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.