But concerning the things of which ye have written [to me] [It is] good for a man not to touch a woman;
Paul now turns to a set of questions the Corinthians had put to him in writing, and the first concerns marriage itself. His opening answer sounds at first like a warning against marriage. Is the single life the holier one?
One writer traces why marriage had become a question for them at all:
They had been taught, as a basic doctrine of the gospel, that God's judgment has set nature and its claims aside. They had also learnt, we may well suppose, that in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage. The believer is dead and risen with Christ, and shares in the heavenly calling. Was it his duty, then, to show his separation from the world in practice by refusing to enter a tie whose chief purposes include filling the earth?
The pressure came from two sides: the city's immorality, and the strict self-denial that answered it.
The loose living of the pagan world — especially the Greeks, and above all the Corinthians — produced a reaction towards asceticism. The apostle urges holiness, but not at the cost of liberty in Christ.
Some read the wording as though God preferred lifelong celibacy. Commentators reject that, and point to how Paul honours marriage elsewhere:
When Adam was made, the LORD said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." And so He built the woman out of the man. They were to be, and were, one flesh. The apostle was the last man to weaken the order of nature. He later wrote to the Hebrews, "Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled." He in no way contradicts that here.
Marriage is honourable. So the gain of staying single must lie elsewhere: in undivided freedom for the Lord.
They do well who stay outside this relationship to walk with the Lord according to the Spirit, and not to give way to their nature in anything. God instituted marriage — woe to anyone who speaks ill of it! But sin has come in, and all that belongs to nature, to the creature, is spoiled. God has brought in a power altogether above and outside nature — the power of the Spirit. To walk by that power is the best thing; it is to walk outside the sphere where sin operates. But it is rare.
What changed? Another writer points to the new creation:
Paul could not have written his first statement in verse 1 when creation began, for it would have been bad for Adam to refuse the wife God gave him. But in Christ, now raised from the dead, God has brought in the new creation.
Paul marks off his own counsel from the Lord's command. He grounds it in what God has given each person.
This is what the Holy Spirit led the large-hearted apostle to write, declaring that what he had laid down was not a command but a permission. His own wish for others was that all should be even as he himself was. But he does not overlook that each has as God gives him.
The same writer adds where the danger lies for those who can stay single:
The unmarried state has a higher excellence where there is power to be undivided for the Lord and His things. But it is not so with every saint. All cannot receive it — only those to whom it has been given. If anyone is able, let him receive it. But if he boasts, he is in danger of dishonouring the Lord more than those he despises.
This is the third step in a single line of teaching on holiness.
Having urged the saints to maintain holiness in the assembly (1 Corinthians 5) and personal holiness (1 Corinthians 6), the apostle now teaches us to maintain holiness in the natural relationships of life. Christianity in no way sets aside the order of nature. But it corrects the abuses by which fallen man has corrupted these relationships. Every man is free to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. This is in fact a proper way to avoid the temptation to unholiness.
One writer weighs the demand to go without marriage against plain immorality:
Asceticism is no more Christian than moral laxity, though it takes a fairer form. It is a pretentious assault on the Creator and Preserver of man by setting up a superior sanctity.
- Question. The verse is Paul's reply to a letter, not a decree. Corinth's immorality had produced a swing to the opposite extreme. Paul answers with holiness that does not cost liberty in Christ.
- Gift. The single life is "good" only where God has given the power for it. That power of the Spirit is above nature, and rare. Boasting in it dishonours the Lord.
- Honour. The same apostle upholds what God said over Adam and calls marriage honourable. The verse never demotes it.
- Permission. Verses 1 and 2 stand together. Staying single is counsel. Marrying is free, right, and a guard against temptation.
- Warning. Turn the counsel into a rule and it is no longer spirituality. Asceticism is no more Christian than moral looseness.
but on account of fornications, let each have his own wife, and each [woman] have her own husband.
Paul turns from correcting immorality in the church to the subject of marriage. His answer sounds oddly practical — marriage as a guard against sexual sin — so is that a low view of marriage, or a wise one?
The danger was sharpest in Corinth itself.
Nature as it is has its snares. And nowhere gave more reason to fear from its habits and associations than Corinth. Pagan religion in some cases made sexual sin sacred. Loose living was the commonest thing there at that time, and it is always a danger. Because of it, let each man have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. In a relationship where the two are no longer two but one, the fullest consideration on both sides is only fitting.
Paul's concern for holiness does not stop at the church door.
Having urged the saints to maintain holiness in the assembly (1 Cor. 5) and individual holiness (1 Cor. 6), the Apostle now instructs us to maintain holiness in the natural relationships of life. Christianity does not set aside the order of nature. It does correct the abuses by which fallen man may have corrupted these relationships. Every man is free to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. This is a legitimate way to avoid the temptation to unholiness.
People often fall not because they took what God gave, but because they refused it.
God had instituted marriage — woe to anyone who should speak ill of it! But sin has come in, and everything of nature, of the creature, is spoiled. God has brought in a power altogether above and outside nature — that of the Spirit. To walk according to that power is the best thing; it is to walk outside the sphere in which sin acts. But it is rare. And most actual sins come from standing apart from what God has ordained in nature.
Notice the wording of the verse: it is a grant, not an order.
So that sin might stop among God's children, let believers still walk as men do, at least in what God approved before sin began. Christian marriage is something allowed, and so it is blameless and honourable — rather than good in itself... Hence what was a command to the Israelite is only a permission to the Christian... Yet marriage is honourable in all. It is granted as a concession to our natural weakness. Even so, the Spirit reflects on it the light and beauty of the finished truth above. In a word, no Christian is advised to marry whose life of celibacy is not found to be a burden and a snare.
Some read Paul as grudging about marriage. The opposite is true.
When Adam was made, the LORD said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him a helper fit for him. And so He built the woman out of the man. They were to be, and were, one flesh. The apostle was the last man to weaken the order of nature. It was he who later wrote to the Hebrews, Let marriage be held in honour among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled. Here he in no way contradicts that or differs from it... He did hold that the unmarried state is better, where a person has power to be wholly for the Lord and His things. But it is not so with every believer. All cannot receive it — only those to whom it has been given. If anyone is able, let him receive it: if he boasts, he is in danger of dishonouring the Lord more than those he looks down on.
If loose living is one ditch, forced abstinence is the other.
Asceticism is no more Christian than loose living, though it takes a fairer form. It is a pretentious attack on the Creator and Preserver of man. It sets up a holiness of its own, and it ends in vileness against nature.
No one can copy another person's path without God's call and power for it.
It is one thing to say, "Follow Paul's example," and quite another thing to have the "proper gift" to do it. It is a fatal mistake for anyone to expect to walk in a path for which God has not given him a call or the spiritual power. In these days of ritualism and revived monasticism, remember this. Marriage is a holy and honourable institution. God established it in the Garden of Eden, and the Lord's presence in Cana of Galilee set His approval on it.
