Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:12
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
12. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord ] That is, there has been no precept given by Christ Himself in the particular case now referred to, therefore St Paul falls back on the general inspiration given by Christ to His Apostles. Compare 1Co 7:40 (where see note), and St Joh 16:13. “Christ lays down the general rule, the Apostles apply it to particular emergencies.” Stanley.
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not ] This, the case where one of the two persons already married is an unbeliever, the most difficult of all, is here dealt with, and the sacredness of the marriage tie maintained under circumstances the most unpromising. The only case in which ‘a brother or sister is not under bondage’ to its obligations is where (1Co 7:15) the unbelieving partner insists upon a separation.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But to the rest – I have spoken in regard to the duties of the unmarried, and the question whether it is right and advisable that they should marry, 1Co 7:1-9. I have also uttered the command of the Lord in regard to those who are married, and the question whether separation and divorce were proper. Now in regard to the rest of the persons and cases referred to, I will deliver my opinion. The rest, or remainder, here referred to, relates particularly to the cases in which one party was a Christian and the other not. In the previous verses he had delivered the solemn, explicit law of Christ, that divorce was to take place on neither side, and in no instance, except agreeably. to the law of Christ; Mat 5:32. That was settled by divine authority. In the subsequent verses he discusses a different question; whether a voluntary separation was not advisable and proper when the one party was a Christian and the other not. The word rest refers to these instances, and the questions which would arise under this inquiry.
Not the Lord – See the note at 1Co 7:6. I do not claim, in this advice, to be under the influence of inspiration; I have no express command on the subject from the Lord; but I deliver my opinion as a servant of the Lord 1Co 7:40, and as having a right to offer advice, even when I have no express command from God, to a church which I have founded, and which has consulted me on the subject. This was a case in which both he and they were to follow the principles of Christian prudence and propriety, when there was no express commandment. Many such cases may occur. But few, perhaps none, can occur, in which some Christian principle shall not be found, that will be sufficient to direct the anxious inquirer after truth and duty.
If any brother – Any Christian.
That believeth not – That is not a Christian; one who is a pagan.
And if she be pleased – If it seems best to her; if she consents; approves of living together still. There might be many cases where the wife or the husband, that was not a Christian, would be so opposed to Christianity, and so violent in their opposition, that they would not be willing to live with a Christian. When this was the case, the Christian husband or wife could not prevent the separation. When this was not the case, they were not to seek a separation themselves.
To dwell with him – To remain in connection with him as his wife, though they differed on the subject of religion.
Let him not put her away – Though she is a pagan, though opposed to his religion, yet the marriage vow is sacred and inviolable. It is not to be sundered by any change which can take place in the opinions of either party. It is evident that if a man were at liberty to dissolve the marriage tie, or to discard his wife when his own opinions were changed on the subject of religion, that it would at once destroy all the sacredness of the marriage union, and render it a nullity. Even, therefore, when there is a difference of opinion on the vital subject of religion, the tie is not dissolved; but the only effect of religion should be, to make the converted husband or wife more tender, kind, affectionate, and faithful than they were before; and all the more so as their partners are without the hopes of the gospel, and as they may be won to love the Saviour, 1Co 7:16.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 12. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord] As if he had said: For what I have already spoken I have the testimony of the Lord by Moses, and of my own Lord and Master, Christ; but for the directions which I am now about to give there is no written testimony, and I deliver them now for the first time. These words do not intimate that the apostle was not now under the influences of the Divine Spirit; but, that there was nothing in the sacred writings which bore directly on this point.
If any brother] A Christian man, have a wife that believeth not, i.e. who is a heathen, not yet converted to the Christian faith, and she be pleased to dwell with him, notwithstanding his turning Christian since their marriage, let him not put her away because she still continues in her heathen superstition.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord; either as to the other part of your Epistle, or as to the cases of the rest mentioned in your Epistle, I shall give you my advice so far as I am instructed by the Holy Spirit of God, though our Lord Jesus Christ hath set no certain rule concerning them.
If any brother hath a wife that believeth not: that believeth not, both here and 1Co 7:13, signifieth, that hath not embraced the Christian faith, but still remaineth a pagan.
And she be pleased to dwell with him; if there be no other matter of difference between such persons, save only in matter of religion, let him not for that put her away. If a Christian man or woman had their choice to make, it were unlawful for either of them to make choice of a pagan for their yoke-fellow; but if, after marriage, either the husband or the wife embraceth the Christian faith, the other correlate still abiding a pagan, their difference in religion is not a sufficient ground for a separation: this seemeth to be the apostles meaning. The case seemeth a little different in the opinion of some divines, when the idolater or idolatress blasphemeth God and the true religion, and is continually tempting the correlate to apostacy: but it is hard to determine against the plain precept of so great an apostle, especially considering the reason by which he backeth his precept.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12. to the restthe otherclasses (besides “the married,” 1Co7:10, where both husband and wife are believers) about whom theCorinthians had inquired, namely, those involved in mixed marriageswith unbelievers.
not the Lordby anydirect command spoken by Him.
