An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 7:15: Implications of οὐ δεδούλωται for Marital Obligation
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 7:15: Implications of οὐ δεδούλωται for Marital Obligation is based on a b-greek discussion. The focus of this discussion is 1 Corinthians 7:15, specifically the clause οὐ δεδούλωται and its implications for marital obligations when an unbelieving spouse departs. The perfect tense here is pivotal for interpretation, raising questions about the extent and nature of the believer’s freedom.
The central exegetical issue lies in discerning the precise nuance of the perfect tense δεδούλωται in its negated form οὐ δεδούλωται. This phrase dictates the interpretation of the believing spouse’s obligations following an unbeliever’s departure. Key questions include whether it signifies a permanent release from the marriage bond (implying remarriage is permissible), or a present state of non-obligation merely regarding the pursuit or retention of the departing spouse, without necessarily dissolving the marital bond itself. The interpretation impacts theological stances on divorce and remarriage within the Christian community.
Εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω· οὐ δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις· ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός.
(Eberhard Nestle, 1904 GNT k)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The SBLGNT (2010) uses a comma instead of a semicolon after χωριζέσθω.
- The SBLGNT (2010) uses specific breathing and accent marks on the word “H ADELFH,” rendering it as ἡ ἀδελφὴ.
Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes
The NA28 apparatus records no major textual variant for the clause οὐ δεδούλωται, confirming its consistent presence across significant early manuscripts. Minor orthographic differences exist, such as δεδουλώται versus δεδουλωται (without iota subscript), but these do not alter the semantic content of the verb.
According to BDAG (s.v. δουλόω), the verb δουλόω denotes being brought into slavery or subjection. The perfect tense, as seen in δεδούλωται, characteristically indicates a fixed state resulting from a past completed action. This grammatical feature is crucial: the believer is in a state of ‘not having been enslaved’ or ‘not standing enslaved.’
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament emphasizes the metaphorical sense of bondage inherent in δουλόω, particularly in marital or covenantal contexts. It often contrasts with the freedom granted in Christ. The combination of the perfect tense and the strong negative οὐ (`οὐ` negates the assertion entirely, affirming the opposite) in οὐ δεδούλωται therefore underscores a complete and continuing freedom. This freedom negates any binding legal, moral, or relational obligation once the unbelieving partner initiates and carries out the separation.
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The interpretation of οὐ δεδούλωται hinges on understanding the precise force of the perfect tense in a negated context, particularly when paired with the permissive imperative χωριζέσθω. The perfect tense δεδούλωται is stative, indicating a present state resulting from a past completed action. The negative particle οὐ then negates this state entirely, affirming that the believing spouse “does not stand enslaved” in these particular circumstances.
Two primary interpretive options arise:
- Does the perfect tense suggest permanent freedom from the marriage bond, implying that the believer was never truly enslaved to such a union when the unbeliever departs, thus allowing for remarriage?
- Or does it indicate a current state of non-obligation to pursue or retain the unbelieving spouse, following their departure, without necessarily dissolving the marriage bond itself?
The phrase χωριζέσθω (3rd person singular, present passive imperative) explicitly expresses permission rather than a command: “Let him depart.” This grants the unbelieving spouse the freedom to separate without coercion from the believer.
While some debate exists whether οὐ δεδούλωται could be construed as an imperative prohibition for the believer (e.g., “Do not become enslaved”), the overwhelming grammatical consensus leans toward an indicative with stative force. This means it describes an existing reality: the believer is not, and has not been, enslaved. Rhetorically, the concluding clause, ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός (“Rather, God has called us to peace”), profoundly shapes the context. Paul promotes peace and avoids compelling the believer to pursue or retain an unbelieving partner who wishes to depart, implying that the believer is not bound by relational conflict when an unbeliever chooses to leave.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the grammatical analysis of the perfect tense οὐ δεδούλωται, the permissive imperative χωριζέσθω, and the overarching theme of peace, several nuanced translations are possible, each highlighting a slightly different aspect of the believer’s freedom.
- “But if the unbeliever separates, let him depart; the brother or the sister is not enslaved in such circumstances. For God has called us to peace.”
Explanation: This translation emphasizes the current state of freedom from the obligations of the marital bond, indicating that the believer is no longer held captive by it. It implies a release from the relational duties. - “But if the unbeliever separates, let him depart; the brother or the sister has not been enslaved to this union in such circumstances. Rather, God has called us to peace.”
Explanation: This rendering highlights the perfect tense, suggesting a definitive freedom that is a result of a past completed action (the unbeliever’s departure), implying a complete cessation of the marital covenant and its obligations, potentially allowing for remarriage. - “But if the unbeliever separates, let him depart; the brother or the sister is not under obligation in such circumstances. Indeed, God has called us to peace.”
Explanation: This translation focuses on the practical implications of the Greek, suggesting that the believer is free from the duty to prevent the separation or to pursue the departing spouse, emphasizing the contextual call to peace rather than compulsory pursuit or retention.