Everett Leisure writes:

There is much truth in what you have both written, but there are also things that have been missed.

For instance the churches of God have never understood the primary definition of 'porneia' which the KJV translates fornication and NKJV translates 'sexual immorality'. Below is an excerpt from an article I wrote on this same subject that you address.

"Let's again focus on the Greek word 'porneia' and some similar words. It should be noted that 'porneuo' is a prostitute, as is 'porne'. A 'pornos' is a male prostitute. A 'porneion' is a house of prostitution, or brothel. 'Pornidion' are brothel-keepers. 'Ek-porneuo' means to go a whoring or prostitute yourself. 'Kataporneuo' means to make a prostitute. All these words probably derive from 'pernemi', which means to export for sale and usually applied to the "exporting of captives to foreign parts for sale as slaves" (Greek English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott). Greek prostitutes were commonly bought slaves.

Can a prostitute be what she/he is, a prostitute-house be what it is, a prostitute-keeper be what he is, and yet prostitution does not primarily mean the business that a prostitute does under the direction of a prostitute-keeper in a prostitute-house? Even so the primary meaning of 'porneia' must be prostitution. This is reflected in both the Liddell & Scott and Arndt and Gingrich lexicons."

Your articles also reflect the church of God teaching that the binding in 1 Cor 7:15 is allowing the release of a marriage. Actually it is denying that any mate has become a slave of the other. Again another quote...

"The confusion in 1 Cor 7:15 comes from a single phrase. Let’s look at two different translations of this phrase: 1). “in such a case the brother or sister is not bound” (RSV) 2). " the brother or the sister is not under servitude in such cases" (Young's Literal Translation)

The word translated 'bound' and 'servitude' here is the Greek word dedoulwtai a perfect tense verb form of doulow, which according to Thayer's Lexicon means, “to make a slave of, reduce to bondage”. According to the Liddell and Scott Lexicon the word means "to make a slave of, enslave". These two obviously agree closely and clearly support Young's translation (servitude) over the RSV.

The RSV translation has caused confusion. Some might take it to indicate something is unbound or released. This is not the case. Paul is talking of not enslaving or not binding. He is not talking of releasing or unbinding at all. Many translations translate dedoulwtai as 'bondage'. This is the case in 2 Peter 2:19. “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the slaves of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage” (2 Pe 2:19). Peter indicates here that a slave has been brought into bondage. This is historically what bondage is, slavery.

According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary Copyright 1981 by G. & C. Merriam Co., bondage primary definition is; "The tenure or service of a villain, serf, or slave". Unfortunately, so much time has passed since slavery was common that we forget the primary historical meaning of the word 'bondage'. However it is evident that is the definition the translators are intending because that agrees with the primary definition of the underlying Greek word doulow, to enslave.

Note the translation from the Emphasized Bible of J. B. Rotherham, it accurately preserves the correct Greek verb form in the English. "The brother or the sister hath not come into bondage, in such cases" (1Cor 7:15b). The unbeliever leaving does not put the believer into bondage or slavery, i.e. does not enslave. A modern translation would read; 'the brother or sister has not become enslaved in such cases'. Again Paul is not indicating that anything is being unbound, but that bondage or slavery is not being imposed."

The person writing this reply seems to be grabbing at straws and overlooking reality of the scriptures. I find it hard to understand where he's coming from. So I will just go over the scripture he uses in 1 Cor. 7.

I agree that the word “bondage” means “servant, and or slave” as shown in Strong’s Concordance. Let us take a closer look at the topic in question found in 1 Cor. 7:15. “If the unbeliever leaves let him depart”. In modern language: If an unbeliever leaves, don’t go against his will preventing his leaving. Why? Because “God has called believers to peace”. It stands to reason that if a believer, husband or wife, holds onto the unbeliever against his will there will not be harmony or peace. There definitely will be conflicts and contention that will cause a very un-peaceful situation for the whole family.

On the other hand, if the unbeliever is “PLEASED to dwell” (vs. 12-13) with the believer, then the believer and the unbeliever are both obligated to honor the vows (commitment, contract, and or covenant) of their marriage. The believer is cautioned not to leave the unbeliever because of his or her unbelief, but if the believer does leave for whatever cause, he or she is not free to marry another person as long as the unbeliever is “pleased to dwell” with the believing spouse.

Now back to verse 15: “A brother or sister (the believer) is not under bondage” if the unbeliever leaves. The question is: under “bondage” (slavery) to what? Are we to believe that Paul advocates that the believer is to be a “slave” to the unbeliever? No, of course not! God’s way is one of love and peace, not slavery. So if the unbeliever leaves, what is the believer no longer controlled (in-slaved) by? Is it not the contract of marriage? A marriage cannot be peaceful if one spouse dominates the other. Marriage is a union where God intended they become as one. But being human we need a set of rules that demands we abide by our commitment. The bible sets forth these rules, and we agree to them when we make a commitment to a spouse. These rules are what bonds the marriage (thus the bondage).

I am aware that many want the role of dominate master over their spouse and put them in the role of “slave” or “bondage” but that is not what Paul is supporting. The contract is the dominate force that exists as long as both parties agree to the rules. If one abandons the other, the bondage is broken.

The one that is left is then free of the commitment contract. So we see that the “bondage” is not en-slavery to another human, but to the contract or covenant of marriage. It is clear to me that these scriptures frees a believer who is abandoned or divorced by an unbeliever, one who is not "Pleased to dwell" is free from the marriage contract and the unbeliever, and free to remarry.

Because the WCG realized what a mess their D&R practice had caused they apparently were overly quick to latch on to anything that seemed to justify a more relaxed approach. Unfortunately in the process they jumped from one ditch to the other and missed God's real intent.

It's good to see people investigating the word of God and sharing it.

Malachi 4:4 -- Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I (Christ) commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.