she be pleasedGreek,“consents”: implying his wish in the first instance, withwhich hers concurs.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord,…. He had spoken before to married persons in general, and had delivered not his own sentiments barely, but the commandment of the Lord, that such should never separate from, or put away each other; in which he has respect to such as were upon equal foot in matters of religion, who were both of them believers in Christ; but now he speaks to the rest, to such as were unequally yoked, the one a believer, the other an unbeliever; and what he delivers on this head, concerning their living together, there being no express determination of this matter by the Lord himself, he under divine inspiration gives his sense of it; as that such marriages were valid, and that such persons ought to live together, and not separate on account of difference in religion: or the sense is, that as “to the rest” of the things they had wrote to him about, besides what he had given answer to already, he should speak to under divine illumination; though he had not an express law of Christ to point unto them, as the rule of their conduct: and particularly, whereas they had desired his judgment and advice upon this head, whether one who before conversion had married an unbeliever, ought to live with such an one, or whether it would not be advisable to leave, or put such away, to it he answers,
if any brother hath a wife that believeth not; that is, if any man who is now a brother, one called by the grace of God, and is in church fellowship, has a wife to whom he was married whilst in a state of unregeneracy and infidelity; who is as she was when he married her, entirely destitute of faith in Christ; not one that is weak in the faith, or only makes an outward profession, but that has no faith at all in Christ, nor in his Gospel, not so much as an historical one; who disbelieves, denies, and rejects, the truths of the Gospel:
and she be pleased to dwell with him; loves her husband, chooses to continue with him, notwithstanding their different sentiments of religion:
let him not put her away; infidelity is no reason for a divorce. The Gospel revelation does not dissolve the natural obligations men and women are in to one another. The Jews had a law prohibiting marriages with Heathens and idolaters; and such marriages were dissolved, and such wives put away, Ex 34:16 but this was a law peculiar to that people, and was not obligatory on other nations, and especially has no place under the Gospel dispensation.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But to the rest say I, not the Lord ( , ). Paul has no word about marriage from Jesus beyond the problem of divorce. This is no disclaimer of inspiration. He simply means that here he is not quoting a command of Jesus.
An unbelieving wife ( ). This is a new problem, the result of work among the Gentiles, that did not arise in the time of Jesus. The form is the same as the masculine because a compound adjective. Paul has to deal with mixed marriages as missionaries do today in heathen lands. The rest ( ) for Gentiles (Eph 2:3) we have already had in 1Thess 4:13; 1Thess 5:6 which see. The Christian husband married his wife when he himself was an unbeliever. The word sometimes means unfaithful (Lu 12:46), but not here (cf. Joh 20:27).
She is content (). Late compound verb to be pleased together with, agree together. In the papyri.
Let him not leave her ( ). Perhaps here and in verses 1Cor 7:11; 1Cor 7:13 should be translated “put away” like in Mr 10:1. Some understand as separation from bed and board, not divorce.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
To the rest. He has been speaking to the unmarried (ver. 8) and to married parties, both of whom were Christians (ver. 10). By the rest he means married couples, one of which remained a heathen.
I, not the Lord. These cases are not included in Christ ‘s declarations. Be pleased [] . Rev., be content. Better, consent. Both the other renderings fail to express the agreement indicated by sun together.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. (tois de loipois lego ego, ouch ho kurios) yet to the remaining ones (about which you wrote me 1Co 7:1) Speak I, not the Lord. Paul differentiated between Divine commands previously given and those he was then giving for the first specific Divine revelation on these matters.
2) If any brother hath a wife that believeth not. (ei tis adelphos gunaika echei apiston) if any brother has an unbelieving or unsaved wife.
3) And she be pleased to dwell with him. (kai aute suneudokei oikein met autou) and she willingly consents or is pleased to continue dwell with him.
4) Let him not put her away. (Me aphieto auten) Let him not leave, desert, or put her away.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
12. To the rest I say By the rest he means those who are exceptions, so that the law, common to others, is not applicable to them; for an unequal marriage is on a different footing, when married persons differ among themselves in respect of religion; Now this question he solves in two clauses. The first is, that the believing party ought not to withdraw from the unbelieving party, and ought not to seek divorce, unless she is put away. The second is, that if an unbeliever put away his wife on account of religion, a brother or a sister is, by such rejection, freed from the bond of marriage. But why is it that Paul speaks of himself as the author of these regulations, while they appear to be somewhat at variance with what he had, a little before, brought forward, as from the Lord? He does not mean that they are from himself in such a way as not to be derived from the Spirit of God; but, as there was nowhere in the law or in the Prophets any definite or explicit statement on this subject, he anticipates in this way the calumnies of the wicked, in claiming as his own what he was about to state. At the same time, lest all this should be despised as the offspring of man’s brain, we shall find him afterwards declaring, that his statement are not the contrivances of his own understanding. There is, however, nothing inconsistent with what goes before; for as the obligation and sanctity of the marriage engagement depend upon God, what connection can a pious woman any longer maintain with an unbelieving husband, after she has been driven away through hatred of God?
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(12) But to the rest.Up to this point the writer has alluded only to Christians; he has spoken of the duties of unmarried persons, of widows, and of those already married. There still remains one class of marriages concerning which differences of opinion existedviz., mixed marriages. In a church like Corinth there would have been, no doubt, many cases where one of the partners was a heathen and the other a Christian, arising from the subsequent conversion of only one of the married couple. This subject is treated of in 1Co. 7:12-16. The words are emphatically, If any man have already a wife, &c. The case of a Christian marrying a heathen is not alluded to. In 2Co. 6:14, the marriage of a Christian to a heathen is forbidden.
Speak I, not the Lord.The Apostle has no word of Christs to quote on this point, it being one which did not arise during our Lords life. (See Note on 1Co. 7:10.)