- Setting — Corinth made immorality part of its religion. Paul's answer meets a real danger, not a theory.
- Safeguard — Marriage is the legitimate way to keep holiness in ordinary life. Most sins come from standing apart from what God ordained in nature.
- Sanctioned — For the Christian, marriage is permission, not command. It is blameless and honourable, granted for our real weakness.
- Sacred still — Paul wrote that marriage is to be held in honour among all. He is the last man to weaken what God set up in Eden.
- Snare — Forbidding marriage is not higher holiness. It is an attack on the Creator. Each person must know the gift God has given him.
Let the husband render her due to the wife, and in like manner the wife to the husband.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
The wife has not authority over her own body, but the husband in like manner also the husband has not authority over his own body, but the wife.
Paul is answering the Corinthians' questions about marriage, and here his answer reaches its sharpest point: neither partner owns himself or herself alone. That raises two questions — what a married person gives up, and why Paul says it twice, of the wife and then of the husband.
The verse rests on something already settled: two people have become one. The claim on the body follows from that, and so does the end of any right to act alone.
Each owes the other consideration to the fullest degree, in a relationship where the two who were two are now one... If we are in the relationship, we are bound to be true to its claims. Being married cannot go together with independence from each other in anything that belongs to it.
Authority here is power over yourself. Marriage ends it from the moment the union is formed, and the loss concerns the body.
For this reason then, every man should have his own wife. Once the union is formed, he no longer has power over himself. As to the body, the husband belongs to his wife, and the wife to her husband.
Paul states the claim of the wife, then turns it round and states it of the husband. Neither keeps a private reserve.
Verses 3 to 5 insist that both wife and husband must show full consideration of each other, as the marriage bond requires. They are one flesh. Neither the husband alone nor the wife alone has power over his own or her own body, to bear fruit. They are united, and must not ignore this sacred relationship... What matters is proper consideration of each other, and that neither one defrauds the other of his or her proper rights in marriage.
Some treat going without marriage as the higher path. A verse that ties husband and wife to each other's bodies cuts that idea off at the root.
Christianity does not set aside the order of nature. It does correct the abuses by which fallen man may have corrupted these relationships. Every man is free to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, and this is a legitimate way to avoid the temptation to unholiness. So the false claim to higher spirituality, made by insisting on a life of self-denial, stands completely condemned.
The order Paul upholds goes back to creation. The same writer shows where the single life fits inside it.
When Adam was made, the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." And so He built the woman out of the man... The apostle was the last person to weaken the order of nature... He is in full agreement with his Master, who defended God's original institution from creation, though He also held that the unmarried state is better, where a person has the power to be wholly for the Lord and His things. But it is not so with every believer. All cannot receive it, only those to whom it has been given. If anyone is able, let him receive it. But if he boasts, he is in danger of dishonouring the Lord more than those he despises.
The verse says a husband and wife belong to each other. It does not say they belong only to each other. One writer speaks straight to a married couple.
You belong to each other now for as long as life lasts. You are to know the joy of holding each other as your own. But before you knew each other, you belonged to the Lord Jesus your Saviour, and you will not deny Him that joy. His claim must always stand first... He has given you to each other. Yet He has not surrendered His rights in you, and He cannot; they are the rights of your God and your Redeemer. Put His claim first and you will not lose your own happiness. You will sanctify it, make it last, and guard it from the selfishness we are all prone to, which can only spoil it.
- One flesh — the two are no longer two. The claim on the body rests on that union.
- One surrender — from the moment of union, a person no longer has power over himself. The husband's body belongs to his wife, and the wife's to her husband.
- One rule, both ways — Paul says it twice on purpose. Neither partner alone holds power over his or her own body, and neither may defraud the other of a proper right.
- One order honoured — Christianity does not set aside the order of nature. It condemns any claim to higher spirituality through self-denial, and boasting in the single life dishonours the Lord.
- One prior owner — the Lord gave you to each other, but He never surrendered His rights in you. Put His claim first, and it guards the marriage from selfishness.
Defraud not one another, unless, it may be, by consent for a time, that ye may devote yourselves to prayer, and again be together, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.
Paul has just said that in marriage each partner's body belongs to the other, and here he applies it. The verse has raised questions ever since: is abstinence holier than union, how long may a couple part, and why is Satan named here?
The instruction assumes a marriage that is actually being lived. One writer treats verses 3–5 as a model of plain spiritual wisdom, and reads them as a warning against the merely nominal marriage:
No one should mock God in any of His arrangements. If His children marry, let the marriage be real, and not in form and name only.
The reason no partner may simply decide alone is that the relationship rules out that kind of independence. Kelly draws it out from the ownership language of the previous verse:
The married estate is inconsistent with independence of each other in all that pertains to it… It is the sure mark of the enemy when grace is twisted into contempt for the least or lowest of God's arrangements. If we are in the relationship, we are bound to be true to its claims.
The exception is hedged on three sides: both must agree, it must be limited, and it must be for prayer. Each fence matters, and one commentator notes how easily the exception could be turned into the rule:
Married Christians may think it good to part for a while. They may want to seek God more earnestly in persevering and abundant prayer, and for some definite spiritual purpose. Then let it be only for a while. Keep such exceptions clearly distinct from the rule.
The positive side is that the pause exists to make room for something. It is not self-denial for its own sake, but for undistracted prayer:
He indicates that the natural desires associated with marriage are not to be lightly denied, except in connection with burdens and exercises where both need to be involved in prayer and fasting… Even necessary food is given up so that prayer may be made without distraction. This shows what a powerful activity prayer is when we seek to gain the resources available from God.
Commentators differ over whether "fasting" belongs in the verse at all. Some keep the older reading of "fasting and prayer"; others follow a text that reads only "that you may devote yourselves to prayer," listing this among phrases the oldest manuscripts do not support:
1 Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit, which are God's;" 1 Cor. 7:5, "fasting and;" 1 Cor. 10:28, "for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."
The command does not end with the parting. It ends with the return, and a long separation opens a door:
Let them come together again. Otherwise a long separation from the habits of married life could give the father of lies a chance to plant doubts in either of them about the holiness of what God ordains. In marriage, abstinence is not a virtue, but it can easily become a snare.
The clause about self-control is usually read as a warning about sexual failure. Darby reads it differently — the preposition points to a temptation aimed at a heart that has over-reached:
If, by mutual consent, they separated for a while so that they might give themselves to prayer and to spiritual exercises, the bond was to be acknowledged again at once, in case the heart, not governing itself, should give Satan occasion to come in and distress the soul, and destroy its confidence in God and in His love — in case he should tempt with distressing doubts (it is for, not by lack of self-control) a heart that aimed at too much, and failed.
