Truth Magazine

By Jerry F. Bassett

This article is intended to deal with only one question of the many which have troubled brethren in their study of marriage and divorce. That question is: In describing the status of a believer from whom his/her unbelieving spouse has departed, what did Paul mean by the words “not under bondage”?

Some have said that the word douloo from which bondage is derived means slavery, and that it is too harsh to describe marriage. It is claimed that Paul is therefore saying that the deserted believer, while still bound in marriage, is not in bondage so as to be required to submit to the unbeliever’s demands which would compromise his/her faith. We notice, however, that this word was not too harsh for Paul to use to describe the Christian’s relationship to Christ (Rom. 6:18), nor his own attitude toward those to whom he preached the gospel (1 Cor. 9:19).

These same brethren go on to say that this word is never used in the New Testament to refer to marriage. But again, we notice that Paul said the deserted believer “is not under bondage in such cases” (emphasis mine, J.F.B.). What happens if the case is reversed and the unbeliever is willing to remain with the believer? Then, logically, he/she is under bondage. In what relationship? The subject is marriage.

How Do We Find the Answer?

The foregoing is a sampling of the fact that the answer to our question is not as cut and dried as some arbiters would have us think. Regardless, unless I am badly mistaken, we would all agree that resolving this matter to the satisfaction of everyone must turn on a clear, and incontrovertible, definition of the terms Paul used. Can this be accomplished by checking the lexicon definitions of the original Greek words and then debating their proper applications in the “bondage” issue? This is what has been done, and for the most part, it has only furnished fuel for intensifying the heat of the dispute. Is there a better, hopefully simpler, way? I think so. That way is indicated in the following words from the pen of J.H. Thayer. “The nature and use of the New Testament writings require that the lexicographer should not be hampered by a too rigid adherence to the rules of scientific lexicography. A student often wants to know not so much the inherent meaning of a word as the particular sense it bears in a given context and discussion ” (Preface, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. vii, emphasis mine, J.F.B.).

So, let us give Thayer’s suggestion a try. Let us consult the context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 by tracing one of the terms Paul used in discussing marriage back to its use by Jesus in discussing the same subject. Then, we will bring that use back to 1 Corinthians 7:15 to see if that will help us understand what Paul meant by the words “not under bondage.”

From Paul Back to Jesus

At this point, we will assume that we know absolutely nothing about the meaning of the word “bondage” found at 1 Corinthians 7:15. But we notice, and trust all will agree, that the status of the believer’s being “not under bondage” is the result of the departure of an unbelieving spouse. Now, let us work our way back from Paul at 1 Corinthians to Jesus at Matthew 19.

1. The word “depart” used by Paul is from the Greek word chorizo (George V. Wigram and Ralph D. Winter, The Word Study Concordance, p. 805). The English spelling of this word varies depending on the authority cited.

2. At verse 11, Paul used the same word referring to a woman who had departed from her husband.

3. At verse 10, in which Paul declared that he was saying the same thing as that already spoken by the Lord, he used the same word to forbid a woman to depart from her husband.

4. And, at Matthew 19:6, Jesus used this same word, chorizo, which is translated there “put asunder” (KJV). But verse 3 shows that Jesus was responding to the Pharisees’ question regarding the propriety of a man’s putting away (divorcing, NKJB) his wife for every cause. Thus, Jesus used this word to mean the sundering, or separating, of a marriage through divorce.

From Jesus Forward to Paul

Now, let us see if understanding how Jesus used the word chorizo can be of any help to us in determining what Paul meant by “not under bondage.”

1. Again, Jesus used chorizo to mean divorce. It is doubtful that anyone would dispute this fact; certainly not in view of the context of Matthew 19:3-9.

2. At 1 Corinthians 7:10, and saying the same thing Jesus had said while in the flesh, Paul used the word chorizo to forbid a woman to depart from her husband. Since it is used to say the same thing Jesus had said, it must, therefore, mean the same thing Jesus had meant, i.e., divorce. In fact, it is so translated in the New King James Bible.

3. At verse 11, Paul again used chorizo to instruct a woman who had departed from her husband to remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to him. Her departing clearly constituted a divorce since it resulted in her being “unmarried.” Again, the New King James Bible so translates it. Chorizo thus equals divorce in this passage.

4. Then, at verse 12, Paul begins to address Christians who were involved in a marriage with an unbeliever. This implies that his instruction at verses 10-11 was aimed at marriages in which both partners were believers. Further, what he had to say to those in a mixed marriage would differ from what he had repeated from the Lord regarding two believers. If not, he would have had no reason to address them separately.

For example, imagine a college football coach speaking to his team on the first day of practice. To his veteran players returning from the previous year he says, “You men go to the other end of the field and start warming up.” Then he turns to his new players and says, “The rest of you men, stay here with me.” Does anyone with the perception to visualize a goal post have any difficulty seeing that this coach would be addressing two different categories of players because he had a different message for each?