It is to be noticed that the Apostle, in giving his own apostolic instruction on this point, does not use the word command, which he applied to our Lords teaching, but the less authoritative speak.
A wife that believeth not.That is, a heathen. In some modern religious circles this whole passage has been used (as also 2Co. 6:14) as if by unbeliever St. Paul meant a careless Christian, or one who, in modern phraseology, was not converted. The Apostle is referring under this designation to heathens, and the only case to which his teaching could now or ever apply would be when two heathens had been married, and subsequently only one had embraced the Christian faith. It is to be noticed that both here and in 1Co. 7:13 the being pleased to dwell is put only in reference to the partner who is a heathen, for the Apostle takes for granted that after the instructions he here gives to the Christian partner, no such desire for separation will arise on the part of a Christian.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12, 13. A Christian man must not put away a pagan wife; a Christian wife must not leave a pagan husband.
Put away Applied to the man because he alone, by Jewish law, could divorce; the wife could only leave.
Believeth not By Hebrew law, if a Jew married a pagan he was desecrated; his marriage was void, and his children illegitimate, as not pure Jews. See Ezr 9:11-15; Ezr 10:10-44; Neh 13:23-28. Hence the inquiry would arise, especially among Jewish converts, What is the law of Christianity regarding intermarriage between Christian and unbeliever? The answer of St. Paul on this, as on other points, while expressed in analogy with Jewish law, emancipates believers from its trammels.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
12. To the rest The rest of the Corinthian inquirers; namely, those intermarried with Jews or pagans. Christianity does not dissolve the tie, but ennobles it, and seeks to make it the instrument of salvation.
Speak I With an apostolic and inspired authority, supplementing what the Lord has in express words said. It is a very mistaken perversion of the apostle’s words which imputes a mere human authority to his injunctions, in contrast with the Lord’s words. His real antithesis is between the Lord’s recorded words, and his own apostolic words given by the Lord’s inspiration.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But as to the rest, I speak, not the Lord. If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And the woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother, otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.’
‘As to the rest.’ He has dealt with their main questions on the subject. Now he will deal with the remainder.
‘I speak, not the Lord.’ He acknowledges that in this case he does not have direct words of the Lord to cite or direct evidence from the Scriptures, but nevertheless he speaks as an apostle with spiritual authority, being guided by the Spirit. He has God’s seal on what he says. The distinction is made to confirm the stress on the previous ‘not I but the Lord’. It would be apparent that the Lord could not have said this because Jesus spoke in a situation and environment where the question was unlikely to arise.
The principles are simple. The new Christian does not need to seek separation from an unbelieving partner, which they might have considered as necessary in order to cut themselves off from a godless situation in the home and to prevent their continuing to be of one flesh with an unbeliever. This is because their own presence (as temples of the Holy Spirit) ‘sanctifies’ the home and those in it. Whatever else this means it means that they do not lose out spiritually by remaining with the unbelieving partner.
Not so simple is the use of the word ‘sanctify’. Here the word ‘sanctified’ means that the presence of the Christian in some way makes the other partner come within the sphere of God’s earthly, temporal blessing, and under God’s temporary protection, and wards off evil spiritual influence. This follows the pattern that whatever touches what is holy becomes holy (Exo 29:37; Lev 6:18). They are not ‘saved’, as 1Co 7:16 emphasises. But they enjoy temporary blessing as being part of a Christian enclave, just as a ‘stranger’ dwelling in Israel enjoyed certain benefits while he was there by being under the umbrella of the people of God (Deuteronomy 24:14, 17, 24; Deu 26:10-13). He enjoyed a peripheral part of the covenant.
In Rom 11:16 Paul can describe all Israelites within the covenant as ‘holy’. They were in a unique position before God, set apart as His people and as such enjoying certain special blessings from God. But the corollary was that more was expected of them. And Paul tells us there that in fact because of their rejection of Christ they had been cut off from their position. But the idea of ‘holiness’ as embracing even those who were not fully believing, all through the Old Testament period, is similar to here.
Thus by their conversion the Christian has brought their whole family within the sphere of God’s earthly temporary blessing, and especially their children who are seen as in some way enjoying the favourable influence of God. The power of Christ in the Christian neutralises the powers of darkness, and brings positive blessing to the home. Their being the temple of God makes the home ‘holy’.
We can compare to some extent how in Job 1:5 Job ‘sanctifies’ his children after they have been feasting by offering sacrifices for them. He returns them within the sphere of God’s blessing in case they have forfeited it by sin.
‘Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.’ The children of non-Christians are indirectly here seen as ‘unclean’, that is not within the sphere of God’s specific temporal blessings. They are not specifically set apart by God as ‘holy’ and set apart to be God’s. They enjoy God’s general blessings on mankind as a whole, but not His more specific temporal blessings which includes the spiritual influence of a Christian parent. But once a parent becomes a Christian that ‘sanctifies’ their children in the sense that they do come within the sphere of God’s specific temporal blessing. They are in a privileged position. They come under His cognisance and protection. We would probably understand it better if we knew more about the unseen world and its effects. What matters in respect of Paul’s readers is that the believer’s children are not put at a disadvantage as far as God is concerned by being in a home where one person is an unbeliever. They come under the same blessing of God as the children of Christian parents, as every Israelite child came within the covenant unless and until they deliberately rejected it. All the blessings of the covenant came to them, but even then eternal salvation depended on genuine response to the covenant.
