Truth Magazine

By Harry Osbourne

In his first article, brother Wilson affirmed that the word “loosed” in 1 Corinthians 7:27b means “divorced.” He put no qualifications on the statement and even cast doubt as to whether Matthew 5:32 restricted the issue. He then concluded that Paul specifically authorized both parties in a divorce to marry another spouse because he concludes neither is bound by God.

Though our brother’s second article has not clearly stated his conclusion nor shown how far the consequences will carry him, one of his views is obvious. He is trying to argue for the equal right of the “innocent party” and the put-away fornicator to marry another spouse following a divorce for the cause of fornication. However, brother Wilson does not answer how he resolves the resulting dilemma. Either he must accept that the put-away fornicator has a right to marry another while denying the same right to those divorced for a cause other than fornication, or he must accept the right of all divorced people to marry another regardless of the cause for their divorce (whether alien sinner or Christian). Whichever route he chooses, he has not proven his point in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. To prove his point, brother Wilson must show us three things from this text:

1. He must prove that those “loosed” in 1 Corinthians 7:27b were previously married. As shown in my first article, the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that it addressed those not previously married (Alford, H.A.W. Meyer, A. Barnes, F. Fisher, et. al.). However, if he proves this point beyond doubt, he is not through with his work.

2. He must prove that those “loosed” in 1 Corinthians 7:27b were divorced. He cannot simply say they may have been divorced. Proof of his position demands more than a possibility that it could have been the way he imagines it. For instance, he must exclude the possibility that the text is dealing with those free from the marital bond due to the death of their mate. Our brother gives several quotations from writers who devastate his point by affirming the ones under consideration were “loosed” by the death of their mate (e.g. C.F. Kling, A.T. Robertson, W. Robertson Nicoll, William F. Orr and James a. Walther).

3. He must prove that those “loosed” in 1 Corinthians 7:27b included put-away fornicators (and those divorced for a cause other than fornication if he carries his argument to its logical end). This will be especially difficult for our brother since put-away fornicators are not mentioned in the entire chapter much less this verse.

If brother Wilson would like to engage in further discussions to prove these points, I would be more than happy to participate in such a forum. If he cannot prove these three points from the text, he has found no authority for the guilty party to marry another and he will not allow open scrutiny of his position through further discussion. If he can prove these points, he will readily engage in discussion to show the right of put-away fornicators to marry another spouse. We will see which path he chooses.

Use of Scholarly Sources

All of us must be careful to avoid misrepresentation in our citations of scholarly sources. We should all learn to look at the writer’s statement in context and quote him in a way which fairly states his views. I am sure that brother Wilson meant to do this with his quotations, but an evaluation of his sources in context shows that a number were misused. For instance, our brother quoted Arndt and Gingrich commenting on luo as follows:

2. set free, loose, untie – a. lit. a person, animal or thing that is bound or tied: . . . b. fig. free, set free, release . . . are you free from a wife, i.e. not bound to a wife? 1 Cor. 7:27.

However, the sentence does not stop there as the period in brother Wilson’s citation suggests. The very next words used after the Scripture citation are “a previous state of being ‘bound’ need not be assumed.” The lexicon then goes on to refer to quotations in which the same word is used in literature of the same time to simply mean “free” or 6 ‘unrestrained” without reference to a state of previous bondage or restraint (Arndt & Gingrich 483). The part of the quotation omitted by brother Wilson makes a significant difference in our understanding of the writer’s point, He was directly refuting the view held by brother Wilson!

The quotation used from Frederic L. Godet is another example of the same incomplete use of the writer’s material. Our brother excerpts the sentence, “If one were to take the term lelusai, art thou loosed, in the strictness of the letter, it would apply only to widowers and those divorced.” However, brother Wilson fails to include the very next sentence where Godet adds, “But the context proves that, as Origen had already understood it, the word here signifies in general: If thou art free from bond, and that it refers also to celibates” (Commentary on First Corinthians 373). Though brother Wilson did not intend to misrepresent this source, the editing of the quotation would tend to leave a false impression regarding Godet’s position.

