this marriage series |
1 CORINTHIANS 7; FACTS AND ERRORS
In the New Testament we can see that one who was once [douloo] but is no longer [douloo] is free from the former relation. The Israelites were "in bondage," [douloo], in Egypt (Acts 7:6), but when they were no longer in such bondage, they were free from Egypt. The Romans had "become servants," [douloo], to God (Romans 6:22), but if they should cease being such, they would be severed from God and would be servants of another. Paul teaches against enslavement, [douloo], to much wine (Titus 2:3). But if one [douloo] to wine were later said to be not [douloo] to wine, it would mean that a break had occurred. This should suffice to illustrate the use of [douloo]. If a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse, he or she is no longer "under bondage," and is free from that relationship. Error: The binding in verse 15 refers to slavery and the binding in verse 39 does not.Fact:1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at libertyG1568 (eleutheros) to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
The freedom of v. 15 is equivalent to the liberty of verse 39. The freedom in both passages is from slavery and is used in a metaphorical sense of marriage! Error: The tense of 1 Corinthians 7:15 makes "free" does not refer to the marriage.Fact:"For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? ( next verse, 1 Cor. 7:16)Error: The tense of verse 15 says that the Christian was never in bondage to marriage.Fact:The perfect indicative tense of douloo means "is not now 'enslaved,' and not "never was 'enslaved.'" "In such (cases)" (en tois toioutois)would certainly limit "ou dedoulOtai" to the situation in which the unbeliever has divorced. It confirms Robertson's definition of "does not remain a slave." [See below] his believing wife?Much ado is made about the Greek Perfect Tense of douloo in order to deny the English translation. Some who take pride in sometimes knowing some Greek will ignorantly flaunt the Weldon Warnock doctrine on 1 Corinthian 7:15 per Greek tense. A.T. Robertson, a renowned scholar of the Greek New Testament, writes in his Word Pictures on 1 Corinthians 7:25: "'Is not under bondage (ou dedoulo¯tai).' Perfect passive indicative of douloo¯, to enslave, "has been enslaved, does not remain a slave (my emphasis). ..Wilful desertion of the unbeliever sets the other free." Robertson says the passage could be translated "does not remain a slave." To me, to say that one has never been enslaved to his wife is proving too much. Such a statement makes one free from marriage obligations, period. Dr. Marvin Vincent's Word Studies on the same passage: "A strong word [dedoulo¯tai], indicating that Christianity has not made marriage a state of slavery to believers. Compare de´deta? "is bound," 1 Corinthians 7:39, a milder word. The meaning clearly is that willful desertion on the part of the unbelieving husband or wife sets the other party free." It is the desertion that frees and not the marriage. Dedoulotai, ("not under bondage" at 1 Corinthians 7:15) is the perfect indicative of douloo. Weldon Warnock on "marriage, divorce, and remarriage" thinks "is not under bondage" should be translated "has not been enslaved" despite the fact that he cannot cite even one major English version which so translates it. Then he turns to Davis' grammar. Unfortunately, Warnock stopped reading Davis one paragraph too soon. Davis wrote, "The perfect tense as tense is timeless. But in the indicative the time element is present. The perfect indicative generally expresses the present result of a past action. It then has to do with the past and the present" (Sect. 368, p. 152, emphasis supplied). For example, if a man dies, his wife is loosed (Romans 7:2). The woman's loosed state is the present result. The past action producing this result is her husband's death. iv Error: douloo cannot refer to marriage because it is a literal slavery and marriage is not slavery.Fact:Weldon Warnock on "marriage, divorce, and remarriage" says the passage ". - would not permit it (i.e., "is not under bondage,") to mean the marriage bond." He quotes Monroe Tharp who says, "The brother or sister has not been enslaved and is still not enslaved."Warnock admits that marriage is a bondage: "However, the believer would certainly have been in bondage if the marriage bond is indicated."a He apparently thinks Paul is talking about some other subject than marriage here? However, the context is actually still talking about marriage and a spouse leaving. Refreshingly, Warnock acknowledges that Arndt and Gingrich say douloo ("bondage") is used figuratively at 1 Corinthians 7:15. So do Thayer (p. 158) and Kittel (Vol. II, p. 279). Furthermore, deo must also be used figuratively in referring to marriage. Its basic meaning is "to bind, tie, fasten" (Thayer, p. 131). Thayer says it applies (literally) to the tying of an animal (Matthew 21:2) and the chaining of a prisoner (Acts 12:6). How, then, can such a word possibly refer to marriage? It has to be used figuratively! Thayer says, it means "to bind, i.e., put under obligation, sc. (namely) of law, duty, etc." and it is here that he