Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
| PentecostalTheology.com
The biblical text of 1 Corinthians 7:15, as rendered in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), addresses circumstances within a mixed marriage where an unbelieving spouse elects to depart. The verse states, “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such *cases*, but God has called us *to peace*.” A primary exegetical challenge pertaining to this passage concerns the precise referent of the term “bondage.” The prevailing question revolves around whether this “bondage” specifically refers to the marital covenant, thereby implying the dissolution of the marriage in cases of desertion by an unbelieving partner. A significant interpretive dilemma arises from the grammatical tenses employed by the Apostle Paul in this verse. The inquirer highlights a tension between the present tense action, “if the unbelieving one leaves” (ἐὰν χωρίζεται), and the subsequent declaration concerning the believing spouse, “is not under bondage” (οὐ δεδούλωται), which is rendered in the perfect tense. The perfect tense in Greek typically describes a past action with ongoing, completed results extending into the present. This grammatical construction prompts an inquiry: if the unbelieving spouse is departing *now* (present tense), why would the believing spouse *already* be in a state of “not being under bondage,” a state implying a prior completed action with continuous present effect? Should “bondage” indeed denote the marital covenant, the selection of the perfect tense “is not under bondage” presents a significant grammatical and theological conundrum. The inquirer precisely articulates this difficulty: If the perfect tense signifies that the marriage “IS NOT and HAS NOT BEEN in force,” it prompts a critical question regarding the timing of this non-binding state. When, in the past, did the marriage cease to be in force, leading to its present non-binding status, especially if the unbelieving spouse’s departure is a current event? This perceived disjunction between the timing of the desertion and the implication of a pre-existing state of non-bondage constitutes a key source of interpretive confusion. This exegetical challenge necessitates a careful analysis of Pauline usage and the broader context of 1 Corinthians 7, which addresses various marital and celibate states. The phrase “God has called us to peace” (εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός) further complicates the interpretation, suggesting that peace is the divine calling and perhaps the guiding principle in such situations. Understanding the relationship between the grammatical nuances of “bondage” and the theological imperative of “peace” is crucial for resolving the interpretive tensions within this pivotal verse, particularly concerning the validity and dissolution of marriage in the context of an unbelieving spouse’s desertion.