The quotation used from Mike Wilson’s chapter on 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 connected two sentences separated by four paragraphs omitting an extended section which detailed the use of luo in the perfect tense. As a matter of fact, Mike Wilson’s article was written to refute the very arguments made by brother Don Wilson. I believe a fair use of Mike Wilson’s material would include an acknowledgement of these facts.

Similar problems can be found in other citations used by our brother in his second article. I urge the reader to examine the other sources quoted. The only scholars cited which obviously support brother Wilson’s view are Colin Brown and Guy Duty. In their comments, they also clearly extend the right to marry another spouse to all divorced people regardless of the cause for their divorce. The overwhelming majority of respected scholarship supports the fact that lelusai, “loosed,” does not imply a previous marriage. That point is so obvious that brother Wilson did not even try to deny it. His view came from modern attempts to justify the practice of multiplied marriages in our society!

Brother Wilson’s use of James McKnight was especially interesting to me. McKnight has two columns in his commentary. At the beginning of each chapter, one is labeled “New Translation” and the other is labeled “Commentary.” Brother Wilson has quoted the column labeled “Commentary” and represented it as the literal translation of 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. McKnight admits that the idea of a “second wife” is his own addition to the original wording and has no basis from the Greek. It is no more a literal translation than is the Living Bible!

In a discussion of differences between brethren, it is helpful if both parties examine the points of the other. I have tried to meet my obligation in this regard. Brother Wilson has not attempted to answer the arguments made. Notice the following summary of the arguments made in my first article, but ignored by our brother:

1. The contradiction between brother Wilson and our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 5:32.

2. The use of lelusai by ancient Greeks in reference to “unbound things” without implying any previous bondage.

3. The context of 1 Corinthians 7 showing Paul’s advice was given to those never married.

4. The declaration by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 which shows two people may be divorced, but not have a right to marry another.

5. The establishment of a pattern regarding divorce and remarriage by considering the sum of truth declared in the Word of God which would include the conditions stated in Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-10.

6. The use of the word “except” in Matthew 19:9 and other passages to express the essentiality of meeting the given condition which follows.

7. The divine authority for the innocent party to marry another found in the necessary inference of Matthew 19:9.

Why did our brother overlook these points? Does he not think it necessary to examine conflicting evidence? Does he not have confidence in the answers he might give?

I appreciate brother Wilson’s participation in this series. My prayer is that he will engage in a more complete discussion of the issues regarding divorce and remarriage in an effort to unite on God’s truth. May God bless all of us with hearts which are tender to the truth and open to discussions with one another.

Brethren, this issue can be resolved. The truth of God’s word on this issue can and must be understood (Eph. 5:17). Unity can be achieved if we will only let our thoughts and speech be limited to the revealed truth as we submit ourselves to God’s will in proper attitudes toward one another (Eph. 4:1-3). Let us pray that such a spirit may characterize each of us.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 468-469
August 1, 1991

By Donald R. Wilson

Does the “loosed from a wife” man in 1 Corinthians 7:27 refer only to a never married man, or does it include the once married man who is now “loosed from a wife” by reason of death, scriptural divorce, etc.? It may seem foolish to ask such a question, because the language seems so clear and decisive. But there are those who come to this Scripture with preconceived ideas that will not let the obvious prevail.

James McKnight (A New Literal Translation of the Apostolic Epistles 113): “Yet, art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed from her by an unjust divorce, nor by deserting her. Art thou loosed from thy wife? Seek not a second wife. And yet if thou marry a second wife, thou hast not sinned.”

Other translations say very much the same thing: “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released (loosed). Are you released (loosed) from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you should marry, you have not sinned” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NAS). “Are you bound in marriage? Do not seek a dissolution. Has your marriage been dissolved? Do not seek a wife” (NEB). “Hast thou become bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Hast thou become loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife” (Rotherham).