So also Paul. What he wrote at 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 refers to what the Lord had spoken to a marriage consisting of two people in a covenant relationship with God. All agree that Paul applied what the Lord said to, at the least, marriages consisting of spouses both of whom were in the New Covenant. These people were commanded explicitly not to depart from (not to put away) their partners. But if they did violate this command they must: (1) remain unmarried or (2) be reconciled (remarry with one another).

However, speaking to “the rest” at 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, Paul clearly addressed Christians married to unbelievers. This involved marriages in which one spouse was in covenant relationship with God, and one was not. In such marriages the believer was required to abide in the marriage if the unbeliever was willing to remain with him/her. But if the unbeliever chose to depart, the believer was required to let him/her do so. The believer, Paul said, was “not under bondage in such cases.”

Remembering the football coach illustration above, the difference between the two categories of marriages addressed in 1 Corinthians 7, and the different requirements imposed upon their parties, is set forth in the following chart.

FOOTBALL COACH

To Veteran Players To New Players

Go to the other end of the field, warm up. Stay with me.

PAUL

1 Cor. 7:10-11 1 Cor. 7:12-15

To Believers (members of the church To the Rest; Believers Married

in Corinth) Married to Each Other to Unbelievers

If you Depart, You Must: If the Unbeliever Departs, The Believer Must:

1. Remain unmarried, or, 1. Let him do so

2. Be reconciled (“Not under bondage”; expressly stated) (under bondage; implied)

In both Cases

Two Different Categories, Two Different Messages!

5. Notice again that the word translated “depart” at verse 15 is still chorizo, and its use is still in reference to marriage.

6. Further, when Paul used this word to describe the disruption of marriage, he was using the same word he had used twice before in the same context to mean divorce. And of great significance is the fact that he used this word in precisely the same way that Jesus had used it at Matthew 19:6.

7. Here, then, is a believer who, because of his/her faith, has been divorced by an unbelieving spouse. This believer now occupies exactly the same status as that effected by the woman of verse 11 who departed from her husband, i.e., unmarried. Or, in the words of Jesus, this believer’s marriage has been “put asunder” by the departing of the unbeliever. And, in the words of Paul at 1 Corinthians 7:15, this believer is “not under bondage in such cases.”

Conclusion

If this article’s defining of the word chorizo by tracing it from Paul’s use back to Jesus’ is correct, then “depart” at I Corinthians 7:15 means divorce. Thus, Paul’s expression, “not under bondage,” has to mean that the unbeliever’s disertion of the believer leaves the latter unmarried according to the will of the Lord and totally free from the marriage bond. As Alexander Campbell put it, “. . . the believing party is to the deserter as though they had never been married” (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. V, p. 72).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 464-465
August 3, 1989

By James W. Adams

It has been suggested that self-abasement motivated by the desire to advertise one’s humility in order to be admired is “humility with a hook.” When I ran across this observation in my reading, it struck a responsive chord. The “humility” of far too many professed, New Testament Christians has a “hook,” hence is quite spurious. Self-depreciation for the sake of advertising humility is no more than a contemptible, Pharisaical ploy which emanates from a deeply self-righteous disposition. It is not an identifying mark of godliness nor evidence of “total commitment.” Rather, it is an age-old symbol of hypocrisy.

True piety is not demonstrated by a sanctimonious countenance, maudlin affirmations of sentimental “love,” a sepulchral tone of voice, and vocal protestations of “humility.” To the contrary, it is evidenced by what we are. What we are is determined by what we believe. What we believe is manifested by what we do, and what we do, both as to quality and degree, is the “proof of the sincerity of our love” and devotion. Paul urged the saints at Corinth to give liberally of their means for the 4dpoor among the saints” at Jerusalem in order that they might “prove the sincerity of their love” (2 Cor. 8:8).

John, “the apostle of love,” stated the point tersely and explicitly when he wrote: “My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth” (1 Jn. 3:18). Advertised humility, conspicuously displayed and vindicated by depreciation of others, whether voiced or implied, neither commends itself, nor him who practices it, to the Lord. Jesus is specific about this in the parable of “the Pharisee and the publican” who went up to the temple to pray (Lk. 18:9-14).

The proud Pharisee commended himself to the Lord in the following manner: “He stood and prayed thus with himself: God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week. I give tithes of all that I possess.” The publican, on the other hand, “stood afar off, would not lift so much as his eyes to heaven, but smote upon his breast saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”

The verdict of Jesus relative to the contrasting humility demonstrated in these two prayers was: “I tell you, this man (the publican, jwa) went down to his house justified rather than the other (the Pharisee, jwa): for everyone that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” The Pharisee’s advertised self-abasement for the purpose of being admired did not impress the Lord. The Lord perceived the “hook” in his “humility.” The lesson is clear: “Humility with a hook” is human egotism born of pride and arrogance. True humility is self-abasement born of a consciousness of sin-guiltiness, hence unworthiness before God, and a consequent, utter dependence upon him and complete submission to his will.

