 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
WE CAN CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND
1 CORINTHIANS 7
(Questions Concerning Marriage)
Joe R. Price
It is important how we study the Bible. A correct understanding and
application of 1 Corinthians 7 will properly come as a result of relying upon the wisdom
of God which He has revealed in His word, not the wisdom of men. The interpretative
methods we have consistently applied in ascertaining truth and rejecting error will help
us accomplish our task. Allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible is a time-honored and
entirely scriptural approach to understanding truth from which we must be determined not
to deviate. “What saith the Scripture” can and must continue to be our appeal
(Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30).
The Propriety Of Marriage: 1 Corinthians 7:1-7
Beginning at 1 Corinthians 7:1, the apostle Paul begins
to address several subjects submitted to him in writing by the Corinthian Christians.
Chapter 7 deals with a variety of their concerns about marriage. In verses 1-7 the
suitability of marriage is set forth by the apostle Paul. Some brethren have used the
statement of verse 2 (“let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her
own husband”) to establish the right of all second marriages to exist (and third, and
fourth, etc.). As with any other Bible topic, we must always be careful not to accept a
position which makes one scripture contradict another. Should we embrace those who, in
their misunderstanding of the Bible misapply this passage, thereby encouraging unlawful
marriages to occur? If not, what criteria prevents such acceptance?
For instance, could this passage (1 Cor. 7:2) be used by
those who practice polygamy in cultures where it is allowed, and should faithful brethren
in those cultures accept into their fellowship those who preach and practice such a
concept? Or, would brethren be obligated (and scriptural) to appeal to the standard
interpretive methods of study to reject polygamy and to decline from their fellowship
those who defend and practice it? (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Thess. 5:21-22) The answer should be
apparent, and the application of the text must be consistent.
To The Unmarried: 1 Corinthians 7:8-9
The expediency of remaining single is now set forth by
Paul. Some brethren have asserted that celibacy is the only state in which one can
properly serve God. Why do we reject this teaching (1 Tim. 4:3)? It is not because God's
word teaches that marriage is proper (Heb. 13:4)? Certainly it is. For instance, Paul had
the right to have a wife, but did not use this right (1 Cor. 9:5; 7:6-7). Now, if we
cannot accept into fellowship those who require or demand celibacy, why not? Is it not
because such a teaching opposes revealed truth? Yes, it is. That is the criterion we must
apply to every Bible subject, including divorce and remarriage.
To The Married: 1 Corinthians 7:10-11
Paul now speaks to the married Christians, and applies
the words of Jesus (where He had already made a general application, Matthew 19:5-6). The
fact that an application is here made to one specific group of married people (namely,
Christians) does not limit Matthew 19 to only Christians (as some brethren say) anymore
than Paul application of Matthew 26:26-28 in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 limits who can partake
of the Lord's Supper to only Corinthian Christians (1 Cor. 11:20). Yet, some brethren are
teaching that either (1) Matthew 19 applies only to Christians, or (2) Matthew 19 applies
only to Jews (an explanation of OT law). Why do we reject both of these conclusions as
false? Because God has revealed His truth about the universal nature of marriage (Gen.
2:23-24; Heb. 13:4). We can understand, and God expects us to understand, that marriage is
for all mankind and is regulated by His revelation concerning it.
Anyone who enters the relationship of marriage comes under the divine
regulation of it (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-6, 9; Heb. 13:4). Should we accept as faithful
those brethren who are teaching a perverted gospel regarding to whom the Bible law of
marriage applies? What scripture allows us to have fellowship with men who teach this
destructive doctrine?
The Legitimacy Of Marriage Between A Christian And An Unbeliever: 1 Corinthians 7:12-16
To “the rest” Paul (as an inspired apostle
whom the Lord counted trustworthy and who had the Spirit of God, v. 25, 40) applies
Matthew 19:6, 9 and explains that marriage between a Christian and an unbeliever is indeed
a legitimate marriage. At no time in this passage does the inspired apostle urge the
Christian who is married to an unbeliever to depart (divorce) because his or her mate is
an unbeliever. Indeed, the Lord's will is that they remain together as Matthew 19:5-6
instructs.
So, if the unbeliever is content or willing to live with
a Christian, the Christian is commanded not to depart, for the Christian brings a
sanctifying influence and life into the home (v. 14; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-2).
However, if the unbeliever departs (we necessarily infer
that under such a condition the unbeliever is not content to dwell with the Christian),
the Christian is “not under bondage” to the unbeliever (the Christian is to let
the unbeliever depart). Can we know with confidence what “not under bondage”
means? Yes we can, by applying the same type of hermeneutics we apply to other Bible
passages (including those already mentioned in this study).
These principles include, for instance:
1) The meaning given the passage will not contradict other passages
of scripture (Jno. 17:17).
2) All God says on the subject must be consulted (Psa. 119:160).
3) The context (both immediate and general) must be observed and
harmonized.