cites Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:27,39. Thus a word which is used literally of tying animals and binding prisoners can be used to refer to marriage through a figurative application. If deo is used figuratively then so can douloo. In fact, Thayer treats douloo exactly as he does deo. He says the basic meaning is "to make a slave of, to reduce to bondage" (p. 158). It refers to literal slavery (Acts 7:6). But used "metaphorically" (figuratively) it means "to be under bondage, held by constraint of law or necessity in some matter." In fact, Thayer gives its #2 defintion: "metaphorically give myself wholly to one’s needs and service, make myself a bondman to him." This describes the legal side of marriage, and this is precisely where Thayer places 1 Corinthians 7:15. If deo can be used of marriage, so can douloo, and for the same reason. Each is used figuratively in these passages which speak of nothing else but marriage. Failing to appreciate the figurative use of douloo, Warnock states, ". . The only kind of slavery that a believer has ever been under was before conversion." This is absolutely false. Christians must be slaves to righteousness (Romans 6:18). Paul enslaved himself to those to whom he preached (1 Corinthians 9:19). Error: Warnock represents the learned brethren in the church of ChristFact:Since some are set upon hearing a brother Warnock, let's look at what other respectable and learned brethren have written on the subject.Brother Alexander Campbell says: "The marriage covenant is broken, and the believing party is free ... the believing party is to the deserter as though they had never been married." In a note at the end of the article, Campbell adds this: "I am happy to have the concurrence of brother Walter Scott, who is at this time here on a visit." v Brother Burton Coffman writes, "The brother or sister is not under bondage ... Some question whether or not such a brother or sister might remarry; but the view here is that, if not, then the brother or sister would still be in bondage."vi Brother G. C. Brewer writes, "But, if the unbelieving or heathen party maliciously deserted his or her Christian companion, notwithstanding due means of reconciliation had been used, the marriage was, by that desertion, dissolved with respect to the Christian party willing to adhere, and who has done all that was right to hold the heathen party in the marriage relationship." Later, in the same book, brother Brewer answers the question as to whether the Christian who has been thus deserted is free to remarry. He writes: "If not, it would be difficult to see how such "a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." If they are not any longer bound to these deserting partners, nor in bondage to them, they certainly are free. If they are not free to marry again, then they are not free from that marriage at all, and are, therefore, still bound. If Paul does not mean that the marriage bondage is broken and does not any longer exist, as far as the Christian is concerned, then his language has no meaning at all. To make it mean something else is to destroy his whole point."vii Brother James Bales wrote, "The only bondage this believer had ever been in to this unbeliever was the bondage of marriage . . . the context proves that "bondage" refers to marriage . . . the only bondage discussed in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 was the marriage bondage" (Not Under Bondage, pp. 62,68,91). Let's notice a statement from brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr. In his treatment of 1 Corinthians 7:15, brother Wallace says: "If the passage here does not refer to the marriage bond, then the believer would still be in the bondage of it ... If that does not mean that the believer in these circumstances is free to marry, then it cannot mean anything, for if the one involved is not altogether free the bondage would still exist."viii DENOMINATIONAL COMMENTARIES Wesley: The forsaken one "is at full liberty." Calvin, Grotius, Rosenmuller: "can marry again." Clarke agrees: "But if the unbelieving, depart - Whether husband or wife: if such obstinately depart and utterly refuse all cohabitation, a brother or a sister - a Christian man or woman, is not under bondage to any particular laws, so as to be prevented from remarrying." Error: If Paul gives abandonment as a cause of divorce, then he contradicts Jesus.Fact:Jesus' style is to make statements relative to a situation that is not meant to be either absolute nor universal to all situations."Let us look at other cases in which apostolic teachings place limitations on what appear to be universal statements of Jesus. Jesus said, "everyone that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress" (Matthew 5:32). "Everyone" seems to be universal. Do we accept the fact that every woman who is put away for cause other than fornication, without any exception, becomes an adulteress? If not, why not? Paul teaches that divorces do occur in which one put away for a cause other than fornication does not commit adultery (1 Corinthians 7:11). The statement of Jesus, then, was not meant to be absolute. But it does appear to be such." Looking