Professed servants of the Lord may succeed in deceiving themselves and others by “humility” with a camouflaged “hook,” but the Lord will not be “taken in” by it. Apostate Israelites who advertised their “humility” with an outward show of religion but were inwardly corrupt were warned by Jeremiah: “Thus says the Lord . . . I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings” (Jer. 17:10, NKJV). Jesus challenged the Jews of his time with the question: “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46) Also, in a single lesson, he called the Pharisees and scribes “hypocrites” seven times. In addition, to that, he called them “blind guides, children of hell, fools, whited sepulchers, serpents, and a generation of vipers.” He pronounced “woe” upon them and asked them, “How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matt. 23:1-39)

It is my conviction, based on solid evidence, that maudlin emotionalism has taken over the worship of multitudes of professed “churches of Christ” and their constituents in their public worship and general demeanor as such. I am further convinced that this is evidence of modern Pharisaism in full bloom and quite as worthy of condemnation as that which existed in our Lord’s day upon earth. It is “humility with a hook” with vengeance. I insist that this is not an “unchristian” judgment of motivation, but an observation based upon conditions too patent to the debatable. The fruit betrays the seed which produces it!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 449, 462
August 3, 1989

By Steve Willis

While going through a number of booklets and tracts I had acquired, I found some that must have been handed down to me from the early 1950s (some tracts in the same pile dated to 1946, others up to 1956) 1 found a booklet published by Methodist Evangelistic Materials titled When Methodists Baptize. . ., by F. Gerald Ensley. Studying this little booklet is certainly an eye-opener, when one compares its teachings to the Bible.

In writing about “baptism,” let me say that many religions express beliefs similar to the Methodists about baptism. For example, Henry VIII started the Church of England when the Roman Pope would not allow him a divorce. Henry proclaimed a new church and himself as head – he got his divorce. After the American Revolution, Anglican churches in the U.S. were called “Episcopalian” (after the Greek word for bishop). John Wesley and others started “holy clubs” or “societies” urging a methodical practice of holy life. Wesley’s efforts affected those in the English and Episcopal churches. Those followers became known as “Methodists.” After various divisions and ecumenical movements there are several forms of Methodists, including “Weslyan” Methodists, those striving to hold closer to John Wesley’s teaching. All these groups hold similar beliefs when it comes to the teaching and practice of baptism.

The Methodist Discipline states that “the minister shall take each person to be baptized by the right hand, and placing him conveniently by the font according to his discretion shall ask the name, and then shall sprinkle or pour water upon him, or if he shall desire it, shall immerse him in water.” The booklet When Methodists Baptize. . . says, “the more usual method of sprinkling” is given up if a person wants to be immersed.

This difference of “sprinkling,” “pouring,” or “immersion” may not seem like much, but the question goes back to “Are we doing what God wants us to do?”

Ensley’s booklet asks: “What is the authentic form of baptism? Is it immersion?” Interesting question. If it is not immersion, why will they allow it? If it is immersion, why is the “usual” method sprinkling? Ensley answers, “It [immersion] was certainly practiced early in the history of the Christian Church.” Yes! It was. He then tries to explain away the practice of the early church – immersion – by an appeal to the original Greek word: baptizo. Ensley writes, “Our best scholars inform us that the Greek word for baptism, baptizo, means literally, to ‘wash,’ or ‘moisten’ and is consistent with pouring, or sprinkling, or foot washing. ” Isn’t it interesting that their “best” scholars could not even find it consistent with “immersion” – a practice that they allow?

I am no scholar, but I can use a lexicon (a Greek dictionary) and look into other tools of word study. Listen to the testimony of others:

1. Martin Luther: “Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly covered.”

2. John Calvin: “The word baptize signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church.”

3. John Wesley (note, founder of Methodism): “We are buried with him – alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion” (Wesley’s notes on Romans 6:4).

4. Thayer (lexicographer): “Baptizo: to dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge.”

5. Liddell and Scott: “Baptizo: to dip in or under water” (in their lexicon).

I have a list of some 70 scholars, many of whom I would disagree with another point of their theology, but here they have not sacrificed their scholarship. They all say baptizo means immerse. One that was especially interesting to me was that Josephus described a ship sinking with baptizo no sprinkling or pouring here – it sunk.