4) The proper definition of terms is vital in coming to a correct
understanding of the text. (We cannot assume definitions - we must verify their legitimate
meaning and usage in scripture).
5) The grammar used by the Holy Spirit must be considered and
respected (cf. Matt. 22:31-32).
Now, when we correctly apply these principles of interpretation to 1
Corinthians 7:15, it will not be men's scholarship on the passage or men's division over
the passage which determines our understanding and our application of it. It will be
because we have “rightly divided” the word of truth and come to “understand
what the will of the Lord is” (2 Tim. 2:15; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17).
No Contradiction
“Not under bondage” will not contradict
Matthew 19:6, 9. Since marriage between a Christian and an unbeliever is legitimate
(7:12-14), any severing of it falls under the Lord's regulation of marriage. Therefore,
when a believer and an unbeliever divorce, Matthew 19:9 fully applies. Any understanding
and application of “not under bondage” which causes a contradiction with Matthew
19:6, 9 is inaccurate and not the truth of Christ. There is no “Pauline
exception” in 1 Corinthians 7:15 which allows for scriptural remarriage to a new
mate. If so, Paul contradicts what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:9.
If Paul is giving another cause for divorce and
remarriage, then one can be put away for a reason other than fornication and remarry with
God's approval. This construction necessarily contradicts Matthew 19:9 and 5:32.
Therefore, the remarriage to a new mate explanation of “not under bondage” must
be rejected.
All God Says On The Subject
When all of what God says on the subject of marriage is
consulted, we understand that every marriage (regardless of the faith or faithlessness of
the participants) is before God and judged by God (Gen. 2:23-24; Heb. 13:4). God joins
together the man and woman regardless of their faith or lack of faith in Christ (Matt.
19:6). That joining together (a bond of obligation) lasts for a lifetime (1 Cor. 7:39;
Rom. 7:2). Only one exception gives one party the right to divorce and marry a new mate
with God's approval (Matt. 19:9). We can agree on this because we can understand this
teaching of Christ. All other teaching is false and moves us away from the grace of Christ
(Gal. 1:6-9).
We know that when a Christian marries someone (whether a
Christian or an unbeliever), the Christian's first allegiance remains with Christ (1 Cor.
7:23; Lk. 14:26). By “keeping the commandments of God” the Christian remains
“with God” regardless of his external conditions (1 Cor. 7:19, 24). Thus, we can
remain in every non-sinful condition in which we are called since upon our conversion we
become slaves of Christ and not men (1 Cor. 7:17, 20, 23-24). The marriage of a Christian
to an unbeliever is one such non-sinful condition or “calling” (1 Cor. 7:12-14).
Definition Of Words
The definition of the words used in 1 Corinthians 7:15
preclude a remarriage to a new mate explanation of “not under bondage.” The word
translated “bondage” is dedoulootai, “perfect passive indicative of
|douloo|, to enslave, has been enslaved, does not remain a slave.” (Robertson's NT
Word Pictures) Thayer is representative of lexical definitions when he observes that
douloo means “1) to make a slave of, reduce to bondage 2) metaph. give myself wholly
to one's needs and service, make myself a bondman to him.” “Bondage” thus
denotes one who sustains a permanent servile relation to another. In this context (1 Cor.
7:15) the reference is to an unbelieving mate. Paul teaches that the Christian does NOT
sustain a permanent servile relation to a mate in marriage (or for that matter, in any
other relation). Remember, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Every other use of douloo in the NT carries with it the
meaning of enslavement (Titus 2:3, “enslaved” - ASV), servitude or bondage (Acts
7:6). Never is it used to denote the “bound by law” concept of marriage to which
deo is applied by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 7:27, 39; Rom. 7:2; cf. Matt. 19:5-6). Here is
the entire list of NT passages which use douloo so that the accuracy of the above
statement may be reviewed: Acts 7:6; Rom. 6:18, 22; 1 Cor. 7:15, 9:19; Gal. 4:3; Titus
2:3; 2 Pet. 2:19.
Grammar
The simple statement of fact in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is
that the Christian has never been reduced to a servile position to the unbeliever. The
grammar so indicates (dedoulootai - perfect passive indicative of douloo):
Perfect tense: “The perfect tense in Greek
corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as
having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.”
Passive voice: “The passive voice represents
the subject as being the recipient of the action.”
Indicative mood: “The indicative mood is a
simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it
will be rendered in the indicative mood.” (Online Bible)
Since the negative (ou) is employed, the phrase “not under bondage” effectively means that bondage was NOT completed in the past and is NOT occurring at the present time. Thus, the “you are not now, nor have you ever been under bondage” interpretation is entirely consistent with the grammar of the phrase and not a forced interpretation of it. In 1 Corinthians 7:15, that which was completed in the past and continues to be the case in the present is that Christians are “called” (perfect tense) to peace. The one has never been true while the other has always been true.