There is one more question that needs to be addressed from v.10-16 before moving on to the rest of the chapter. Paul says in v.15, “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.” We understand this to mean that a believer is not compelled to continue the marriage against his spouse’s wishes, but does this include the freedom to remarry? Some say so, pointing to v.39 where Paul says, “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” The specific terms that Paul uses are not the same, but he says in v.15 that the Christian who is unwillingly divorced is not a slave and the widow is unrestrained, i.e. not a slave and therefore is free to remarry. F. F. Bruce takes this view when he says, “No compulsion should be exerted on the unbelieving partner to remain or return, and presumably remarriage would not be completely excluded for the believer.” And John MacArthur states plainly that, “In God’s sight the bond between a husband and wife is dissolved only by death (Rom. 7:2), adultery (Matt. 19:9), and an unbeliever’s leaving. When the bond, or bondage, is broken in any of those ways, a Christian is free to remarry.”
Those who hold this view generally will point out that Paul does not say in v.15 what he said in v.11, “let her remain unmarried,” and therefore, it is implied that the abandoned believer has a right to remarry. However, we must note at least a couple of disputed points here. While there may be some relationship between the concepts of bondage and liberty in vv.15 & 39, the language Paul uses is not the same and therefore any link between them is not conclusive. So Bruce says that remarriage is “presumably” not completely excluded, and MacArthur says, “By implication, the permission given for widow or widower to remarry…can extend to the present case, where a believer is also no longer bound, not under bondage.” The terms “presumably” and “by implication” reveal that these conclusions are not based on the actual statements made by Paul, but on his silence with respect to remarriage in v.12-16. In other words, they are arguing that since Paul did not specifically prohibit remarriage after a believer is abandoned by his unbelieving spouse, he allows it.
But can this argument from silence bear the weight they are asking of it? I do not believe so. First of all, arguments from silence are never very strong. That does not mean that they have no value whatsoever, but an argument from silence, by itself, is not a very good one. If we are to take Paul’s silence concerning remarriage into account in v.15, should we not take his very clear statement prohibiting remarriage in v.11 into even greater account? After all, he plainly said there that a believing woman who is divorced from her (presumably) believing husband should remain unmarried or reconcile with her husband rather than marry anyone else. Why wouldn’t that also apply to the instance of a believer who is divorced by an unbelieving spouse? You can’t overcome the clear, plain statement in one place by simply appealing to Paul’s silence somewhere else.
Another objection to this view is that it begs the question of remarriage after divorce. For example, MacArthur says, “Throughout Scripture, whenever legitimate divorce occurs, remarriage is assumed.” This statement assumes that there is such a thing as “legitimate divorce,” an assumption that both Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels and Paul’s in v.10-11 would seem to deny. In fact, Paul’s statement in v.39 along with his discussion of marriage, divorce, and remarriage in Romans 7:1-3 denies that there is such a thing as “legitimate divorce” which would dissolve the marriage bond and leave one free to remarry. 1 Cor. 7:39 specifically states that it is death, rather than divorce, which frees a woman from the law of her husband, and Paul says in Romans 7 that remarriage while her husband remains alive constitutes adultery on the part of a divorced wife. These verses argue against seeing 1 Cor. 7:15 as anything like support for remarriage by an abandoned Christian spouse.
So what should we conclude regarding Paul’s position on remarriage by Christians who were abandoned by an unbelieving partner? The argument that Paul is allowing for remarriage is ambiguous at best, and mostly an argument from silence. It seems far more likely based on his clear statements in vv.11 & 39 and Romans 7:1-3 that Paul viewed remarriage as out of bounds for the divorced Christian, even when they are an innocent party, deserted by an unbelieving partner. When he says, “a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases,” he likely means only that they are not obligated to prevent the divorce, not that they are given freedom to remarry. This would be consistent with the totality of biblical revelation on the subject of marriage and divorce.