It should be noted that it is the presence of the Christian parent that produces this effect. We have no real reason to think that it has anything to do with baptising, or otherwise, the children.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Instructions Where One Partner is a Non-Christian( 7:12-16).
But another question they had seemingly asked had in mind cases where one partner had been converted and had become a Christian. It does not refer to cases where someone who has become a Christian subsequently marries a non-Christian, for that is wrong in itself (2Co 6:14; compare Ezr 10:10) and must raise doubts about whether the person really is a Christian, for it is wilfully combining a citizen of heaven with the kingdom of darkness, combining righteousness with unrighteousness. It is contrary to the principles enunciated in the last chapter. But on conversion a Christian could find themselves in that position through no fault of their own.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Concerning mixed marriages:
v. 12. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
v. 13. And the woman which hath an husband that believes not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
v. 14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. v. 15. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases; but God hath called us to peace.
v. 16. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
v. 17. But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. In the previous section the apostle had addressed himself to the wedded couples in the congregation, where both husband and wife were Christians. He now speaks to such Christian men and women where the wife or the husband were not members of the Christian community. And he here again makes the application of the principle of Scriptures to a special circumstance. Jesus had had no occasion to deliver His opinion with regard to such cases, and therefore Paul brings his sentence. The fundamental matter was clear, his inspired judgment applied it to the point in question. The husband and the wife are placed on an equal footing. The Christian brother having an unbelieving wife, who is well pleased to dwell with him in marriage, should not dismiss her. And a Christian woman having an unbelieving husband under the same conditions, should not think of deserting him. So far as the Christian part of any married couple was concerned, the rule of the Lord, made at the institution of holy wedlock, holds good. The Christians should never take. the first steps, nor in any way be guilty of inciting a separation in marriage. The existence of mixed marriages is to be deplored deeply, and in many cases they result in trials and temptations which make the term “marriage-yoke” altogether fitting; but so long as the unbelieving party recognizes the validity of the marriage-tie and lives in harmony with this belief, the believing party cannot repudiate the spouse. ‘
The apostle now meets an objection which Christians might be apt to make as to the dangers of such a continued union with an unbeliever: For sanctified is the unbelieving husband in the wife, and sanctified is the unbelieving wife in the brother, in the Christian. Although not consecrated by the sanctifying power of faith, the unbelieving party, by virtue of the intimate, vital union which is the essence of marriage, participates in the consecration of the believing party in this way, that he or she is linked to the Church of God through the believing spouse; the sanctity of the marriage-tie includes both husband and wife. “The believing wife is a sanctuary to her husband, even though he be an unbeliever, for he is her husband; and the believing husband is a sanctuary to his wife, even though she be an unbeliever, for she is his wife. ” This is made more evident by the case of their children: Else, then, your children are unclean, but now they are holy. If the state of matrimony, even where the marriage has been entered upon with an unbeliever, were not a holy state, then the children would be unclean. But now the children are considered holy, therefore also the state of marriage, even if it is a mixed marriage; the children are to be considered members of the Christian community on account of the Christian parent. “They are not holy in their own persons, for St. Paul does not speak here of that holiness; but they are holy unto you, that your holiness can be engaged in their care and can educate them, that you will not become desecrated in them as though they were an unholy thing.”
These rules are in force as long as the unbelieving spouse maintains the validity of the marriage-bond. But if the unbeliever separates (himself from his spouse) let him separate; if the non-Christian insists upon severing the marriage relation, this is not to be refused; the separation may take its course. In that case the believing spouse suffers the breaking of the marriage-tie, and the brother or the sister in the congregation is not kept in bondage under such circumstances; they are not to be told that they are still bound, but may consider themselves free, just as though the other party had died. Of the formalities which are to be observed before the civil court the apostle says nothing, since it is self-evident for a Christian to pay due attention to them. According to the will of God, putting away of the spouse is forbidden, but He does not forbid the repudiated spouse to accept dismissal. This is confirmed still more strongly by the addition of the words: In peace, however, has God called us. Should the Christian spouse insist upon continuing the marriage relation in spite of the repudiation, this would lead to hatred and strife. If the unbelieving party has broken the peace of wedlock by considering marriage as a contract which may be dissolved at the whim of one or both of the contracting parties, then the Christian is free from the bond of marriage, suffering what he has not sought and cannot avoid.
The apostle now refers to probable scruples that the Christian spouse might feel in case of such a separation: For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband; or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? There is a possibility, of course, that a Christian husband or wife may succeed in gaining the other party for Christ. But why cling to him, or her, on so ill-founded a hope, especially if the unbelieving spouse has rejected the Christian? “Therefore it is not only presumption for a Christian to marry with the idea that he may bring about a marriage in the Lord afterwards, but it is also uncalled for and meddlesome, if a brother or a sister would want to consider himself bound to an unbelieving spouse in the hope of moving his heart by such faithfulness and thus converting him. ” In the entire matter of marriage, and especially of mixed marriages, the rule holds: Only, as the Lord has dealt out to each one, as God has called each one, so let him conduct himself. If the Lord has given to a Christian a spouse that shows unusual kindness in observing all the demands of the marriage relationship in accordance with God’s institution, let him live in wedlock as a true partner of their mutual joys and sorrows. But if, by the dispensation of God, the unbelieving party severs the tie of marriage as based upon God’s institution, then the Christian may accept the liberty thus forced upon him with a good conscience. Thus the apostle ordained in all the churches. All congregations observed the same rules in this very important matter, lest a diversity in Christian customs harm the cause of the Lord. “Christianity does not disturb existing relations, so far as they are not sinful, but only aims to infuse into them the right spirit, according to the will of God.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 7:12. But to the rest speak I, &c. “I have reminded you of the decision of Christ, with respect to the affair of divorce; now, as to the rest of the persons and cases to which I shall address myself, it is to be observed that I speak according to what duty or prudence seems on the whole to require; and it is not to be considered, as if it were immediately spoken by the Lord.” See on 1Co 7:6.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 7:12 . The are those who, before their conversion, had entered into marriage with a non-believer, so that one of the two had become a Christian and the other not. See on 1Co 7:10 .