He connects the same clause with the enemy's "flaming darts," and insists the pain involved is not pleasure but agony:
This is the force of the passage in Corinthians, in case Satan tempt you for your lack of self-control. The evil was there, the failure of self-control was assumed; the temptation was Satan's power over the soul, which was the result… There is no pleasure in despair. The flesh finds its pleasure in satisfying its desires, but there is no craving for despair — it is like a consuming fire in the soul.
The next verse guards this counsel from being made into law. The concession is not Paul apologising for writing without inspiration:
No compulsion was laid on the saints as to the advice given in verse 5; but he recommends this to them. He was inspired to speak in this way. The mistake lies in the sense of the Lord's permission to him to write, whereas he means that it was not compulsory on them, but left to their discretion before the Lord.
- Owed — what a husband and wife withhold is not their own; marriage leaves no room for acting alone in what belongs to both.
- Agreed — only mutual consent opens the door out, never one partner's private choice to be more spiritual.
- Timed — the pause is short and made for undistracted prayer; the exception must never become the rule.
- Reunited — coming back together is part of the command; a long separation lets doubts grow about the holiness of what God ordained.
- Guarded — abstinence in marriage is no virtue, and it can become a snare. Satan's target is a heart that aimed at more than it could hold.
But this I say, as consenting [to], not as commanding [it].
Paul is answering a letter from the Corinthians about marriage. He has just advised husbands and wives about parting for a time by agreement, and now he pauses to label that advice.
Commentators differ over what "this" points back to. One reading ties it to the advice of the verse just before:
The apostle means that he speaks here not as commanding but as conceding. He laid no compulsion on the saints about the advice given in verse 5; he recommends it to them. He was inspired to speak this way. The advice was not compulsory on them; it was for their discretion before the Lord.
Others reach further back, to his direction in verse 2 that each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband:
He had said that every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. Now he is careful to explain that he is not giving a command. He speaks as consenting to the married state. His own wish is that all should be as he himself, free from these relationships. But he recognises that it is not given of God for all to remain unmarried, and where it is not given it is "better to marry."
Older translations read "by permission." That wording can mislead. It sounds as if God permitted Paul to write this, as if part of the letter carried less authority than the rest:
"Concession" may be less open to misunderstanding than "permission," which could suggest permission on the Lord's part.
The concession runs toward the Corinthians, not toward Paul.
A command settles a question for every believer. Counsel leaves the choice open:
These words seem to relate mainly to the verse just before. They are of great interest, because they show the difference between an apostle's counsel and an apostle's command. The latter should bind every Christian conscience. The former binds no one, though the godly will not lightly disregard it. The counsel of an inspired apostle can never be wrong, but it may not apply in every case. When he speaks about what is best in practical Christian life, he holds a position of the highest authority as a spiritual guide. But his voice there is not the commandment of the Lord.
Freedom from obligation is not an invitation to shrug the advice off. Consider who is giving it:
As we read it, let us remember who is speaking. Here is a man willing to give up what is lawful for himself, so that he may do what is most fitting and please the Lord with joy. It would hardly seem wise to belittle the advice of such a man. Could we ourselves give better?
Does a concession mean this part of the letter is less than inspired? Not at all:
All through, the apostle insists on the difference between advice and the command of God. Advice is what one Christian may give another, and he was more able than anyone to give it. God inspired all of this, of course — the advice as well as the command... The advice was inspired, but it was advice. Inspiration did not change its character in that respect. It does not lower our thought of inspiration to see it as just advice, which is what he himself calls it.
The gaps here are deliberate. Where the Lord gives no command, He is growing something in the believer:
In the New Testament we have, thank God, many plain commandments of the Lord. They cover all the major matters of life and service. But there are many smaller matters where the Lord has given no definite instructions... These omissions are not by oversight but on purpose. The Lord plainly means to leave many things to the prayerful exercise of His saints. They must search the Scriptures to find what pleases Him... This is so that they may grow spiritually and have "their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil."
- Concession — Paul concedes what he has just said to the Corinthians. He does not impose it. The matter rests with their own discretion before the Lord.
- Not permission for Paul — the older wording "by permission" sounds as if God allowed him to write it. The concession runs toward his readers, not toward him.
- Counsel, not command — a command binds every Christian conscience. Counsel binds no one. Yet inspired counsel is never wrong — it just may not fit every case.
- Inspired all the same — God inspired the advice, and it stayed advice. Inspiration does not turn every sentence into a commandment.
- Left open on purpose — where the Lord gives no direct instruction, He trains His people to search the Scriptures and discern what pleases Him.
Now I wish all men to be even as myself but every one has his own gift of God one man thus, and another thus.
Paul has been giving the Corinthians advice about marriage, and now he turns to himself: he was unmarried, and he wished everyone were. Then he limits his own wish: God gives each believer his own gift.
Paul says what he wants here; he does not demand it. One writer marks the difference between advice and a command.
This permission, and this advice that Christians should marry, was not a commandment from the Lord given by inspiration. It was the fruit of the apostle's experience — and the Holy Spirit was not absent from that experience. He would rather that everyone were like himself. But in this matter each person had his own gift from God.
So where did the wish come from? One writer points back to Paul's conversion.
This wish did not come from any natural dislike of married life... A man of his temperament and sensitivity would have warmly enjoyed the joys of home. But great grace was upon him. His miraculous conversion was also his special consecration to the work of God. His liberty was left to him, but he loved his bonds. He knew by experience both the joys and the afflictions of the "better part" — undivided service to the Lord. So he wished that his brothers might be like himself, completely free from all earthly ties.
The second half of the verse stops anyone from making Paul's life the pattern for everyone. Wanting to copy him is not the same as being fitted for it.
1 Corinthians 7:32-34 teaches that the unmarried are the most free from care. Verse 7 teaches just as clearly that "every man has his own proper gift of God." Each one must know for himself what his proper gift is. It is one thing to say, "Follow Paul's example," and quite another thing to have the "proper gift" to do it. It is a fatal mistake to expect to walk in a path where God has given you no call and no spiritual power.
Paul himself set that limit first.
We will never find an inspired apostle, or any other truly spiritual man, trying to make himself the final standard others must match. Paul gloried in his own practice, and he was so sure he shared Christ's mind that he could freely wish others to copy his ways. But he remembers God. His own wishes are not God's appointment. And by admitting that "every one has his proper gift of God," he limits his own holy desire.
"One of one kind and one of another" means the gifts really do differ, and neither path is disobedience. But the two are not on the same footing.
A spiritual energy lifts the person who receives it above ordinary conditions. But God's institution, here marriage, stays just as it is... Marriage is the rule as God laid it down. But as an exception, the Holy Spirit does lift up this one or that, for good reason, above the need of marriage. It was a question of God's gift; so that he who marries does well, and he does better who does not marry. The opposite of this holy wisdom shows up in the world-church, which turns the exception of grace into a church rule that corrupts.