at another case of Jesus' teaching, Jesus taught to "give to him that asketh thee" (Matthew 5:42). To whom? "To him that asketh." Do we accept the conclusion that we are to give to anyone who might ask us? If not, why not? Jesus placed no limitations on what he said at the time. Evidently, there are some teachings of Jesus which appear to be unqualified but which he did not intend to be unqualified. What if we should find a later injunction which says there are some to whom we are not to give? Have we found that which contradicts Jesus? We do find such an injunction. Paul taught us not to give to indolent church members. He urged, "If any will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). We can see that Jesus did not mean for his teaching to be a universal command without any sort of limitation. But none of us think Paul contradicted Jesus." "Again, Jesus taught that "Every one that asketh receiveth" (Matthew 7:8). Jesus places no limitations on who is to ask. But other passages show that not just anybody can pray acceptably. The privilege of prayer is a spiritual blessing and all spiritual blessings are in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). A double-minded man cannot ask and expect to receive (James 1:6-7). Is this a contradiction of Jesus? No one so thinks. Speaking in apparent universals was a facet of Jesus' style of teaching. He stated what was apparently an absolute without intending that it be such."ix Error: Paul would not have used douloo only once to mean marriage.Fact:Whereas it is true that Paul only uses douloo here in the context of marriage, using something once in no way nullifies its meaning.Some object to the idea Paul would use douloo only once (out of eight uses in the N.T.) to mean marriage while using deo three times (out of forty-four uses in the N.T.). Well, of the thirty-six times hapto is used in the N.T., it means sexual touching only once (1 Corinthians 7:1). But spoken by the Lord, once is enough to establish meaning and authority. So also at 1 Corinthians 7:15, Paul said, ". . a brother or a sister is not under bondage (the present result) in such cases." What case did Paul refer to which constitutes the past action producing this result? Listen to him, "But if the unbeliever departs. . . . " Warnock apparently agrees that this departure is divorce. Paul is saying, then, that the believer is not under bondage as a result of being divorced by the unbeliever. He cannot, therefore, refer to anything other than the marriage bond. Error: No one considers marriage a type of slavery or servitude.Fact:World's View of the bondage of marriageJohn Stewart Mill, in "On The Subjugation of Women", compared the institution of marriage to the institution of slavery. Mill argued that wives were like slaves because the laws at that time made them subject to the whims of their husbands. According to Mill, the laws at the time forced women to obey. In fact, Mill argued that women were worse off than slaves because women weren’t even free from their servitude even when they went to bed at night. NOW THE TABLES ARE TURNED... A man in the United States, therefore, is submitting to a form of slavery when choosing to get married. His wife has enormous legal power to make her husband into a wage slave, sperm bank, walking atm, retirement fund and general whipping boy simply by filing for a divorce. This is especially so if they have children together. This is an issue that is not talked about often, but it is having a very real effect on marriage in the United States. There is a phenomenon occurring now called the "marriage strike"which is a trend of men to not get married. Between 1990 and 1995, the marriage rate dropped from 9.8 to 7.6 percent. x __________________________________________ Many of the above arguments were taken from the Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 468-469; Auguat 3, 1989 aGuardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 466-467 August 3, 1989 iActs 4:29, Acts 16:17, Romans 1:1,1 Corinthians 7:22, 2 Corinthians 4:5, Galatians 1:10, Ephesians 6:6, Philippians 1:1, Colossians 4:12, 2 Timothy 2:24, Titus 1:1, James 1:1, 1 Peter 2:16, 2 Peter 1:1, Jude 1:1, Revelation 1:1, Revelation 22:6, Revelation 22:3, Revelation 15:3. iiMarvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. III (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946), p. 219. iiiStrong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionary iv http://www.mentaldivorce.com/mdrstudies/WeldonWarnock%27sFifthAndSixtWeekInARow.htm. v Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger, Vol. V, 1834, pp. 72-73. viBurton Coffman Commentary on 1 Corinthian 7:15 vii G. C. Brewer, Contending For The Faith (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1941), pp. 97-100. viii Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State (Fort Worth: Noble Patterson, Publisher, 1967), p. 45. ixhttp://www.thechurchofchrist.ws/f13/1-corinthians-7-15-a-1808-2.html x [http://polsci101.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/how-marriage-today-is-slavery-for-men/] CEB=Contemporary English Version of the Bible |
"Throw Out the
Lifeline"
website
|