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.
However, as the Lord has divided to each, as God has called each, so let him walk; and thus I ordain in all the assemblies.
Paul has been answering questions about marriage, mixed marriage and separation. At verse 17 he pauses the specific cases. He lays down a wider rule for every believer's position in life, and says he teaches it everywhere.
The verse names two acts, and gives each to a different person:
Notice first how carefully this verse distinguishes. It traces the calling to God, who gives life to the dead. It traces the distributing to the Lord, as Head of His own house. The Father has given Him all things, and He gives to His own as He pleases. The verse also claims for every believer full liberty to serve God according to the measure of his ability, without another dictating to him.
One writer states our part in this, then notes a slip in older Bibles:
Our place is one of intelligent submission. We acknowledge the Lord's allotment and God's call: the one given at the time of conversion, the other the permanent condition. You will see that the Authorised Version, following the common text, reverses the true relationships here. It is God who has called and the Lord who divided, not the reverse, as in what is known as the Received Text.
The rule runs on through verse 24, and it comes with one exception:
Verses 17 to 24 lay down the principle that, generally speaking, a person who was converted was to stay in the same relationships as before. Of course, if there was moral evil in them, that had to go. But the passage is not dealing with that. God had distributed to every man: none of us is in our particular circumstances merely by chance. Every assembly was to recognise this.
Because the Lord did the assigning, a change of situation is not automatic progress:
The general rule was, and he ordains it in all churches, to remain wherever one could remain with God. There was to be no restless spirit of change. That treats circumstances as the great matter, instead of God's control of them — and it is His control we ought to grasp.
The rule is not absolute. One condition decides when a position must be left:
As to jobs and positions in this world, the general rule was that everyone should stay in the state he was in when God called him. But it had to be "with God" — doing nothing that would not be to His glory. If the state itself went against His will, it was sin. Clearly he could not remain in it with God. But the general rule was to remain and glorify God in it.
The pull to move on shows up in ordinary decisions:
For example, children have sometimes thought they were right to leave their homes. Others have found the duties of their daily work tiresome, and changed their job without much thought, hoping to gain more freedom for the Lord's service. Others again have moved to other places, and even to other countries, for the same reason.
Paul states this rule as his practice everywhere, and that reach is not unusual in this letter:
This shows that the instructions apply to all who profess Christ, for all time. Again and again in this letter we find passages that refute any attempt to limit the instruction. It was never meant for one local assembly only, or for the time of the apostles only. (See 1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Cor. 7:17; 1 Cor. 11:16; 1 Cor. 14:36-37; 1 Cor. 16:1.)
- Assigned — the Lord divided your portion, and God issued the call. Both acts are His, not yours. Older Bibles swapped the two, following a different text.
- Not chance — He assigned it. Your relationships, your work, your background are not accidents to escape.
- So stay — remain where God's call found you. A restless spirit treats circumstances as the great matter. His control of them is the great matter.
- With God — the one limit: if the position itself is against His will, you cannot stay in it with Him, and you must go.
- Everywhere — Paul rules this way in all the churches. It is not local advice for Corinth. It stands for every believer.