If the gift decides the path, no one should force the single life — on himself or on anyone else.
His own desire was that all men (believers, of course) were like himself, unmarried. If God had not Himself fitted a man for this, it would be a mistake for him to refuse to marry a wife God had brought to him. Paul's viewpoint certainly was a blessed one. But it is not the normal, usual path. We may admire it as much as we like; admiration is not itself the power to follow it... "Forbidding to marry," he assures us elsewhere, is diabolical teaching (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
- Wish — Paul gives a preference, not a rule. Writers call it the fruit of his experience, not a command from the Lord.
- Gift — Paul's single life was a gift, not an achievement. Each believer has his own gift from God.
- Yours — The gift is personal. Each believer must find out which one is his, instead of copying someone he admires.
- Rule — Marriage is God's normal arrangement. The single life is the exception His Spirit raises up. Turning that exception into a church rule corrupts.
- Danger — Taking a path God has not fitted you for is a fatal mistake. Forcing that path on others is false teaching.
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, It is good for them that they remain even as I.
Paul has just said he wishes all were as he was, while granting that each person has his own gift from God. Now he speaks to those who are not married and to widows. He tells them that staying single is good. But he never makes it a rule.
Paul draws a careful line here. What he says next is not a command but a permission. And it comes with a built-in exception.
The Holy Spirit led the apostle to write this, declaring that it was not a commandment but a permission. His own wish for others was that all should be as he was himself. But he does not forget that each person has what God gives him. So to the unmarried and to widows he says it is good for them to remain as he is. Yet even that is not absolute. It holds only if they can do so without fear of sinning in this matter.
Paul points to himself: "as I am." He never married. That was not because he disliked family life. And he never made his own path the standard for others.
This wish did not come from any dislike of married life. … Family joys would have meant much to a man of his temperament and feeling. But great grace was on him. His miraculous conversion was also his special setting apart for the work of God. … But we shall never find an inspired apostle making himself a final standard for others to copy. No truly spiritual man does that. … But he remembers God. His own wishes are not God's appointment. And by admitting that "every one has his proper gift of God," he limits his own holy desire. He also records his protest, in advance, against the folly and great wickedness of those who would later use human authority to enforce celibacy.
Admiring a path is not the same as having the gift for it. Staying single is "good" when God gives that gift. Without it, the same choice is a mistake.
It is one thing to say, "Follow Paul's example," and quite another thing to have the "proper gift" to do it. God must give both the call and the spiritual power. Without them, it is a fatal mistake for anyone to expect to walk in such a path. Remember, in these days of ritual and revived monastic life, that marriage is holy and honourable. God established it in the Garden of Eden. He approved it by His presence at Cana in Galilee. In Hebrews 13:4 His Spirit declares it honourable in all.
God does not give that gift to everyone, and Paul does not leave those people stuck. When the desire for marriage is strong, marrying is the better course. Forbidding marriage is another matter entirely.
We can fully agree that it is good to remain unmarried; yet even Paul himself advises that if the natural instinct and desire for marriage were strong within one, it is better to marry. "Forbidding to marry," he assures us elsewhere, is diabolical teaching (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
Fewer ties mean fewer claims on a person's time. And the Christian's calling now is not comfort but following Christ.
A man must be his own judge in this matter. … Can he live single with a contented heart? By all means let him do so. God's present calling is not to vineyards and olive groves, or to happiness or wealth here. It is to suffer for a while with Christ, and then to reign with Him. The fewer natural claims a Christian has on his time and energy, the freer he is to follow, with a single eye, the Master he has the privilege of serving. But let him know his proper gift, and aim no higher than God gives him strength to reach.
Paul names widows alongside the unmarried, and later in the chapter he returns to them. He calls staying free the happier path. But he never turns it into a ban.
Not only the widower but the widow becomes free to marry again. But the apostle gives his judgment against it. Not on moral grounds — only superstition could raise a question there. He says it because staying free is the happier state. Even here we find none of the language that came later, when people praised celibacy as the highest of Christian virtues and condemned re-marriage as unchristian. Instead, even for the widow, the apostle adds one condition to her marrying again: "only in the Lord." That phrase means more than that both are Christians. It demands that she marry in a Christian way.
- Permission — Paul gives this as a permission, not a command, and he adds an escape clause at once.
- Gift — the single life is a gift, "one this way, and another that." Willpower alone cannot take it up.
- Freedom — its value is fewer claims on time and energy, leaving a person freer to follow Christ with a single eye.
- Guard — nobody can impose a gift. One writer calls the forbidding of marriage "diabolical teaching."
- Choice — each person must judge for himself. Marriage is honourable; staying single is good. God leaves both paths open.
But if they have not control over themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
Paul has just told the unmarried and widows that staying single is good. Here he adds an exception, and with it come the questions the whole chapter turns on: is singleness a higher grade of holiness, is marriage a concession to weakness, and who decides?
Paul weighs his own words carefully here. He is not laying down a law.
This is how the Holy Spirit led the large-hearted apostle to write. He made clear that what he had laid down was not a commandment, but a permission. His own wish for others was that all should be even as himself. But he does not forget that each person has what God gives him. So to the unmarried and to widows he says it is good for them to stay as he is. Even then it is not without limits. It holds only where they can stay single without fear of sinning in this matter.
So Paul gives permission here, not a command. And the permission has an exception built into it.
Paul is not comparing good with bad. He compares two conditions, and one harms the soul more.
To the unmarried and the widows he says it is good to stay as he himself is. But if they could not control their nature and stay in calm purity, it was better to marry. Unsubdued desire was more hurtful than the bond of marriage.
Behind that comparison stands God's knowledge of how weak we are.
Faith recognises a plain, strict truth, and faith may and should aim to reach it in practice. Yet God's grace is designed to meet the weakness of the flesh as well as to satisfy the desires of the Spirit. He who has called us into fellowship with His Son still thinks of what we are made of, and remembers that we are dust. He gives no support to sin. But He makes honourable provision for those who find the single life a burden too heavy and too dangerous to carry.
No one else can measure another person's strength. This verse leaves the choice, and its consequences, to the person himself.
Restless desire is a disease that harms the soul... A man must be his own judge in this matter. Marriage is honourable if he chooses it; but his choice will bring its consequences. Can he live single with a contented heart? Then by all means let him do so... But let him know his proper gift, and aim no higher than God gives him strength to reach.
Paul wished that everyone were single as he was.
That could never happen for everyone, since each person had his own gift from God. If God had not Himself fitted a man for this, it would be a mistake for him to refuse to marry a wife God had brought to him. Paul's viewpoint was a blessed one, but it is not the normal path. We may admire it, but admiration is not the power to follow it.