.] For, as respected such marriages, Christ had given no command. He had no occasion to do so. Observe how suitably Paul refrains here from again using .
] approves with him (comp on Rom 1:32 ), joins in approving; for Paul takes for granted that the Christian partner on his side approves the continuance of the union. [1111] It is alien to the scope of the passage to hold, with Billroth, that in . is implied the contempt of the heathen for the Christians. Regarding , to dwell with , of living together in marriage , see Seidler, a [1112] . Eur. El. 99: , comp 212.
It may be noted, moreover, that 1Co 7:12 f. does not give permission to a Christian to marry a non-belie1Co 7:“Non enim dixit: si quis ducit , sed: si quis habet infidelem,” Pelagius. , Theodoret.
[1111] Hence the compound is used rightly and of deliberate purpose in the second part of the statement also, although there the husband is the subject, and it ought not to be supplanted by the simple , according to B (in opposition to Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 369).
[1112] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
B.Mixed marriages. The course to be pursued by the believer in different circumstances. The general principles involved, stated and illustrated in parallel cases
1Co 7:12-24
12But to the rest speak I, 12 not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she13 be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13And the woman which [who] hath a husband that believeth not, and if he2 be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him [her husband14]. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by [in, ] the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by [in, ] the husband [the brother15]: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us [you16] to [in, ] peace. 16For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 17But as God [the Lord17] hath distributed [allotted] to every man, as the Lord [God6] hath called every one, so let him walk. 18And so ordain I in all churches. Is [Was] any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any [Has any been18] called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 20Let every man abide in the same 21calling wherein he was called. Art [Wert] thou called being a servant [slave]? care 22not for it: but [even] if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he [the slave] that is called in the Lord, being a servant [om. being a servant] is the Lords freeman:19 likewise also [om. also] he [the freeman] that is called, being free [om. being free], is Christs servant. 23Ye are bought with a price: be [become] not ye the ser vants of men. 24Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1Co 7:12-14. But to the rest.By these he evidently means those living in mixed marriage, haying been converted in wedlock. From this it is plain, that in what he has been saying he has had to do solely with parties who were both Christian. But now he comes to consider a relation to which the command of our Lord does not absolutely apply. That was a command for disciples alone; but here those were involved who did not acknowledge subjection to him; and the continuance of the connection depended largely on their own free will. In this case now, the Spirit of the Lord, dwelling in the Apostle, and developing more fully and completely the injunctions given by him on earth, was called to make known what was right, in accordance with the mind of Christ. And it is to this he points when he premisessay I, not the Lord.[The distinction here made, is simply one of fact as to the formnot one of authority]. His injunction is still an expression of the Lords willif any brother has an unbelieving wife, let him not put her away.Yet this is conditioned on the pleasure of the wifeif she be pleased to dwell with him.And this presupposes, on the one hand, that the husband, by reason of his higher love, and of his conviction of the sanctity of marriage, had an inclination to abide with his wife; and, on the other hand, that the wife had some respect for Christianity, and presented no obstacle to the practice of it. [We see from this how despised the Christians were at that time by the heathen, since even wives would leave their husbands because they had been converted to Christianity. Billroth. And the threat of this is one great obstacle to the conversion of men in heathendom at this day]. is used in the classics the same as here, and in this connection means, to house with. [Here Chrys. says: He that putteth away his wife for fornication is not condemned, because he that is one body with her that is a harlot, is polluted; and the marriage bond is broken by fornication, but not by unbelief. Therefore it is lawful to put away a wife for the former sin, but not for the latter. But is not he who is joined with an idolatress one body? Yes, but not polluted by her. The holiness of the faithful husband prevails over the unholiness of the unbelieving wife. They are joined together in that respect in which she is not unholy. But not so in the case of an adulteress. Words.].And whatever woman have an unbelieving husband, and this one be pleased to dwell with her.In there is a change of construction, which appears also often among the Greeks. It is the introduction of a demonstrative in an accessory clause. Otherwise it would be , which the Rec. has. [On this oratio variata see Winer LXII. 2, 1; also on the use of for see Jelf, 816, 3, 7].Let her not repudiate her husband.The use of in reference to the wife is somewhat remarkable. It means [properly, to put away, and is the same word as that used in the case of the man; but] here, to have, to give up; [and so the E. V. renders it, making a distinction in the rendering by reason of the diversity of the subject. Alford well says, this is unfortunate; and there seems no adequate reason for it, as may be seen from what follows. Robinson translates alike in both cases]. Elsewhere, Mar 10:11, is predicated as well of the wife as of the husband. Bengel, whom Meyer follows, says, the nobler part dismisses, and this, in this instance, is the Christian party. According to Greek, as well as Roman law, the wife also had the liberty of obtaining divorce; among the Jews, too, the law in this respect was somewhat modified by Rabbinical definitions. Light. II:191. [Hence, there is good ground for affirming that it is not simple abandonment, but formal divorce that the Apostle here prohibits. So Hodge].
