Truth Magazine

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

By Dan King

Unity and harmony in human relationships is one of the most pleasant things in the world. David emphasized how basic it is in Psalm 133: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” (v. 1) Life can be viewed as good or pleasant, happy or sad, depending upon our surroundings and circumstances, and how we see them.

Pity the poor family, whether blessed with this world’s goods or not, that spends most of their time together in disagreeable arguments and fits of temper. Life could be so much more enjoyable if all parties would make a serious effort to be happy together and make their home a “good and pleasant” place to be. The result would be that the family circle would represent to all members of the household, a veritable “shelter in the time of storm” from all the vicissitudes of this world, a place to which each family member would flee to find repose from the turmoils of modern life in the city.

Likewise, God intended that the church be such a bastion of relief to distraught and distressed souls of this world. It was his intention that it be seen as a relationship filled with comfort and consolation for sin-sick men and women, a place to which they might flee from the ugliness and evil of the carnal side of life.

Imagine, then, how God must see it from his heaven, when the church is filled with unkind and hostile feelings and words, when brethren are hateful to one another, and lies and animosities abound. The Word of God has plenty to say of this in a score of New Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:10; 3:3, 17; Gal. 5:15, 20; etc.). But none is so heartfelt and sincere, as the prayer of the Savior, uttered on the night of his betrayal:

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:21).

“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” Not only is it the will of God for us so to dwell, but it is indeed “good and pleasant.” As members of the body of Jesus Christ, let’s all work hard to make our families what they should be in the sight of the Lord. And, let’s try hard to see to it that our church relationships are full of the harmony and friendliness that can make it the closest thing to “heaven on earth.”

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 15, p. 484
August 15, 1991