1 Corinthians 7:15

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.

'departeth' -'determined to separate' (Wey), i.e. wants out of the marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:11) The separation under consideration here is in "process". 'All standard English versions properly render the first verb..in the present tense: "depart" (KJV), "separateth" (ASV); "leaves" (NASV), etc...Paul does not say, "if the unbeliever has departeth"...the process of separating is in its earliest stage, existing only in desire or determination..' [Note:. GOT. 'May the Believer Deserted By an Unbeliever Remarry?'. Jerry R. Earnhart. 1-4-90 p. 21]

'If the unbelieving partner desires to separate' (RSV); 'if..the heathen partner wishes for. separation'(NEB); 'In case the nonbeliever wants to separate' (Ber) 'But if the unbeliever separates, he may separate--let the separation take its course' (The Ex. Greek Testament, p. 827)

'let him depart' -'Although the Christian cannot initiate the divorce, he is not required to stay married to the unbeliever against the unbeliever's wishes...one person cannot maintain. marriage if the other does not want to maintain it.' (Willis p. 230)

'is not under bondage in such cases' -a statement that has generated plenty of discussion.

Points to Note:

1. The tense of this phrase is interesting. 'Paul used. perfect tense verb..the brother...has not been and is not now enslaved...in such cases the brother or sister has not been enslaved and does not now stand enslaved.' (McGuiggan p. 105)

And seeing that the "not under bondage" begins immediately at the point that the unbeliever expresses the desire to depart,. have. hard time believing that "bondage" in this verse applies to the marriage bond. If that were the case, then Paul is teaching that the Christian spouse is no longer married to the unbeliever, even before the unbeliever actually departs. 'Not under bondage cannot possibly refer to release from the marriage bond. Otherwise, we have the case of. person who is free to court and marry another, while the divorce from the first mate is not yet completed. Are brethren making an argument for remarriage on this passage ready to accept this consequence?' (Earnhart p. 21)

This makes me think. What "bondage" would cease at the moment that the unbeliever expresses the wish to end the marriage? Some would say the bondage to "remain unmarried or be reconciled" (1 Corinthians 7:11), and yet that would have the Christian free to remarry even before the unbeliever actually departs. At this point. think that Wayne Jackson made. good point by saying, 'If "not under bondage" refers to the marriage bond, we should be able to substitute the marriage bond in the place of "not under bondage" and the text express the truth. "Let the reader substitute the word 'marriage' for 'bondage', giving the full force to the perfect tense (i.e. has not been married and is not married) and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as marriage will be readily apparent.' (" 'The Pauline Privilege'-So Called", The Beacon March 28, 1985, p. 2) The "bondage" of this verse must refer to something else.. "bondage" that the Christian is free from the moment the unbeliever expresses the desire to leave.

2. 'The verb "to be under bondage" is not his (Paul's) ordinary one for the "binding" character of marriage (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:39; Romans 7:2).' (Fee p. 303)

3. The same word rendered "bondage" in this verse is also used of the "bondage" of accommodating oneself to others, in the effort to save them, "I made myself. slave of all" (1 Corinthians 9:19). And saving the soul of one's unbelieving mate is found in the immediate context. (1 Corinthians 7:16)

'In such cases, the believer is no longer under bondage, i.e. no longer obligated for the Gospel's sake to adjust accommodatively to the departing mate, especially in matters peculiar to marriage.' (Earnhart p. 22)

One of the assumptions that is often made concerning the "departing" in verse 15, is that the unbelieving mate has "left town". People forget, as happens today, and people get divorced, and neither party leaves the area, in fact, both parties still see each other, especially if children are involved. Some Christians probably had questions concerning what are my God given obligations to. spouse that wants out of the marriage, especially seeing that in many cases that spouse would still be around town.

'In 1 Peter 3:1..women who are Christians and have unbelieving husbands are still to be in subjection to the husband. The marriage is valid. In addition to this the Christian is to try in every way possible to save her husband. If the husband will not hear the word then he can be gained by the wife's behavior before him. This obligation is from God...She was to accomodate herself to the circumstances in every way to save her husband...So, in 1 Corinthians 7:15 we find that the unbeliever is not "content to dwell" with the believer because of the practice of the spouse's faith. The unbeliever has rejected the message of truth and every effort the believer has put forth. To continue to try to reach him under the circumstances would only cause turmoil, and "God has called us unto peace.' [Note:. Gospel Anchor, November 1983. 1 Corinthians 7:15 (Unbelievers And God's Law on Marriage.' Maurice Barnett p. 27]

Someone might ask, 'but am. ever not under bondage to make every effort to save someone?' The answer from Scripture is "yes", when they have rejected the message and your efforts. Paul said that he was. "debtor" to all men (Romans 1:14), and yet, there were times when that "debt" with particular individuals ceased. (Acts 13:44; Acts 18:6; Matthew 7:6)

4. In addition, we need to ask ourselves, 'Why is the unbeliever not content to dwell with the believer in verse 15?'. think Willis has. good point here:

'To use this verse to prove that remarriage is allowed in cases in which the mate has left because of incessant complaining, refusal of sexual relations, or other marital failures is to greatly abuse this passage....The very most that this verse can authorize is the opportunity of remarriage for those whose mates forsake them because they become Christians.' (p. 231)

In trying to clarify the two views, let me offer the following as. summation:

If 1 Corinthians 7:12. are matters that have nothing to do with what Jesus taught while upon the earth (i.e. Matthew 19:9. etc.. doesn't apply to such marriages), and if verse 15 is allowing remarriage for the cause of desertion, then this is what you must give up and concede (i.e. this is the price that we must be willing to pay) to hold to such. view. (1) Remarriage is only allowed when the unbeliever leaves because of the Christian's faith. (2) Since 1 Corinthians 1:9, etc..doesn't apply in such cases, then the Christian cannot put away. non-Christian mate who is engaging in fornication. If they are an adulterer, but they are "content to dwell with you", then you must remain with them.

'but God hath called us in peace' -'to peace' (NASV) 'one should not contest the divorce..one should let the separation occur in as peaceful. way as possible, not creating unnecessary disturbances.' (Fee p. 303) 'Nothing is to be gained by harassing him into "keeping it together". Nagging won't get it done!' (McGuiggan p. 109)

Here is Christianity "under fire". Even in the face of. unbelieving spouse leaving, the Christian isn't allowed to act in an "unchristian manner". God doesn't allow Christians to "persecute" the departing mate, or make "life. living hell for them", or "make them regret the day they left", or "if they are going to divorce me, then I'll make it as tough for them as possible, I'll fight them at every turn, I'll take them for all their worth......."

While much more could be written on this section,. tried to make my notes on this section as easy as possible to understand and read. It was my attempt to only present what. considered to be the clearest and most concise arguments on this hotly debated portion of Scripture. You can see me if you desire further articles on this subject.