Paul's use of "divorce" and "bound" in 1 Corinthians 7
A word study demonstrating the internal consistency of Paul's apostolic policy on divorce
This newsletter is a draft appendix (B) for an upcoming eBook on the scandal of Church-sanctioned divorce. If you haven’t already done so, please check out chapters I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, as well as the preface, afterword, and appendix A.
Introduction
Many Christians argue from 1 Corinthians 7:15 that the Apostle Paul permits believers to divorce and remarry if their unbelieving spouse abandons them: “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.” Key to their argument is their interpretation of the words “divorce” (and its variants; verses 10–13, 15, 27) and “bound” (and its variants; verses 15, 39) used throughout this passage.
Here, we present a concise word study of both of these word groups, showing that, understood in their proper context, they do not support divorce and remarriage during the lifetime of a former spouse, which both Paul and the Lord Jesus explicitly forbid (verses 10–13, 27).
Preliminary considerations
The Apostle Paul, speaking on the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, commands Christian spouses not to divorce, adding that even if they do separate, they must either remain unmarried (i.e., to another person) or reconcile (verses 10, 11). He goes on to state that believing spouses should not divorce their unbelieving partners if the unbelievers consent to live with them (verses 12, 13). However, Paul concedes that if the unbelieving spouse does not consent to stay, then the believer is not “bound” to remain with him or her and may permit the departure.
But why would Paul go to the trouble of addressing such scenarios if divorce is not a licit option for believers in the first place? Might this imply that divorce, at least in some cases, is a possibility for the believing spouse? And if he or she is no longer “bound” in these cases, does that imply the right to remarry?
Before delving into these questions, we must point out two uncontested, but often overlooked facts regarding the text of 1 Corinthians 7.
First, Paul consistently and repeatedly says in this chapter that believers must not “divorce/separate” (verses 10–13, 27), granting them only the permission to allow an unbelieving spouse to “depart/leave/separate” if he or she refuses to stay (verse 15).
Second, Paul states that a husband and wife are bound to one another for life, and are thus free to remarry only after the death of a spouse (verse 39).
This is not to say that Paul was detached from the unfortunate realities of life in a fallen world—he was a realist, and knew full well that, despite his and the Lord’s commands, some couples in the Church would still manage to “split up.” However, in describing such situations as “divorce,” Paul is no more granting ontological validity to this fallen institution than Christ was legitimizing adulterous remarriage when He described the woman at the well as having had multiple husbands (John 4:18). To admit that something “is” is not to grant that it “ought” to be.
Moreover, contextual evidence demonstrates that the terms “divorce” and “bound” in this passage do not carry the implications that many modern interpreters have read into them.
“Divorce” or “separate”?
The six words used for “divorce/separate” in 1 Corinthians 7 are as follows:1
“χωρισθῆναι,” “chōristhēnai” (Strong’s 5563): “to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away” (verse 10).
“ἀφιέναι,” “aphienai” (Strong’s 863): “to send forth, in various applications” (verse 11).
“ἀφιέτω,” “aphietō” (Strong’s 863): “to send forth, in various applications” (verses 12 and 13).
“χωρίζεται,” “chōrizetai” (Strong’s 5563): “to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away” (verse 15).
“χωριζέσθω,” “chōrizesthō” (Strong’s 5563): “to place room between, i.e. part; reflexively, to go away” (verse 15).
“λύσιν,” “lysin” (Strong’s 3080): “Dissolution, release; a loosing, divorce.” (verse 27).
It should be immediately apparent that these Greek words can be translated quite broadly, depending on their context (see range of Biblical usage in Strong’s Concordance links above). There is no a priori reason why they must be interpreted as referring to legal divorce as the Jews and gentiles at the time understood it, namely, as a dissolution of the marriage bond that entailed the freedom to remarry. On the contrary, we have every contextual reason to conclude that this is not the case in this passage.