The point is, if God wanted to say “sprinkle,” he could; the Greek word rantizo means sprinkle. There were several words for “pour” in the Greek: ballo, katacheo, ekcheo, ekchuno, epicheo. The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament (originally written in Hebrew). In Leviticus 14:15,16, God told the priest to pour, dip (immerse) and sprinkle oil: “And the priest shall take the cup of oil and shall pour (epicheo) it upon his own left hand. And he shall dip (baptizo) with the finger of his right hand into some of the oil that is in his left hand, and he shall sprinkle (rantizo) with his finger seven times before the Lord.” You’d better believe that the priest of the Old Testament poured when told to, sprinkled when told to, and dipped when told to dip. God was certainly capable of telling men what to do; the question was and still is will men do it?

Why Baptize

Why is a person baptized and what does baptism accomplish? Let me give the Methodist Discipline’s statement: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The baptism of young children is to be retained in the church.” What this means is a person who is already a Christian is baptized, and not that one is baptized in order to be saved. Ensley says: “To believe that the washing of a man’s skin somehow cleanses his soul is magic, . . . And ocean of water cannot affect a spiritual change. No sacred words or symbolic acts can make a person a disciple. What baptism does depends on the inward response to the outward symbol. . . . What does baptism do? Nothing in itself. ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,’ says John’s Gospel (3:5), ‘he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.’ Water alone does not save.”

The problem with this position seems to be that water immersion does nothing! They claim it is an outward sign that someone is already saved. What does the Bible say?

Matthew 29:19: “Go, therefore and make disciples (teach) of all the nations, baptizing them in (into) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” How does this verse teach one is made a disciple? When does one come under the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Mark 16:16: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” What two conditions must be met before one is pronounced “saved”? If a person does not believe, will he be baptized, thereby gaining salvation?

John 3:3,5: “Truly, truly I say unto you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . Truly, truly, I say unto you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Can one enter the kingdom without being born again? What two things make up the new birth (hint. one thing we touch, one thing we cannot touch physically)?

The above verses were words of Jesus. Ensley says Jesus “does not seem to have required baptism for admission to his fellowship.” Is this true? Read John 3 again about admission into the kingdom. If Christ did not require baptism for admission to this fellowship, why do Methodists – and others – require what they do not believe Jesus required, so that one can be counted a Methodist? This question could be asked of other religious bodies as well.

The apostles continued teaching for Christ:

Acts 2:38: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” What two things are here required to receive forgiveness of sins? Can a person be a Christian without having his sins forgiven? Did anybody heed the word of Peter (see v. 41)?

Romans 6:3,4: “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” What act brings us into contact with the death of Jesus – where his blood was shed that we might receive forgiveness of sin? Is sprinkling or pouring like a “burial”? Is “newness of life” before or after baptism? Can a person be a Christian without beginning the new life?

1 Peter 3:21: “And corresponding to that (i.e., water in v. 20), baptism now saves you – not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. . . ” Is baptism involved with the salvation of an individual? Is a person saved before baptism? Must we make an appeal to God in the act of baptism (compare baptizing babies who seem only to appeal to eat and have diapers changed)? It is Jesus Christ who saves us when we are baptized?

There are many other passages in the Bible about being baptized. Let us realize that believers are given the right to become children of God (Jn. 1: 12) and that we are born into God’s family upon expressing that belief when we repent and are baptized. When we are moved to be baptized in water and follow the words of the Spirit then we can say we have been born again. In a similar way the church is made up of those “cleansed . . . by the washing of water with the word.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 451-452
August 3, 1989

By Ronny E. Hinds

It has been my observation over the years that there are some people who have great difficulty in following rules. It do not know why, maybe something about their personality or character, but they do have the problem.

I have been reminded of this again by a couple of incidents. Most recently my daughter was telling me of the difficulty she has on her job of getting people to follow directions. She is involved in solving computer program problems. They will call her for solutions and then they will not follow instructions. Often it is the same people over and over.

In another instance a preaching brother of mine told me about editing a paper in which the articles were to be of certain length. While the majority “followed the rule” there were always those who sent in articles too long.

Now, whether or not the specific individuals mentioned above have this problem I do not know. I do know that both illustrate my point. Do you have problems with following the rules? Maybe you have never thought about it. Do you find yourself usually thinking you know a better way to do it? In following certain procedures do you usually have to change them just a little? Think about it.

I know all of us do such things from time to time, so those questions hit us all. But what concerns me is such can become a habit and affect our attitude and obedience of God’s rules. We get to thinking we can alter this a little and ignore something else a little and it won’t hurt anything. And when we do such, nothing “zaps” us, so we get careless, perhaps indifferent.

Ignoring the rules of the world brings only worldly consequences. But ignoring the rules of God brings eternal consequences. We need to carefully, thoughtfully consider that.

Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). Acceptable service to God is based on the doing of his will and not ours. Many think otherwise. But recognizing him as Lord is not sufficient. We have to do his will. That is what the Scriptures teach and that is the way it is. We must “follow the rules”!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, p. 462
August 3, 1989