This verse allows an exception, and people have often read it backwards. They treat the single life as the standard and marriage as a fall from it. Commentators show what happens when a church turns that exception into a rule.
There is a spiritual energy that lifts the person who receives it above ordinary conditions. But God's institution — here, marriage — stays exactly the same. Paul was a witness of the first, and he still upholds the second. God laid marriage down as the rule. But the Holy Spirit can and does raise one person or another above the need of marriage, in rare cases and for good reason. It was a question of God's gift... The opposite of this holy wisdom shows up in the church that has joined itself to the world. It turns the exception of grace into a church rule, and so into corruption.
Grant adds that Paul condemns any rule that bans marriage: "Forbidding people to marry, he tells us elsewhere, is teaching that comes from the devil (1 Timothy 4:1-3)."
Paul commends the single life, yet he leaves the conscience of the one who marries clear.
The married should not look for a way out of marriage, any more than the single should look to be bound. And again, he would keep the conscience free for those who might marry. Neither man nor woman sins by marrying, however unwise Christian judgment may find it. Married people cannot escape trouble in the flesh, and the apostle wanted to spare them this.
- Gift — The single life is not an achievement to copy. It is a gift, and not everyone has it.
- Self-knowledge — Since it is a gift, each person judges his own case, and aims no higher than the strength God supplies.
- Danger — Restless desire harms the soul more than marriage ever burdens it. That is why marriage is the better course here.
- Provision — Grace does not shame the weakness. God remembers what we are made of, and He provides for us with honour in marriage.
- Guardrail — A gift is not a law, so no one may turn the exception into a rule. Paul condemns any ban on marriage, and marrying is no sin.
But to the married I enjoin, not *I*, but the Lord, Let not wife be separated from husband;
Paul has been giving advice about marriage and singleness. Now his tone changes: he stops advising and passes on a ruling that is not his own, and the question is why.
Some read the phrase as if Paul were marking parts of his letter as less than inspired. One writer replies that the point is who had already spoken on this subject, not how strong Paul's authority was.
People bring verse 10 forward too, and misunderstand it just as much: "To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband." The rationalist would make this a distinction between what is inspired and what is not. But the apostle is pointing to something else. The Lord had settled this question Himself, in person. So it was not left to His servant now: see Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:12. Verse 12 makes this clear: "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)." The Lord had not ruled on the case now in question, as the Gospels show.
Where the Lord has spoken directly, discussion is over.
The apostles spoke with an authority the Lord had given them, and those who were loyal to the truth and to God listened to them (1 John 4:6). But when the Lord Himself speaks, everyone who hears must heed His word and obey, for He is supreme over all. A "Thus says the Lord" is enough for those who are redeemed by His precious blood. Neither questions nor hesitation should have any place in any matter on which the Lord has spoken.
Earlier in the chapter Paul weighs, recommends, and leaves room. Here he does none of that.
This permission, and this advice that Christians should marry, was not a commandment from the Lord given by inspiration. It was the fruit of the apostle's experience — and the Holy Spirit was not absent from that experience... But on marriage itself there was no longer room for the counsel of experience. The Lord's commandment was definite. The woman was not to separate from the man, nor the man from the woman. If they did separate, the bond was not broken. They had to remain unmarried or else be reconciled.
The careful line Paul draws between his own judgment and the Lord's charge has been used to argue that parts of the Bible are merely human opinion. One writer answers with a distinction of his own.
This takes nothing away from the truth that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. But it does show that not all Scripture is revelation. Here God inspired Paul to answer the questions of the Corinthians with his own spiritual judgment. And as we read it, let us remember the man who wrote it. He was willing to give up what was lawful for himself, so that he might do what is most fitting and please the Lord with joy. It would hardly seem wise to belittle the advice of such a man. Could we ourselves give better?
The rule was not new. It rests on the nature of the bond itself.
This was no new direction from apostolic authority. It was the ruling of the Lord Himself, already known: the general duty of husband and wife, resting on a tie that cannot be dissolved. The wife was not to leave her husband, nor the husband to send his wife away. If they were parted, she was to stay unmarried, or be reconciled. Even if she were without fault, separation is a disgrace and might be a trap.
A wife might treat her higher calling as a release from her marriage. It is not.
What is helpful is recommended; what is right must be enforced. Whether they knew it at the time of their engagement or not, God was in the ordinance that bound husband and wife together. So let no false view of her higher calling tempt a Christian woman to abandon her husband. Still less may she do so on any lower ground... To dissolve such a tie, except by the express permission of Him who first formed it, is to despise the Lord. By His recorded sentence, a marriage once made is annulled only by the sin that by its nature breaks it.
- Voice — Paul steps aside because the Lord had already ruled on marriage in person. He passes on a verdict; he does not issue one.
- Weight — where the Lord has spoken, counsel ends. Advice can be weighed; a command from Him leaves no room for hesitation.
- Ground — the rule rests on the tie itself, which no human decision can break. Separation is a disgrace even for the innocent partner, and a trap.
- Excuse — a new faith is not a release from an old marriage. Treating a "higher calling" as grounds for leaving despises the One who formed the bond.
- Recovery — after separation, only two doors stay open: stay unmarried, or be reconciled.
(but if also she shall have been separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband;) and let not husband leave wife.
Paul turns from his own advice as an apostle to a ruling that comes straight from the Lord. This verse handles the hard case: a wife who has already left. Two doors stay open to her — remain single, or be reconciled — and the husband must not send his wife away at all.
In verse 10 Paul says the command is "not I, but the Lord." One writer shows what that change of speaker means for the reader.
Paul was an inspired apostle. The Holy Spirit inspired him to write the whole of 1 Corinthians. Yet in chapter 7 he marks off what came from himself as an apostle of Christ from what the Lord gave him directly. In verse 12 he says, "I, not the Lord"; but in verse 10 the charge is "not I, but the Lord." … The apostles spoke with an authority the Lord had given them, and those loyal to the truth and to God listened to them. But when the Lord Himself speaks, all who hear must heed His word and obey, for He is supreme over all. Neither questions nor hesitation should have any place in any matter upon which the Lord has spoken.
The Lord's command here is definite, and it rests on what separation cannot undo.
But on marriage itself there was no longer room for advice drawn from experience. The Lord's command was definite. The woman was not to separate from the man, nor the man from the woman. And if they did separate, that did not break the bond. They must stay unmarried or else be reconciled.
Staying unmarried is not a punishment for a guilty party. It applies even when the wife has done nothing wrong.
This was not a new direction from apostolic authority. It was the ruling of the Lord Himself, already known: the general duty of husband and wife, resting on the fact that the tie cannot be dissolved. The wife was not to part from her husband, nor the husband to send his wife away. If she did part from him, she was to stay unmarried, or be reconciled. For even if she were not at fault, separation brings disgrace and could become a trap.
The word "reconciled" reaches further than mending hurt feelings.