Thayer (Grimm’s Lexicon 3 84), under luo, states ” 1. To loose any person tied or fastened . . . trop. of husband and wife joined together by the bond of matrimony, . . . spoken of a single man, whether he has already had a wife or has not yet married, 1 Corinthians 7:27.” Arndt and Gingrich (Bauer’s Lexicon 484), under luo, states “2. Set free, loose, untie – a. Lit. a person, animal or thing that is bound or tied: . . . b. Fig. free, set free, release . . . are you free from a wife, i.e., not bound to a wife? 1 Cor. 7:27.” W.E. Vine (Expository Dict. 697), states “I. Luo denotes (a) to loose, unbind, release . . . of the marriage tie, 1 Cor. 7:27.”

Godet thinks Paul is talking about betrothal rather than marriage. He remarks: “If one were to take the term lelusai, art thou loosed, in the strictness of the letter, it would apply only to widowers and those divorced” (My emph. DW) This is because the verb tense is perfect passive indicative, which normally means a present result of a past action (Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament 179; and Machen, IV. T. Greek For Beginners 187). Heth and Wenham (.1esus and Divorce, The Problem With The Evangelical Consensus), taking the position there is no scriptural grounds for remarriage following divorce, affirm this Scripture is talking about betrothal, not marriage. Feeling the pinch of the perfect tense, they add a footnote (#102, p. 240), “The meaning of vv. 27-8 is not solved on a grammatical level, but on the contextual level.” Mike Wilson (Is It Lawful?, Chap. 37, Article on 1 Cor. 7:27-28, p. 315) said, “The key verb, ‘are you loosed,’ is a perfect passive of luo, and the force of the perfect tense has caused some commentators and translators to argue that divorce is under consideration (My emph. DW). A more likely possibility, with equal grammatical weight and better contextual testimony, is the dissolution of an engagement. . . The Greek perfect tense does not indicate the past action as such but the present ‘state of affairs’ resulting from the past action.” Kittel and Friedrich, Eds. (TDTNT 1:776), “In 1 Cor. 7:27 the reference is to a wife rather than one who is spiritually affianced. “

R.C.H. Lenski (Commentary 313-4), “The two perfect tenses employed in the two questions, literally: “hast thou been bound” and “hast thou been released,” refer to present conditions as the result of a past act. Didst thou marry at one time, and art thou married now? Wast thou in some way released from the marriage tie at some past time, and art thou still thus released? . . . Being bound to a wife and its opposite being released from a wife refer to actual marriage, to its presence or to its absence as the case may be. The effort in these expressions to find the particular ‘betrothals’ which the church of a later age had to oppose is a misunderstanding of Paul’s simple words.”

Kittel and Friedrich, eds. (TDTNT 4:335-6), “In the NT the word [Luo] means a. ‘to loose,’ ‘release,’ with the obj. of that which binds: . . . lelusai apo gunaikos, 1 Cor. 7:27.”

Colin Brown (NIDNTT 537), referring to 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, states, “What Paul proceeds to say applies equally to the single, widowers and widows, and the divorced.

But the particular argument is drawn from the case Of the divorced, and applies a fortiori to the others . . . remarriage is not a sin” (My emph. DW). A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures 4:132), says that “bachelors as well as widowers are included in lelusai (loosed, perfect passive indicative of luo). ” W. Robertson Nicoll (Expositor’s Greek Testament 2:832), “Applies to bachelor or widower.”

