Bound Loosed and Free to Marry

Read bound and loosed with the surrounding argument

First Corinthians 7:25 introduces the discussion of virgins, verse 26 names the present distress, and verses 27–28 address being bound or loosed and marrying without sin. Interpreters differ about whether the loosed person includes someone released through divorce or whether the immediate discussion primarily concerns people without an existing marriage, including betrothal situations.

The passage is important evidence, but the phrase thou hast not sinned cannot simply become a universal permission for every divorced person without explaining verses 10–11 and 39. Conversely, a restrictive interpretation needs to explain whom Paul describes as loosed and how his stated permission works. A conclusion should answer the difficult verses on both sides.

Include Romans 7 rather than passing over it

Romans 7:1–6 uses a marriage bond and release through death to explain the believer’s changed relationship to the law through Christ. Its main argument concerns law, death, and new service in the Spirit. The marital example nevertheless depends on the reality of a binding obligation and the wrong of an adulterous union. We should neither turn the illustration into an exhaustive treatment of every divorce case nor dismiss its moral content because it is an illustration.

First Corinthians 7:39 expressly gives a widow liberty to marry, only in the Lord. Death and release are therefore directly addressed. Whether other circumstances also bring release must be examined from Matthew’s exception and Paul’s abandonment passage. This is one reason covenant violation, formal divorce, and freedom to remarry need separate attention.

State the conclusion at the strength of the evidence

There are substantial biblical grounds for examining divorce beyond a discussion of adultery alone, especially the abandonment case in 1 Corinthians 7:15. That statement is more precise than claiming Scripture directly lists every modern form of abuse as an explicit divorce exception. The case concerning severe abuse draws together abandonment, marital obligations, the condemnation of oppression, and the responsibility to protect.

Christians who permit remarriage on certain grounds and Christians who hold a more restrictive view must both take the whole discussion seriously. The purpose of naming the disagreement is to identify where an argument must be made, not to imply that every interpretation is equally persuasive. A personal conclusion needs an honest account of the relevant marriage history and the passages being applied.

Who is being addressed

In 1 Corinthians 7:27–28, Paul addresses someone bound to a wife and someone loosed from a wife, then says that marrying is not sin. The surrounding section begins with virgins and the present distress. Interpreters differ over how the categories fit together and whether ‘loosed’ includes divorced people, the previously unmarried, or those released from a betrothal.

We shouldn’t turn verse 28 into an unrestricted declaration that every divorced person may remarry. As we saw in Lesson 9, a description of someone’s status and an instruction about marrying are distinct. Our reading needs to explain the audience, the surrounding argument, and the relationship to verses 8–15 and 39.

Bring all the passages together

Verse 39 explicitly permits a widow to marry, ‘only in the Lord.’ Romans 7 also uses the release brought by a spouse’s death, within an illustration about the believer’s relationship to the law. That illustration affirms marriage’s binding character, but it isn’t presented as a detailed discussion of every divorce exception.

Broadly, Christians hold several positions: remarriage only after a spouse’s death; remarriage after certain recognized grounds such as sexual immorality or desertion; and views that include severe abuse within abandonment or covenant repudiation. Each position has internal differences. These are distinct ways of bringing the passages together, rather than identical statements found in a single verse.

This study establishes that death explicitly releases the bond, that Matthew’s exception and Paul’s abandonment passage must be addressed, and that abuse as a ground requires a further interpretive argument. It doesn’t issue a personal ruling about a reader’s freedom to remarry. That discernment requires the relevant facts, careful study, and trustworthy counsel.

No one’s worth or place in the body of Christ should be reduced to a marital label. Careful moral discernment and compassionate belonging can exist together.