Reconciliation is, in plain language, making everything straight… From there it passes into its more ordinary sense: smoothing things out between two people who have become estranged, and bringing back one who is estranged or hostile… It brings back to unity, peace, and fellowship what was divided and estranged… Compare 1 Corinthians 7:11, "be reconciled to her husband." This is not only her mind returning to affection and good feeling. It is matters made straight between them — the relationship made good.
The open door has a practical side: what if he wants to come back?
If the husband wishes to come back, the wife should receive him. 1 Corinthians 7:13 shows this: "If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him." If he wishes to come back, that amounts to consenting to live with her. And a command not to leave him amounts to a command to receive him. At least, so we judge. It may be the Lord is about to bring the husband to Himself. If so, it would be very sad if a Christian wife should prove a stumbling-block by failing in grace.
Two things change the picture: unfaithfulness, or a husband who marries someone else.
The Lord plainly tells the wife not to leave her husband. Of course, if he were unfaithful to her, that would be a different matter. But if a wife did leave her husband, she is told to stay unmarried, or to be reconciled to him. And if her husband had married again in the meantime, that would change everything. She could then never rightly be reunited to him, even if his second wife died (Deut. 24:3,4).
Commentators differ on the exceptions. One treats unfaithfulness as a different matter. Others stress that separation itself never breaks the bond.
- Authority. The rule here is not Paul's own judgment but the Lord's command. Where the Lord has spoken, questioning has no place.
- Bond. Separation settles nothing: the two may live apart, yet the tie God formed still stands.
- Limits. Because the bond stands, only two paths remain: stay unmarried, or be reconciled. This holds even for a wife who is not at fault.
- Meaning. Being reconciled is more than softer feelings. It means matters made straight and the relationship made good.
- Action. When the other partner wants to return, use the open door. Receiving him back may be part of how the Lord brings him to Himself.
But as to the rest, *I* say, not the Lord, If any brother have an unbelieving wife, and *she* consent to dwell with him, let him not leave her.
Paul has just given the Lord's own word to married believers. Now he turns to a case the Lord never addressed in person: a marriage where only one partner has come to faith. Must a new Christian leave a spouse who has not believed?
The words look like a drop in authority. Instead they mark which case Paul is handling.
In verse 10 the apostle points out that the Lord Himself had already settled the question of husband and wife separating; so it was not left to His servant. Verse 12 makes this very clear: "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)." For the Lord had not ruled on the case now in question, as the Gospels show. So the apostle, in the Holy Spirit, settles it here by the authority given to him. But it must have been, and was, from the Lord, though not the Lord deciding in person.
Some use the phrase to argue that Paul is only giving a human opinion here. It proves the opposite.
In verse 12, "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)," is very precious... Scripture meets everything here. It overturns the whole system of those who deny inspiration, because it draws a careful line between Paul's best thoughts and the Lord's commands. On this subject Paul will not give us a command, and he is inspired to tell us so.
"The rest" are couples split down the middle by the gospel. This cut against everything an Old Testament reader expected.
Here it was the serious question of mixed marriages. The couple were already married, and the gospel had won one of them to Christ but not the other. In this, the grace of Christianity stands in striking contrast to the strictness of Judaism. One of the ways Israel remained a holy people was by refusing to intermarry with the nations. Those who did intermarry, or took foreign wives, were polluted, and their children were unclean. When they felt and judged the sin, they proved it by offering a ram for the trespass and by putting wife and children away.
The verse rules on a marriage that already exists.
This does not for a moment consider the case of a believer marrying an unbeliever. That is clearly contrary to the mind of the Lord. Here it is the case of mixed marriages, where one of the two was converted after the marriage... So far from separating from the unbeliever, the brother or sister is to stay in the relationship at all cost, counting on God for the salvation of the unbeliever. That means submitting to what the Lord has allowed, and walking in line with His will.
Everything turns on whether the unconverted partner is content to stay.
Was the man who had received the Lord, while his wife remained in unbelief, to put her away? His first impulse might be to do so... But such a conclusion could only come from a mistaken view of his calling. Gospel truth forces no outward change... By the power of the Spirit, truth works on the heart and conscience. Its fruits prove that its mission is not to regulate the social life of this world, but to call people out of it to heaven. If, then, the woman who refused her heart to Christ still clung in natural affection to her husband, let him not put her away. Even less should he use this God-given difference to claim release from a yoke he may not want. He must consider her wishes, not his own.
This instruction answers a real fear: that loyalty to God means breaking up the home.
If the believer were the wife, her unbelieving husband might suspect her and block her at every turn. He would watch to keep the children from Christian truth and every Christian privilege. He would show contempt for what his wife valued. Most of all he resented her calm confidence of faith, which counted idols as nothing and confessed the Lord Jesus before others. But the apostle's direction here instructs and strengthens her. If her husband consented to live with her, despite that confession, she was not called to leave him or put him away... What a relief this must have been to godly but anxious souls! God had brought them to Himself by the gospel after they had married Gentiles or Jews, and their children had been raised in Judaism or idolatry.
- Ruling — The Lord settled marriage between two believers Himself. This case He did not. So Paul settles it by the authority given him, and says which is which.
- Grace — Under the law, a mixed marriage meant putting away wife and children as unclean. The gospel reverses that direction entirely.
- Stay — The verse governs a marriage already formed. It gives no cover for marrying an unbeliever, and none for walking out on one.
- Consent — The unbelieving partner's willingness to stay decides the matter. No one may treat his own conversion as grounds for release.
- Relief — What looks like a hard command is comfort: the anxious convert is told to stay, not to tear the home apart.
And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to dwell with her, let her not leave [her] husband.
A woman comes to faith after she is married, but her husband does not. Should she stay with him, and what does her faith mean for him and for their children?
Paul opens this section by saying that he speaks, not the Lord. One writer weighs what that difference means:
In verse 12, "To the rest speak I, not the Lord," is very precious... Now I find the apostle making a difference here, which is instructive... On this subject Paul will not give us a command, and he is inspired to tell us that.
This verse speaks to a woman already married when she came to faith.
This does not for a moment have in view a believer marrying an unbeliever. That is clearly contrary to the mind of the Lord (2 Cor. 6:14). Here the case is mixed marriages, where one partner came to faith after the marriage. In this case the believer is not defiled by union with the unbeliever.
Israel's rule pointed the other way, and this verse overturns it.
Here the serious question was mixed marriages, where the gospel had won one married partner to Christ and not the other. Here the grace of Christianity stands in sharp contrast with the strictness of Judaism... Israel stayed a holy people partly by refusing to marry the surrounding nations. Those who intermarried, or took foreign wives, were polluted, and their children were unclean.
The same rule runs the other way, where the husband believes and the wife does not. The unbeliever's wish settles it, and faith is no excuse to escape an unwanted marriage.