Guy Duty (Divorce and Remarriage 107-109) takes the position that 1 Corinthians 7:28-29 is speaking of being “loosed from the bondage of marriage by divorce in both the first and second usage.” John Murray (Divorce 75), commenting on “loosed’ in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, “The use of the perfect tense should not be overlooked; it contemplates a condition resultant upon a past action.” William F. Luck (Divorce and Remarriage, Recovering the Biblical View 81), “Paul entertains the possibility that the person has been released at some time in the past with the result that at the point of admonition the person is still in an unmarried state, this is to say the person has been divorced. . “

William F. Orr and James A. Walther (Anchor Bible Commentary on 1 Corinthians 219), “lelusai is not to be understood as, ‘are you free now from marriage by not ever having been married’; but the force of the perfect aspect means, ‘Have you been released from a wife’ – presumably by her death” (Emph. mine, DW).

C.F. Kling (Lange’s Commentary on 1 Cor. 160), “Lelusai ‘ ‘hast thou been loosedT implies primarily the dissolution of a connection before existing, whether by death, or otherwise. [If this be insisted on, the subsequent injunction of the Apostle must then be interpreted of a second marriage]. But in this connection the simple fact of being free or unmarried, in general is meant” (Emph. mine, DW).

The evidence is clear. My purpose is accomplished by simply affirming that those married before, but now released from their former mate, are included within the group defined and can marry without sin. It is not necessary, nor do I contend that only the divorced are under consideration in 1 Corinthians 7:27.

I know that a person still joined to his mate, who puts her away and marries someone else (except for fornication) is committing adultery against her (Matt. 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12). Adultery is unlawful sexual conduct in violation of the marriage covenant. Whoever marries someone who is still joined in a marriage covenant with another spouse is committing adultery (Matt. 5:32b; 19:9b; Rom. 7:2). That is why the couple in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 were commanded to remain “unmarried or be reconciled”; they were still in a covenant relationship with each other; they were not “loosed” from each other.

Are you bound in a marriage covenant with a spouse? Do not seek to be loosed. If you are in a condition of having been loosed from a spouse, no longer bound in a marriage covenant, it might be better for you to remain single. But if you should marry, it is not sin (1 Cor. 7:27-28).

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 466-467
August 1, 1991

By Bobby Witherington

With regard to the husband-wife relationship, Jesus said, “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:6). In Romans 7:2 the apostle Paul said “the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as she lives.” Many are the Scriptures which speak of the divine origin of the marriage relationship, the sanctity of the home, and the God-intended permanence of the marriage bond.

There was a time in our nation when God’s law regarding the permanence of marriage was generally respected and obeyed – so much so that there was a stigma attached to divorce. But time that has passed. Divorce now is often treated as a joke. It is a common occurrence, and the expected end of many marriages. In fact, a single, young and famous movie star recently said that some day she plans to get married, and she expects that marriage to end in divorce! If that does indeed happen, she will find the divorce easy to obtain, for divorce laws have been liberalized, restrictions have been removed and, legally speaking, it has become common. Domestically speaking, society has sown to the wind and is now reaping the whirlwind. There are some grave problems modern society now faces because of the spiraling divorce rate. What are they?

One problem is the increase of promiscuousness. Among many married people, fidelity is considered unnecessary, “old fashioned,” and out-dated. Hebrews 13:4 says that “marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” However, that verse, as well as the book from which it was taken, is regarded as a relic from an unenlightened, puritanical age. Legion are the husbands and wives who are untrue to each other, and some even practice such promiscuousness with their spouse’s knowledge and permission!

A second problem generated by our high divorce rate is an increased disrespect for marriage itself. Some consider marriage out-dated, so they seek to satisfy their fleshly passion in a live together arrangement that has little more permanency than that which characterizes animals of the field and forests. Of course, this is in character for those who ignore and reject the Bible and reduce themselves to living on an animal level.

A third problem that stems from our modern divorce rate affects children. They are often treated like pawns of a chess board, and are made the unwilling objects of parental barter and trade. They are denied a secure family life that is so vital to emotional maturity. Instead they are victimized by fear and frustration, being treated like cattle in a feed lot, in which they are given shelter and food – provided they help themselves to it. Not all children are so victimized when their parents get a divorce, but who would deny that such is the case a large percentage of the time?