The above injunction he next proceeds to establish; and opposes the tendency to desertion arising from the dread of contamination through intimate communion with an unbeliever, by pointing to the fact, that in this case [the grace of Christianity triumphs over the disparity, and] the unbelieving party, [so far from desecrating the other, is himself sanctified by connection with the believing one.]For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother.The verb , is sanctified, is not to be construed subjectively; since the supposition is, that the sanctifying principleeven faith, is here wanting. Neither does it point to a future conversion anticipated, (candidatus fidei); still less does it imply the sanctification of the marriage intercourse through the prayer of the believing party; but it denotes the Christian theocratic consecration. The unchristian partner standing, as he does, in vital union with a believer (one flesh), participates in his or her consecration, and is not to be regarded as profane, but as connected by this link to the Church of God, and to Gods people. The phrases, , in the wifein the brother, denote that the sanctification here comes through the Christian partner, whose character, as holy, passes over and is imputed to the unchristian partner. Hence, it followed that the marriage was still to be regarded as one acceptable to God, and that, therefore, the Christian party was to continue therein, so far as it was possible for him or her to do so. True enough it was, indeed, that the unbelieving party, by his consent to remain in such relation to the Christian community, afforded some ground for hope that he would, in the end, prove altogether acceptable to the Church, under whose spiritual influence he was thus brought; but this fact is not here distinctly expressed.
To prove, this relative sanctification of the unbelieving party, through connection with the believing one, he introduces the following apagogic statement.Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. ; since then, i. e., in case this sanctification did not exist (comp. 1Co 5:10). His meaning is this: if that vital communion which existed between the married parties, of which one was a believer and another not, imparted to the latter no sacredness, then it would follow that the like vital union between Christian parents and their children, would not impart to the latter any sacredness,that the children of Christians themselves must be regarded as impure and profane, like the heathen. But to such an inference he opposes the views already held among them, that these children were holy,that they, by virtue of their vital connection with Christian parents, were to be regarded as properly belonging to Gods holy people. And if such a view were tenable, he argues a like result in favor of the unbelieving married parties; that they were similarly sanctified by a collateral union. [Hodge, however, with more correctness, states the argument differently. He says: The most natural, and hence the most generally adopted view, is this: The children of these mixed marriages are universally acknowledged as holy; that is, as belonging to the Church. If this be correct, as no one disputes, the marriages themselves must be consistent with the laws of God. The unbelieving must be sanctified by the believing partner, otherwise your children would be unclean, i.e., born out of the pale of the Church.The principle in question was not a new one, to be then first determined by Christian usage. It was, at least, as old as the Jewish economy, and familiar wherever Jewish laws and the facts of Jewish history were known. Paul circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek, while his mother was a Jewess, because he knew that his countrymen regarded circumcision in such cases as obligatory. Act 16:1-3. Barnes most unaccountably interprets unclean to mean illegitimate. Then holy, of course, must mean legitimate, contrary to all usage.]This whole argument militates against, rather than favors the existence of the practice of Infant Baptism at that period. (Comp. Meyer and de Wette, Stud. and Krit., 1830, p. 669ff.; [also Neander, Stanley and Alford in loco). Had such a practice existed, it would be fair to presume, that the Apostle would have alluded to it specifically, in confirmation of his position. Here, most of all, would have been the place to have mentioned it by name, as furnishing ecclesiastical authority for the view he had taken. The fact that he did not mention it, therefore, affords some reason for concluding that the rite did not exist.]It is another question, however, whether this passage does not furnish an important ground on which to establish the rite of Infant Baptism. According to Jewish notions, the baptism of a female proselyte sufficed for that of her child, which was afterwards born of her, so that this did not then need to be baptized. But so far as baptism is a means of grace, we may infer from this statement of the Apostle, that there was a claim for it on the part of the child, who had been already consecrated to God by virtue of his having been born of Christian parents. That relation to the kingdom of God which is founded on parentage, is sealed through baptism; and the child is set apart in a solemn manner as a partaker of the fulness of grace imparted to the Church. [On the whole subject see John M. Masons Works, Vol. IV., pp 373382, who takes this in direct evidence of Infant Baptism; and also Hodges note, who says: Some modern German writers find in this passage a proof that Infant Baptism was unknown in the Apostolic Church. They say that Paul does not attribute the holiness of children to their parentage; if they were baptizedbecause their consecration would then be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange reasoning. The truth is, they were baptized, not to make them holy, but because they were holy. The Jewish child was circumcised because he was a Jew, and not to make him one. So Christian children are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized because they are holy. See also Hooker, Ec. Pol. Ch. LX.]. refers to the Christian parents generally, who in mixed marriages were not excluded. , but now, logical, as in 1Co 5:11. On compare Bengel and Osiander.