As noted above, Paul nowhere explicitly permits divorce and remarriage during a spouse’s lifetime—indeed, he expressly forbids it (verses 10–13, 27, 39). Further, the teachings of Jesus from the synoptic Gospels that Paul is basing his standards on are likewise totally opposed to divorce. Whether in the Gospel addressed to the Jews (Matthew 5:32, 19:9) or those geared toward the gentiles (Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18), Christ’s teachings on divorce and remarriage show that divorce does not deliver on its core promise of dissolving the one-flesh marriage bond. Since man’s divorce decrees do not separate what God had joined together for life, remarriage after divorce, while both original spouses are living, constitutes adultery. This was a radical, counter-cultural departure from first century Jewish and Greco-Roman understandings of divorce.
With this background in mind, it is perhaps telling that Paul nowhere employs the proper legal term for “divorce” in 1 Corinthians 7 that is used in each of the Gospel divorce texts (Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18):2 “ἀπολύω,” “apoluó” (Strong’s 630): “I release, let go, send away, divorce, am rid.”3 Yet even versions of this term can be translated more generically as “send away,” “dismiss,” or “release.” This is of course true of the English word for divorce as well, which can mean merely “to separate from” as in “a word divorced from its context.”
Because of this, some have argued that these six words are used interchangeably as synonyms for “divorce,” and thus one should not make too much of their differences.4 There are, after all, plenty of ways linguistically to convey the idea of “splitting up” in Greek. While this is a perfectly reasonable thought, it misses the broader point of what exactly Paul means by the terms translated as “divorce” in the first place, for one could argue that they are better understood as synonyms for “separate” based on the context.5
And speaking of which, it is context, at the end of the day, that must settle how we are to understand the meaning of these, or any other terms.
When it comes to 1 Corinthians 7:12–15, 27, the immediate preceding context of verses 10 and 11 shows decisively that the words sometimes translated as “divorce” are understood by Paul to convey a separation of still-married spouses, not a dissolution of the marriage bond (1 Corinthians 10, 11, emphasis mine):
“To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.”
Similar to verses 12 and 13, Paul says in verse 11 that “the husband should not divorce his wife.” However, this cannot be read as implying that the husband has the power to end a marriage through legal divorce, as the Jews and Romans believed.
We know this because Paul had just stated in a parallel command to the wife in verse 10 that she must not “separate” from her husband, but even if she does, she is to refrain from marrying another man so as to leave open the possibility of reuniting with her “husband.” Clearly, both of these options assume that the hypothetical wife Paul is addressing is merely “separated” from her husband, rather than “divorced” from him, in the sense that he is no longer her lawful marriage partner.
“Bound” or “enslaved”?
Some claim that by stating that a believer is not “bound” to remain with a deserting, unbelieving spouse against his or her will, Paul is teaching that such a believer is no longer bound in marriage, and thus is free to marry another person (1 Corinthians 7:15).
The word “bound” in verse 15 is “δεδούλωται,” “dedoulōtai” (Strong’s 1402): “To enslave. From doulos; to enslave.” This word and its close relatives are used eight times in the New Testament and they always refer to bondage in a slave-master relationship, rather than to the marriage bond. Indeed, similar words are used for slaves in verses 22 (“δοῦλος,” “doulos,” Strong’s 1401: “as noun, a male slave”) and 23 (“δοῦλοι,” “douloi,” Strong’s 1401: plural of “doulos”) of this same chapter. Although some translations render “dedoulōtai” as “bound,” this word is more literally translated as “enslaved/under bondage,” which conveys enslavement rather than merely being tied together.
It is important to note that Paul uses a different word in verse 39 of this chapter when speaking of the marriage bond: “δέδεται,” “dedetai,” (Strong’s 1210): “To bind, tie, fasten; I impel, compel; I declare to be prohibited and unlawful” (1 Corinthians 7:39):
“A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”
Paul employs the same exact word in Romans 7:2 when making a similar statement on the marriage bond: “A wife is bound [dedetai] to her husband as long as he lives.” This may not be purely coincidental, as if Paul just happened to use a different synonym for the marriage bond in verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 7 that he did not use in verse 39 or Romans 7:2.
