in the judgements of Deity (Rev 1:15). Same word here used of the figure of Christ. Paul has already shown that if some could not contain themselves sexually, v7, 8, 9, it was better for them to marry or they may burn. If we enforce upon a brother or sister that which Yahweh may not have, we may well be responsible for their falling away and failing the Judgement Seat.

Verses 12-15 are very interesting, if a believing partner is married to an unbelieving partner and the unbelieving partner is pleased to dwell with the believing partner, the believing partner should in these circumstances not put away the unbeliever says Paul! The converse may be true if the unbeliever departs then the believer may put away (to use Paul's words), he or she is not under bondage in such circumstances. If Paul did not believe it possible to put away an unbelieving partner, why state conditions in which the putting away was not possible, i.e., "If the unbelieving is pleased to dwell with the believing". Please notice the terminology used of the believing male and female (v10 and 11). Paul used the term "put away" his wife to the male; but in the original it is the same word - "APHIEMI" as leave when applied to the woman in verse 13. Paul tells the believing brother not to put away the unbeliever if they are pleased to dwell with them; is not the converse true?

That if the unbeliever departs then they may put away? If not, why then does he tell the believer if they are married to another believer and they depart to remain unmarried -- not to remarry -- but to be reconciled? Paul did notstate any of these things to the believer whose unbelieving partner had departed. Paul says in these circumstances they were not under bondage, under bondage to do what we may ask? Well Paul has already told us not under bondage to be reconciled, - not under bondage, not to be divorced, not under bondage to remain unmarried. The context of the chapter tells us what bondage means here. He concludes for God has called us to peace; the word peace here is "EIREME" from a prim. verb "EIRO" (to join) set at one again; used a multitude of times throughout the scriptures. There would be no peace in the scriptural sense to seek reconciliation to a gentile partner if they had divorced us, or by necessarily remaining unmarried. What peace of mind would this be to a brother or sister to remain unmarried in such circumstances; they indeed would be in danger of burning. Yet v11, if the unbeliever is pleased, (Greek word here is "SUNEUDOKEO" from sun union and "EUDOKEO" to think well of, i.e., approve) to dwell with the believer with this attitude then don't put them away for three reasons:

a. Children of marriage sanctified

b. They, too, may receive the truth and be saved

c. It will not disrupt the service to Yahweh of the believer, i.e., the peace Paul speaks of in verse 15.

As for the question of remarriage-any divorce allowable in the eyes of Yahweh allows remarriage or else divorce is meaningless.

1 Cor 7:15; Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9. It is suggested by some that there is only one exception for divorce and this is found in Matt 19:9 and 5:32, if 1 Cor. 7:15 contained another exception then it would make the exception in Matthew meaningless as an exception.

Firstly, let me state there are those who read Mark 10 and see no exception there and reject the things stated in Matt 19:9 as meaning anything but an exception to divorce for the followers of Christ. If 1 Cor. 7 speaks of another reason for divorce then Matt 19:9 applied only to believers in Christ who were married to each other, v10 and 11 of 1 Cor. 7 would appear to bear this out: also it should be noticed many in Christ dissolve the exceptive clause into oblivion for believers in Christ, because they say no exception is mentioned in 1 Cor. 7:10, 11. The whole council of God must be taken into consideration in order to correctly determine Yahweh's mind.

Further Considerations of 1 Corinthians 7

Let us look more closely at some of the word usages in this chapter. Some feel the key words in understanding what Paul meant in v15 are the words "depart" and "bondage". The word depart in v10, 11, 15 comes from the Greek word "KORIZO" which in turn comes from the Greek word from "CHORA" (empty expanse) which in turn comes from the base of the Greek word "CHASMA" meaning a chasm, gulf etc. According to Thayers, the word "KORIZO" means to separate, divide part, put asunder and, in the case of 1 Cor. 7:11-15 to leave husband or wife, of divorce.

Arndt and Gingrich p 898 says of the word "CHORIZO"- Divorce oft in marriage contracts in the papyri - 1 Cor. 7:1, 11, 15.