1Co 7:15-16. He here considers the possible alternative.But if the unbelieving departHow then?let him depart.That is his affair; he must be allowed to decide it for himself. And in such a case let the brother or sister be patient, nor let him think that anything ought to be changed which cannot be changed. Bengel. That which follows, annexed by no connecting particle, confirms this advice.The brother or the sister is not bound in such cases.He here assigns the reasons why a divorce should be allowed on the part of the Christian; and the words cannot simply mean: he is not bound to crowd himself upon the other, [to insist upon the connection, as in the case where both are Christians (as Photius, Alford, Billroth)]; but they carry the further implication: is not unconditionally bound to the marriage relationship like a slave,is free. , as in 1Co 7:39 (comp. Osiander). The words are either Masc. by such (not, to such) as separate themselves; or which is better, Neut.; under such circumstances (comp. Php 4:11; Rom 8:37; Joh 4:37). The Apostle only means, that in matters of religious conviction, one person cannot be the slave of another, [that a married Christian person cannot be forced to remain with a heathen consort, if the latter will not allow the exercise of his own religious views. Under such circumstances separation should be allowed; but concerning liberty to marry again, nothing is here said. Neander.]20But in peace God hath called us.This is directly connected with the foregoing, and confirms still further the propriety of the injunction: let him depart.The determination to continue in marriage against the will of the other party, would lead to hatred and strife; and this would be contrary to the peaceful character of the Christian calling. , in peace, i.e., either: to this end, that we may live in peace; in which case it would be equivalent to: unto peace [according to our English version] denoting the object of the call;21 or: since he has proclaimed to us the Gospel of peace, the essential effect of which is peace,denoting the way and mode of the calling (comp. Eph 4:1; 1Th 4:7; Luk 11:11). Fundamentally, both constructions amount to the same thing; and imply that any separation would contravene the spirit of the Divine calling, inasmuch as it would increase existing estrangement and cause new outbreaks. [Hence it is that the Rabbins, and Maimonides famous among the rest, in a book of his, set forth by Buxtorfius, tells us that divorce was permitted by Moses to preserve peace in marriage, and quiet in the family. Milton.] This view corresponds to the whole train of thought, and agrees well with what follows. On the other hand, that view which regards the Apostle as here putting a limitation on the injunction: let him depart, introduced adversatively by the particle, , as if he meant to say: a separation, however, ought, if possible, to be avoided, is at variance with his line of argument [see below].
The Apostle yet further confirms his advice by obviating a doubt which contained a strong motive for resisting separation in the case supposed, viz.: whether the salvation of the unbelieving party, which might be secured by a continuance of the connection, would not hereby be cut off. This he meets by pointing to the utter uncertainty of the results of any efforts directed to this end.For what knowest thou, O! woman, whether thou shalt save thy husband.The meaning is, thou canst have no assurance that thou wilt be the means of saving him. [On the force of the , see Jelf Vol. II., 877 B.]., to save, as in 1Co 1:18, is used here in a relative sense, q. d., to be the instrument of saving, as 1Co 9:22; Rom 11:14; 1Ti 4:10.[This verse is generally understood as stating a ground for remaining united, as 1Co 7:13, in hope that conversion of the unbelieving party may follow. Thus 1Co 7:15 is regarded as altogether parenthetical. But 1, this interpretation is harsh, as regards the context, for 1Co 7:15 is evidently not parenthetical,and 2, it is hardly admissible grammatically, for, it makes = ,What knowest thou, whether thou shalt not save? Lyra seems first to have proposed the true rendering, which was afterwards adopted hesitatingly by Estius, and of late decidedly by Meyer, de Wette, and Bisping; viz., that the verse is not a ground for remaining united, in hope, etc., but a ground for consummating a separation, and not marring the Christians peace for so uncertain a prospect as that of converting the unbelieving party. thus preserves its strict sense: what knowest thou (about the question) whether, etc.? and the verse coheres with the words immediately preceding, . Those who take for , attempt to justify it by referring to 2Sa 12:22; Joe 2:14; Jon 3:9, where the LXX. have for Heb. , to express hope: but in every one of these passages the verb stands in the emphatic position, and the LXX. used this very expression to signify uncertainty. Alford. These arguments seem conclusive. They are received also by Billr. and Neander, and are virtually advanced by Kling, in the 1st Ed. President Wolsey, in his very carefully digested articles on Divorce, in the New Englander for Jan., Ap. and July, 1867, which are well worthy of study on this whole subject, says of the attempt to make this a dissuasive against separation: Logic will not bend to this meaning. Words., Barnes and Hodge, however, do not admit their force. The latter says, it is contrary to the whole animus of the Apostle. He is evidently laboring throughout these verses to prevent all unnecessary disruptions of social ties. No such special pleading, however, is apparent. If there be a point aimed at, it would seem rather to be to put the believer in the highest spiritual condition preparatory to the coming of Christ, that his obligations previously incurred would admit of. And this liberation from the bondage of a heathen partner, who has departed, is one of the blessings he secures. Yet it must be added, that while the grammatical argument, and some of the logical bearings, support Klings view, the sentiment involved in the other interpretation is thoroughly Scriptural (1Pe 3:1-2), and is favored by most interpreters because of its gracious tone. Most of the Homiletical and Practical remarks cited in this section proceed upon it.]
Obs. 1. Our passage, especially 1Co 7:15, forms, as is well known, the Scripture ground for divorce on account of malicious desertion. But the support given is not direct or absolutely reliable. The Apostle is here speaking only of mixed marriages, in which the will of the unbelieving party is the chief thing under consideration. But for purely Christian marriages there is no other ground allowed in Scripture for divorce but adultery or fornication, which is an actual rupture of the marriage tie. The only question therefore is, whether the language of Christ is to be interpreted as giving a law literally and universally obligatory, or only laying down a principle which admits of being applied analogically, so that other circumstances also that are in fact a breaking of the bond, may be taken as furnishing good ground for divorce. In the latter case, malicious desertion would very properly be regarded as one of these circumstances.