If, then, the woman who refused her heart to Christ still clung in natural affection to her husband, let him not put her away. Still less should he use this difference God has made to claim freedom from a tie he may not want. Her pleasure, and not his, must be consulted.
Her faith changes where her husband and children stand, though it leaves his character untouched.
The faith of the one sets the other apart in a very real way, for he is a member of a household where Christ is recognised as Lord. He is set apart despite himself, and however ungodly his character may be. And the children are "holy" — a stronger word than sanctified. It is of course the position they are privileged to hold because of the faith of one parent.
Commentators are careful about what this holiness does not mean:
Here the sanctification and the holiness do not mean a spiritual condition that puts them in relationship with God. Through the believer the relationship is clean and God acknowledges it, so the believer can continue in it.
One writer pictures what such a wife faced day to day.
If the believer were the wife, she might be suspected and thwarted at every turn by her unbelieving husband. He would watch that the children were kept from Christian truth and privileges of every kind. He would show his contempt for what his wife valued... If her husband consented to live with her, despite that confession, she was not called to leave or put away her unbelieving husband.
Such a husband is rarely reached by words.
The unbeliever as such slights the word and has no conception of its power... But his conscience can value gentleness, humility, patience and obedience in another very highly, above all when that other is his wife. He knows well how unreasonable and unkind he has often been to her. Yet she has borne it. She never complained and never blamed him, but stayed as loving and dutiful as ever. He is forced to feel that there must be something in her faith that makes the difference — the faith he often mocked.
One writer applies the verse to a marriage that has already broken up:
If he wishes to come back, it is the same as his "consenting to live with her," and if she is told she "should not divorce him," that amounts to being told to receive him... It may be that the Lord is about to bring the husband to Himself. If so, it would be very sad if a Christian wife should prove a stumbling block by failing in grace.
- Advice, not command. Paul gives this as his own judgment, not a command from the Lord. God inspired him to make that difference clear.
- Grace, not strictness. The older rule sent away a foreign spouse and counted the children unclean. This verse tells the believing wife to stay.
- Consent, not compulsion. She stays only as long as he is willing. His wish, not hers, settles the question.
- Sanctified, not saved. Her faith sets him apart as part of a household where Christ is Lord. The children gain a holy position — a standing, not a conversion.
- Won, not preached at. Gentleness, patience and steady love at home may reach the husband her words could not.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother; since [otherwise] indeed your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
Paul writes to couples whose marriage began before one partner came to faith. His ruling reverses the old rule: the unbeliever does not defile the believer. Two words carry the weight — "made holy" (older translations: "sanctified") and "holy." How much do they promise for a spouse and children who have not believed?
Under Israel's law a mixed marriage worked one way only. Under grace it works the other way:
It is in contrast with the Jews. If a Jew had married a Gentile wife, he had to send her away, and her children too, or he profaned himself. If the Jew was to be holy, they all had to go. The Christian system is gracious, so the opposite happens. The unbeliever does not profane the Christian; the Christian sanctified him or her, and the children too. They are "sanctified" in the exact opposite sense to the way a Jew was profaned.
Paul keeps the vocabulary of clean and unclean, but uses it to bless what the law would have broken up.
God's grace in the gospel reverses the sentence of the law, making pure what had until then been unclean. Otherwise it might have seemed the duty of the believing husband to put away his unbelieving wife and their children, since mixing with Gentiles was hateful to the law.
The word does not describe the unbeliever's character. One writer had seen the opposite happen:
In 1 Corinthians 7:14 the word covers the unbelieving husband with the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife with the believing husband. The verse says the converted one sanctifies the unconverted. I have known cases where the unconverted husband grew far worse. He persecuted his wife and shut her out of the house. He behaved much worse than he did before his wife came to faith. The passage does not mean the unbeliever becomes morally pure. It means husband and wife may live together, unlike under the law.
So the word is about position, not character. The unbeliever belongs to a home where Christ is Lord:
The faith of the one sets the other apart in a very real way, because he is a member of a household where Christ is recognised as Lord. He is set apart despite himself, however ungodly his character may be.
That position is worth something, even though it saves no one by itself:
This holiness is only external, and it carries no saving power. It surely does not save, because salvation is always tied to personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even so, it still gives the priceless privilege of being in the place of blessing, the sphere where the Holy Spirit dwells and acts.
With the children, the point is their standing, not their conversion:
It is now not a question of the practical state of the children themselves — whether they are saved or not saved. The passage simply says that their relationship with the believing parent sanctified the children, so no one need send them away. But some would build a monstrous error on such a passage: that the children of Christian parents are saved as such, without the life-giving grace of the Holy Spirit. That idea is too gross to deserve a moment's thought.
The verse settles a situation already in place; it does not open a door.
The passage does not consider for a moment a believer marrying an unbeliever. That is clearly against the Lord's mind. Here it is a case of mixed marriages, where one partner came to faith after the wedding… The sanctification and the holiness do not mean a spiritual condition that puts them in relationship with God. They mean that through the believer the relationship is clean and owned by God, so the believer can continue in it.
Writers do not agree on how this verse touches the baptism of children. One links the child's place to baptism:
The child has an acknowledged place as "holy" or "clean." Paul uses this to show that the marriage stands, since if the children were unclean, the marriage itself would be. Baptism gives this acknowledged place, a place in the kingdom of God, which runs through the ages in different forms.
Another replies that the verse itself says nothing about baptism:
The apostle means a sanctified, or holy, state, actually and always true of the husband and children of a believing wife… Not a hint is dropped in this verse of being converted or brought to baptism.
- Reversed. Under law the unclean partner defiled the believer. Under grace the believer's faith sets the partner apart.
- Set apart, not saved. "Sanctified" here does not mean pure or converted. An unbelieving spouse may grow harder, not softer.
- Place, not state. One believer's faith gives the household standing: a place near where the Holy Spirit works.
- So keep the family. Children of such a marriage are "holy," not unclean, so they stay. Yet no child is saved by having a believing parent.
- Stay put. The ruling covers a marriage already formed, never a believer's choice to enter one. The believer stays in a bond God owns as clean.
But if the unbeliever go away, let them go away; a brother or a sister is not bound in such [cases], but God has called us in peace.
Paul has been dealing with marriages where one partner believes and the other does not. Here he takes the case where the unbeliever walks out, and two questions follow: how far does the release go, and who may act on it?
Under grace, the believer never starts the separation. Everything turns on whether the unbeliever leaves for good. (Where the ESV reads "let it be so," the older wording quoted below is "let him depart.")
So the believer was not to send away his wife, and was not to leave an unbelieving husband. If the unbeliever left the believer for good, then the believer — man or woman — was free: "let him depart." The brother no longer had to treat the woman who had left him as his wife, nor the sister the man who had left her as her husband. But they were called to peace, and not to seek this separation. How could the believer know whether he might be the means of the unbeliever's conversion? For we are under grace.