Now as to the word "PAPYRI", according to Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia - Papyri archaeological finds of ancient documents usually those inscribed on rolls from papyrus. After important discoveries of papyri containing fragments of the Lliad of the Greek Poet Homer were found in Egypt early in the 19th century, scholars and explorers began an extensive search for Greek papyri in Egypt, and thousands of documents were discovered. Most of the Greek papyri discovered dated from the 4th century B.C. to the 7th and 8th century A.D. and are now in libraries and museums in Europe and the United States. Note the papyrus discoveries comprise manuscripts of two general classes of literary works and documents extending over a period of a thousand years has revolutionized the study of Greek palaeography.

Now in the case of two believers very clear directions were given that had to be adhered to (for Paul stated in v17 he ordained these things throughout the ecclesias, and the word ordained in the Greek means to give thorough instructions). What were the instructions given to two believers v11? If a departure occur to "remain unmarried" was the instruction given to the departing partner, and reconciliation was the goal to attain. Also the remaining partner was not to put away the one who had departed. All attempts had to be made at reconciliation, the chasm had to be crossed, which the bond of the truth should accomplish.

We notice in v15 no such thorough instruction was given to the believing party whose unbelieving partner had departed -why not? Because as Paul says a brother or sister in this case was not under bondage. Under bondage to do what? Under bondage to do the things mentioned in verses 10, 11 that they would have to do if the departing partner was a believer.

Let us look at the word bondage of v15. The Greek word is "DOULOO" to enslave -- the same word is also used in Gal 4:3 and reads "were in bondage under the elements of the world", i.e., order of things or the Law of Moses, showing the children of Israel were slaves to the Law or servants verse 7. The identical word bondage is used as servants in Rom 6:22 and reads, "become servants to God." Paul could not have used a better word to describe the marriage state for man and wife are servants to one another. Paul shows this in verse 4 of 1 Cor 7. Consider these other references: Eph. 5:22-29; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Pet. 3:1 and 7; Titus 2:5; 1 Tim. 3:12.

Some state that if Paul was talking of the marriage in verse 15 he would have used the word "DEO" that he used for bound in verse 27. This is not so. He could not have used the word "DEO" in verse 15 for he would have been saying the moment a gentile partner departed the marriage was non existent. This is not so, liberty of choice was in Paul's directives of verse 15. Whether the brother or sister saw "KORIZO" as binding if an unbelieving partner departed was their choice, exactly as the permission of Matt 19:9 is the choice of the innocent partner and not a commandment. You are not under bondage, i.e., you are not obliged to follow through instruction of v11, of v4, and all the other things that make a marriage. It is a complete word to use. Now in the references considered before we see specific directions to those in Christ, 1 Cor. 11:11 and 12; Eph. 5:22-29; Col. 3:18,19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7.

Most of the quotes apply in their fullness when both partners are in the truth, yet certain principles apply when only one partner is in the truth. For example, 1 Peter 3 "wives to obey their husbands" with the proviso that in obeying, the commandments of Christ are not transgressed. A brother or sister married to an alien would do their utmost to follow all Christ's commandments regarding their partner as far as they could without compromising, the truth; yet only in the truth can we be complete bondservants of each other and of Yahweh. (Eph. 5:22-25; Col. 3:18) etc. Only death or fornication can break this bondservant union. This is not so in the case of an unbeliever. A believer who is married to an unbeliever is not under bondage.

Paul shows the difference in 1 Cor. 7. If the unbelieving partner depart let them depart, a brother or sister is not under bondage, i.e., no longer a bond servant to the other in all aspects; including the things spoken of in 1 Cor 7:10-11, i.e., "to seek reconciliation or remain unmarried". Paul's words in 1 Cor. 7:15 are plain and simple when taking into account the whole marriage stage.

If some still have doubts upon these things then follow the exhortation of James 2:13 and let God be the judge of such matters of a brother or sister so afflicted. It is clearly a brother or sister's choice to remain unmarried if an unbelieving partner departs. Remember Paul's clear direction on the situation where both partners are in the truth and one departs v10, 11. Yet in v12 he states "but to the rest speak I" and in very clear language he explains the difference if one partner is an unbeliever.

Summary: If one partner departs from the marriage.

