1 Corinthians 7:12-17

Duties of the Married where One of the Parties is unconverted, 12-17.

1 Corinthians 7:12. But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.

1 Corinthians 7:13. And the woman, etc. Two noteworthy reasons are given for this injunction.

First reason:

1 Corinthians 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: [1] else were... unholy not as if personal holiness were communicated from the one party to the other by their marriage union; for parents, even where both are Christian, cannot by propagation convey their own holiness to their children. Relative holiness, then, can alone be meant. But what is that? Under the law, whatever was consecrated to sacred uses was counted holy, whether days (Exodus 20:8), or vessels (Exodus 28:38), or persons (Exodus 29:1; Exodus 29:35; Exodus 29:44). Seizing on this principle, our apostle in one place applies it to food as “sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:4-5), and here he applies it to the conjugal relation, as taking the unbelieving wife of a Christian away from “them that are without,” and giving her a standing within the sacred pale, with all its opportunities and influences. Nor is this an empty name. It is certainly fitted, as it was doubtless designed, to issue in saving results; for when in one of the parties Christianity enters any home, it may justly be said as of Zaccheus who left his house an avaricious publican, but after his interview with Jesus reentered it a new creature, in all the freshness, fragrance, and power of a new life: “Today is salvation come to this house ” On this principle, children breathing such an atmosphere are within a sacred enclosure, and not at all on the same footing with “them that are without.”

[1] Such is the striking reading here, the word “husband” easily creeping in, as of course meant, but poorly supported.

1 Corinthians 7:15. But and if he departeth, let him depart. Some, disgusted possibly enraged at the change in their wives or husbands, as the case might be and their refusal to surrender their religious convictions, would leave them; as to this day is done in not a few cases, both in heathen and Jewish families. In such a case there was no help; the wife must let her husband turn his back upon her.

God hath called us in peace therefore, in the last extremity, separation must be peacefully submitted to, and this surrender may yet be blessed to the resisting party.

Second reason:

1 Corinthians 7:16. For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or... O husband... thy wife? i.e. whether thou shalt not do so. A totally different turn to the question is given by some superior critics, ‘Let him go; for what assurance have you that by longer endurance you will gain him over?' [2] Their reason is, that “whether thou shalt” cannot mean “whether thou shalt not” But in the Greek usage of the Old Testament this phrase is often so used. Thus, 2 Samuel 12:22, “Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me?” (i.e. whether He will not be so); Esther 4:14, “Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” Joel 2:14, “Who knoweth if he will return and repent?” etc.; and the same in Jonah 3:9. In vain is it alleged that such passages are not in point. As to our passage, the whole strain of the context is in favour of our view of it.

[2] So Estius, De Wette, Meyer, Stanley, Alford.

1 Corinthians 7:17 . Only ‘I have only this to say' as the Lord [3] hath distributed to each man, as God [4] hath called each, so let him walk each, in his special case, as may seem most conducive to the great end of the marriage relation.

And so ordain I in all the churches ‘On such principles I will have all the churches to act in like case.'

[3] Such is the right order of the words “Lord” and “God” here.

[4] The adversative conjunction (ἀ λλ ὰ) ‘ on the contrary' has been urged as inconsistent with this view; but though opposition is undoubtedly expressed, all depends on where the opposition lies.