Grace works the other way round from the law. The move must come from the other side, and the believer's part is to let go without a fight.
Under the law, when Israelites had married foreign wives, they were required to send those wives away; but grace is very different. It will not hold the unbeliever against his will. If he wants to go, the believer is told to "let him depart." When the unbeliever makes the first move, the believer is not under bondage in such cases. How much wiser to leave the matter with God, and not argue.
So what does that freedom cover? Much depends on who broke the tie.
So if the unbelieving partner cuts himself off from the other, the believer is released from bondage — whether it is the brother or the sister in the case. That act on the unbeliever's side does not give the abandoned believer permission to marry. It does leave the believer freer to serve the Lord, now that the other has gone. Such a marriage is likely to bring strife anyway, since the natural man hates the life of the Spirit. And none of this would justify the believer breaking the marriage tie: the case assumes that the unbeliever has broken it himself, or herself.
Release from the tie is not the same as divorce.
He or she no longer has to treat the relationship as still existing. Yet the apostle does not mean anything like divorce by this, or anything that would set the deserted one completely free. The Lord Himself has settled it in the clearest possible way in the Gospels: there is only one ground for divorce. We have no right to take the apostle's words here as declaring another ground, though many now do.
On whether the deserted believer may marry again, the writers do not agree. One says the release goes no further than the tie.
If, however, the unbeliever leaves, the believer is released from the bondage of being tied to an unbeliever. The believer is not to argue with the one who has gone, for we are called to peace. This does not give the believer any licence to break the tie by leaving the unbeliever. Nor does it give the abandoned believer permission to remarry.
Another writer reaches the opposite conclusion, with one condition attached.
According to 1 Corinthians 7, I cannot doubt that a Christian deserted on purpose by an unbelieving partner was free in every way — free, that is, to marry. But this assumes that the one who went away left on purpose. The Christian was never to be the one who leaves, and if forced to go, was to stay unmarried or return.
The last words of the verse cover the whole case. They rule out holding an unwilling partner, and they rule out inventing an escape when the partner wants to stay.
But freedom must never be taken away. Those who want to go may go. God's calling is in peace. If unbelief for now goes together with respect and natural affection, peace in the home will not be broken, even though the Lord may have divided soul from soul. If it is otherwise, the cross must be accepted and its burden carried — and no false relief sought by breaking the tie at will.
- Peace decides. God's call to peace rules every part of this verse. It forbids both clinging on and scheming to get out.
- Peace forbids force. Grace "will not hold the unbeliever against his will." If the unbeliever goes, the believer lets go without a fight.
- Peace releases. "Not enslaved" means the deserted believer need no longer treat the deserter as husband or wife. The believer is left "freer to serve the Lord."
- Peace has limits. The release is not divorce. The Lord settled the one ground for that in the Gospels, not here.
- Peace divides commentators. On remarriage after desertion they differ. Some rule it out. Others hold that a believer deserted on purpose is free to marry.
For what knowest thou, O wife, if thou shalt save thy husband? or what knowest thou, O husband, if thou shalt save thy wife?
Paul ends his advice to believers married to an unbeliever with a question, not a promise. Neither partner can know the outcome. Commentators read the question two ways: as a reason to stay and hope, and as a caution against clinging to a partner who wants to leave.
These words are not advice about choosing a partner. They speak to people who were already married when they came to faith.
This does not for a moment have in view a believer marrying an unbeliever, which is clearly against the mind of the Lord. Here the case is mixed marriages, where one of the two was converted after the marriage. In this case the believer is not made unclean by being joined to the unbeliever... Far from separating from the unbeliever, the brother or sister is to stay in the relationship at all cost, counting on God for the salvation of the unbeliever. So there will be submission to what the Lord has allowed, and a life lived in line with His will.
For someone carrying regret over a marriage made before conversion, the same passage is offered as relief rather than reproach.
This may comfort the heart of one who has been brought to the Lord after marriage. Moreover, to such a person the Spirit of God has given specific direction and blessed encouragement.
Under grace the rule for a mixed marriage is the reverse of the old one.
Under the law, a man who had married a foreign woman became unclean and had to send her away, and their children were shut out as unclean. But under grace it was completely the opposite... So the believer was not to send away his wife, and was not to leave an unbelieving husband. If the unbeliever left the believer for good, that believer, man or woman, was free: "let it be so." But they were called to peace, and not to look for this separation. How did the believer know that he might not be the means of the unbeliever's conversion? For we are under grace.
The same question also sets a limit. It warns against holding a partner who wants to go.
A very solemn question, put here by the apostle for two purposes: to encourage true faith, and to discourage the natural pleading that such feeling sometimes produces. The common tendency to do evil so that good may come could easily find room here. A Christian wife, or husband, might well wish to hold back an unwilling partner, in the hope of winning them to Christ. But that wish must not be met at the cost of the other's freedom. Faith does not need such methods to reach its goal.
The believer should long for the other's salvation. But longing does not decide it. Release from the tie is freedom to serve, not freedom to marry again.
Such an act on the unbeliever's side does not give the deserted believer permission to marry. It leaves the believer freer to serve the Lord, because the other has gone... Whatever the trial of such a life, the brother or the sister must long for the salvation of the unbeliever. But in the end this rests with God.
Writers also warn against stretching "not enslaved" further than it goes.
Yet the apostle does not mean by this anything equal to divorce, or anything that would set the deserted partner completely free. The Lord Himself has decided in the plainest possible way in the Gospels that there is only one ground for divorce, and we have no right from the apostle's words here to suppose, as many do suppose now, that they state another.
If the believer may be the means, how? Not by argument, but by daily conduct.
But the moral weight and the gracious manner of the wife have their effect on the hard husband. He is won over to listen, all the more because she does not preach at him, as he calls it. How many have been won in this way to hear the gospel, the coming day will show.
Commentators call this the highest testimony a believer can give.
It is a wonderful thing to have a soul converted to God by a life. I can imagine no higher testimony to any believer than this: a quiet life of submission to God has been the means of showing Christ to a soul. Many a careless husband has, thank God, been converted through the silent godly witness of a woman who always did the right thing, because she was always thinking of pleasing God.
- Who — these words are for people converted after marriage. They are not permission for a believer to marry an unbeliever.
- Hope — no one knows the answer to "how do you know?" That unknown is a reason to stay. The believer may yet be the means of the other's conversion, because we are under grace.
- Limit — the same question forbids holding a departing partner by pressure. Faith does not need such methods, and the other's freedom must be respected.
- Means — a partner is won by conduct, not by preaching. A quiet, godly life has drawn many to listen to the gospel.
- Outcome — long for the other's salvation, but leave it in God's hands. Release from the tie is freedom to serve the Lord, not permission to remarry.