Similar to the Hebrew word used for the marriage union in Genesis 2:24 (derived from “דָּבַק,” “dabaq,”(Strong’s 1692): “to cling, cleave, keep close”), dedetai conveys tying someone or something together, as when a person’s hands are bound to one another during an arrest (e.g., Mark 15:1). Other examples include “binding the strongman” (Matthew 12:29; Mark 3:27) and “you will find a donkey tied” (Matthew 21:2; Mark 11:2, 4; Luke 19:30).
Yet in spite of these nuances, dedoulōtai and dedetai are obviously related words that share a fair amount of semantic and conceptual overlap. Thus, it would be a mistake to completely rule out their functional equivalence in this passage. For example, although some may object, many wives (and husbands, for that matter) would undoubtedly find it just as natural for Paul to say in verse 39a that “A wife is enslaved/under bondage to her husband as long as he lives.”
In further support of this point, some have pointed to the word “free” in verse 39b: “But if her husband dies, she is free [“ἐλευθέρα,” “eleuthera,” Strong’s 1658: “Free, delivered from obligation,” “unrestrained, i.e. not a slave, or exempt”] to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” The term eleuthera is also used in Romans 7:3b: “But if her husband dies, she is free [eleuthera] from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.” Since this word and its variants are used in this passage to convey freedom from both slavery (1 Corinthians 7:21, 22) and the marriage bond (1 Corinthians 7:39), perhaps Paul is using “dedoulōtai” in a similar sense in 1 Corinthians 7:15.6
While this is certainly a lexically plausible argument, we can safely rule it out in this passage given that Paul explicitly commands singleness after separation (verse 11) and permits remarriage only after one’s spouse has died (verse 39).
In Paul’s thinking, remarriage to another person, even after desertion, would be unthinkable, for to do so would not only constitute adultery (Romans 7:3), it would preclude reconciliation, which the believer simply does not have sufficient foreknowledge to rule out (verse 16, emphasis mine): “For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?” Paul would not state in verse 15 that a believer is no longer bound in marriage to a departing unbeliever only to refer to these same individuals in the very next verse as “husband” and “wife.”
Conclusions
Whether one prefers translating the various terms used in 1 Corinthians 7 to describe the splitting up of married couples as “divorce” or “separate” (verses 10–13, 15, 27), one cannot import into them ancient Jewish, Roman, or modern American legal conventions. To do so fails to account for the transformational nature of “marriage for life” that Christ came to restore among God’s people.
Because believers are called to peace (Matthew 5:9), abandoned Christian spouses are not bound to force their unbelieving spouses to live with them against their wishes (1 Corinthians 7:15). In this sense, the believer is free, not to divorce and remarry, but to permit the unbeliever to depart, in the hope that he or she will one day be saved, and perhaps even return to the neglected marriage (1 Corinthians 7:11, 15).
Despite utilizing terms that can be twisted by those eager to find implicit justification for divorce and adulterous remarriage (2 Peter 3:16), linguistic analysis and Paul’s explicit instructions make it abundantly evident that this was neither his, nor the Lord’s, intent.
Thanks for reading the League of Believers.
We are committed to offering this newsletter in its entirety completely free of cost. If you have not yet subscribed, you can support this free newsletter by becoming a subscriber using the button below.
You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.
As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:
garrettpleague@proton.me
Want to print this article or read it on your e-reader device? We’ve got you covered. Click the “Download” button below for an easy-to-print, downloadable PDF file containing this edition of the newsletter.
For more on the significance of this point, see Part 7. “Paul on Divorce and Remarriage” in Leslie McFall, The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage. Comberton, Cambridgeshire, England, 2014.
For example, see p. 30, 32, 33 of Andrew Naselli, “What the New Testament Teaches about Divorce and Remarriage.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. 2019; 24: 3–44.
For more on the distinction between divorce and separation, see “The ministry of reconciliation” in chapter VII “Be Reconciled to God.”
See again p. 30, 32, 33 of Naselli, “What the New Testament Teaches about Divorce and Remarriage.”