When the family circle is broken there is no circle left. Divorce ought to be avoided at all cost. And at the same time let it be remembered that many parents live under the same roof, but are poles apart in their goals, purposes, and aspirations – all of which leave the inside of the circle torn and splintered. Hence, the goal of husbands and wives is not merely to avoid a divorce, but to make their marriage all that God intends for it to be.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 486
August 15, 1991

By R.J. Stevens

According to Ephesians 6:4 they are. “Fathers provoke not our children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (KJV). “But bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (NAS). “Children” doesn’t always mean preschoolers. It is obvious from these passages that the children under discussion are old enough to receive instructions from the Lord’s teachings. I believe we must conclude that parents have the responsibility of teaching sons and daughters principles of truth which come from the Lord, especially the things Paul mentions in Ephesians 5:22 through Ephesians 6:4 regarding the family relationships. This must be done whether the children are Christians or not Christians. The words spoken by Jesus will judge sons and daughters of accountable age as it will judge their fathers and mothers. John 12:48 says, “He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”

Not long ago my wife and I were guests of a fine family during a gospel meeting. One of their sons is a faithful child of God, but their other son is not. It appears that he has no intention of becoming one. I pray that he will have a change of heart some day. Both sons had the same father and mother and were brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It seems to me that both of them were responsible to God’s teaching when they reached an accountable age.

What I am getting ready to point out happens many times. However, I hope this doesn’t happen to either of my friend’s sons. Suppose the faithful son who is married commits fornication and leaves his wife and marries another. He knows this is contrary to Christ’s teachings. Can he expect to have fellowship with God by walking in the darkness of an unlawful adulterous relationship? According to 1 John 1:6, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 5:8-11 he is to be withdrawn from and God’s people are not supposed to even eat a common meal with him. This was done in Corinth to keep the leaven of wickedness out of the church and cause the fornicator to repent of sin and save his soul. It is implied in 2 Corinthians 2:4-11 and 7:8-12 that the man who had his father’s wife repented and severed the unlawful relationship. Therefore if the once faithful son of my friend wants to come back into fellowship with God and his people, he would have to repent and sever his unlawful adulterous relationship.

Now let’s suppose that the other son who never obeyed the gospel while he was at home marries and later commits fornication and marries again. Having been brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord he also knows that what he has done is contrary to the Lord’s teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Now let’s suppose he decides he wants to be baptized for the remission of his sins, especially the sins of fornication and adultery. He desires to have fellowship with God and God’s people. In order for the older son to have fellowship with God, he would have to repent and sever his relationship with his adulterous spouse. Thanks be to God for some who have severed relationships that were adulterous. According to some brethren, the second son could continue in his unlawful adulterous marriage because he never had been in covenant relationship with the Lord and was not accountable to Christ’s teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage, even though he had the same dad and mother who taught him the same principles his older brother had been taught.

James says there is only one lawgiver (Jas. 4:12). It is hard for me to understand that there is more than one law given to govern the morals of these two sons we have talked about. If they both commit the same immoral acts of fornication and adultery, I believe they both must repent in the same way. Our problem is not so much which law they are under but what is involved in repentance. We seem to have a double standard for repentance, one for children of God and one for aliens.

Now, if an unbelieving son or daughter of parents who are faithful to God is amenable to Christ’s teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage, wouldn’t their unbelieving neighbors be amenable to Christ’s teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage? All unbelievers will answer to Christ in the day of judgment (Jn. 8:24; 12:48).

There are many good brethren who are just as conscientious as I am who hold a view different than what this article teaches. But one thing for sure we both can’t be right if we teach conflicting views. Let’s keep on studying because we love one another and want to be united here and in heaven. (Reprinted from Gospel Truths, June 1991.)

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, pp. 483-484
August 15, 1991