It is also worth noting the word "depart" in v11. The word in the Greek is "KORIZO". Same word as v15. Two sources from scripture prove that this word can mean "divorce" in a marriage context. Verse 11 itself, for it says if she depart "KORIZO" let her remain unmarried. How could she remain unmarried if she was not divorced? Also the words "put asunder" used by Christ in Matt 19:6; Mark 10:9, is exactly the same word as depart used in 1 Cor. 7:10, 11 and 15. Also the word "unmarried" is used extensively in the context of an unmarried person. See 1 Cor. 7:8, 11, 32, 34. It should be noted that Paul, in the case of a believer, did not recognise the Greek divorce law, only the exception of Matt 19:9, therefore the command not to marry, under those circumstances. YET IT IS OBJECTED BY SOME that this word "KORIZO" cannot mean a divorce because it is not the same word Christ used in Matt 5:32 for putting away a partner. The word "away" here is "APOLUO" and means to free fully. It is also used by Christ in Mark 10:2, 4, 11 and 12. Although used by Christ for putting away, i.e., divorce, it is not used exclusively in the scriptures for that purpose. See Mark 6:36, 45, and Matt 14:15, 22, 23 etc. It was also used in the context of divorce concerning Joseph who was minded to put Mary away in Matt 1:19. Here, then, is a word used of divorce both by Christ and Matthew but the word was not exclusively used of divorce as shown.

Surely, some say, this is the word Paul would have used in 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 15 if divorce was the idea intended to be conveyed by the word "depart" here. This is not necessarily so for two very good reasons. The first one being Christ would either have spoken in Aramaic or Hebrew and the word "APOLUO" was the best Greek word to be used to best express the Hebrew expression for divorce. Yet the word depart "KORIZO" in 1 Cor. 7:11 is the Greek word for divorce expressive of a divorce obtained under Greek law. (See Arndt and Gingrich p898).

It may be objected by some that as the word "put away" of verse 11, 12 is the same word "leave" of verse 13, the husband is simply being told not to leave his wife. This may be so but please consider the following.

The prime meaning of the word "HIEMI" is "to send"- Bullingers. Thayers says "Of a husband putting away his wife" 1 Cor. 7:11, 12. Also the context will determine the correct rendering of a word. For example, under Jewish law, only the man could obtain a divorce or put away at that stage, but under Greek law, the wife could depart "CHORIZO" (obtain a divorce under Greek law).

It may be further asked why the Spirit through Paul chose to use two different Greek words if the same thing was meant, i.e., "KORIZO" depart of verse 10, 11, 15 and "HIEMI" leave of v13. If all we are to understand Paul is saying in verse 10, 11, 13 and 15 is that the wife has just left her husband it would appear we are being told do not put away or leave. As it will lead to "CHORIZO," a putting asunder. Otherwise why not use "HIEMI" in every occasion? In 1 Cor. 7 for example, "HIEMI" leave is used this way in Mark 12:12 "They left "HIEMI" him and went their way. Of course, by the use of these two words we are meant to understand a great deal more as the early believers would have understood very clearly. Paul was writing to Greek-speaking converts who would have understood precisely what "KORIZO" and "HEIMI" meant, knowing full well "KORIZO" was used in Greek law of "divorce."

To the sister -- do not leave an unbeliever who is pleased to dwell with her. To a brother do not send away "HEIMI" an unbelieving wife who is pleased to dwell with him. To a believing wife who is married to a believing partner, do not "KORIZO" (i.e., divorce). This was the only way she could obtain a divorce for she was not permitted to do so under Jewish law (but a man was). But if she obtain a "CHORIZO" (Greek divorce) let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. But if the unbeliever "CHORIZO" (depart) let them depart-a brother or sister is not under bondage.

Now Paul did not recognise as scripturally binding, the divorce obtained under Greek law by a believer divorcing a believer as stated in 1 Cor. 7:11. Hence the command for the sister to remain unmarried, which thing she could only do if she had obtained a divorce! and to be reconciled to her brother, husband. There was no such bondage placed on the believer whose unbelieving partner departed and obtained a divorce, in this instance the Greek divorce was recognised. If the believer so chose, he or she was not under bondage.

Conclusion

More could be said about this chapter as with all Scripture, but perhaps enough evidence has been produced to show that perhaps after all, Brother Thomas was right in his statements on this chapter, especially verse 15.

Considering all the evidence, I personally would think it a very brave brother or sister who would make a test of fellowship over verse 15. Can they be absolutely sure that Paul is not allowing divorce and remarriage in verse 15? For if they are wrong they may well be responsible for a brother or sister burning (v9) in the judgements of Deity! Is it not better in this case to judge after the manner prescribed in James 2:13, and let Christ be the judge at his appearing?

Your Brother in Christ
Myron Biernat

The Clapham Change, Introduction