Obs. 2. In regard to the phrase, is not under bondage (1Co 7:15), the question arises, whether, according to the intent of the Apostle, a second marriage is allowed or forbidden. The words themselves express neither the one nor the other, and it is altogether arbitrary to supply the clause: but let her remain unmarried, from 1Co 7:11. Rather we may say with Meyer: Because Paul does not apply our Lords prohibition of divorce to mixed marriages, he does not intend also to apply his prohibition of a second marriage in Mat 5:22 to such cases.
[Although a Christian may not put away his wife, being an unbeliever, yet if the wife desert her husband, he may contract a second marriage. Hence even Romish divines declare that in this case marriage is not indissoluble. Thus A. Lapide says here: Observe that the Apostle in this case not only permits divorce of bed (thori divortium), but also of matrimony; so that the believing spouse is at liberty to contract a second marriage. Otherwise a brother or sister would be subject to servitude. And it is a great servitude to be held fast in matrimony, bound to an unbeliever; so that even though the latter desert you, you are not able to marry again, but must contain yourself and lead a single life. And in support of this opinion he refers to St. Augustine, de Adulterinis Conjugiis, c. 13 and 19. St. Thomas and Ambrosiast., who says: The respect of a spouse is not due to him who contemns the Author of marriage, but a person is at liberty to unite himself to another. Words., who singularly contradicts this view in his comments on the next verse].
1Co 7:17. If not to each one as the Lord hath distributed, each one, as God hath called, so let him walk.There are two points here in regard to which commentators differ: 1. The connection with what precedes, formed by ; 2. The relation of the parallel clauses, beginning with : as,whether they express essentially the same idea or different ideas. As it respects the second point, it is clear from what is specified in 1Co 7:18 ff., that Paul is here speaking of that position in life in which each one finds himself when called to be a Christian. The first of these clauses, then, designates this position as a lot appointed to each one by the Lord [it is a dramatic metaphor, which will bring to mind a celebrated passage in Hamlet. Bloomfield]; the second, as a position in which he received his call to salvation. It is to this position that the particles as and so refer. The two clauses, then, are not tautological. The use of the title Lord, in connection with distributeth () is somewhat remarkable, since Paul generally employs this title of Christ. From this fact we are to explain the change of place between the two words, the Lord and God in the received text; since the former would rather be regarded as the subject of the verb call, although the act of calling is also frequently referred back to God. This difficulty has led some to regard gifts as the implied object of distributed, i.e., the higher and Divinely-conferred qualifications for the state and calling of individuals (comp. 1Co 7:7). Thus Osiander, Bengel, and others. But in 1Co 7:7, the gift, which would then be treated of here, is referred back to God; and in the exposition which follows, so far from there being any hint of this, one would rather suppose that Lord was to be taken as synonymous with God. This might be explained on the score of a wish merely to change the form of expression, and of the fact that Paul was here speaking of the act of Lordship. The explanation of Reiche, who refers the words, as the Lord hath distributed, to the beneficence of Christ (comp. Meyer, ed. 3), is neither supported by the context nor warranted by the position they occupy before the words, as God hath called.
In respect to the first point, however, viz: the connection of this verse with the preceding by , it must be confessed that an explanation altogether satisfactory does not exist. If we supply from 1Co 7:15, or from 1Co 7:16, then it would have read: , or , and this would be a decided objection, apart from all other considerations arising from the unsuitableness of the idea obtained, viz: but if she should not depart, or: if thou dost not save her.If, again, we join to what directly precedes, making it mean, or not, this would be both ungrammatical (hence the variation ), and would only weaken the force of the question.If, moreover, we should refer the clause to the preceding words, this would be to rend asunder parallel clauses most unjustifiably, and the consequent explanation, nisi prout guemque Dominus adjuverit, would be both flat and inconsistent with the meaning of the words themselves. To take as equivalent to , is contrary to usage.If we render the words by: only, then there is no suitable connection with the foregoing sentence; for to go back, as de Wette does, to is not bound would be a very questionable overleaping of what intervened. But, not to say anything of the fact that it does indeed serve for the confirmation of , yet it does not suit, inasmuch as the contents of 1Co 7:17 would then be put in entire contradiction to the above statement ( .). We should then be obliged to supply some phrase like this: in case that condition, viz: the departure of the unbelieving party, does not occur. It still remains for us, with Grotius and Meyer, to attach to 1Co 7:16, in the sense of except, or unless, and to supply , you know, from 1 Corinthians 16 : unless ye (know this, your obligation), let every one walk, etc. How hard this construction is, every one can perceive; where, instead of going straight on with the words: that it is necessary for us so to walk as God hath called each one, we have the abrupt introduction of the imperative form. Besides, there arises also an incongruity between the contents of 1Co 7:16 and 1Co 7:17. (See what has been observed above). We prefer here to allow a (philological) non-liquet, and accept Bengels translation, which is most in accordance with the course of thought: if this be not so, otherwise (ceteroquin). We might, perhaps, take in the sense of if not, and understand it to imply: provided no element comes in to destroy the purpose of the Divine calling (1Co 7:15), as in the case mentioned,the desertion of the unbelieving party. [Is it not, after all, the simplest method to consider this as resuming the implication of the previous question, and making it the basis of the following injunction, q. d. How knowest thou whether thou wilt convert thy husband? If not, if thou canst not know this fact, then let each one go quietly on his course, as the Lord has marked it out for him in his Providence. If it be to be deserted and left alone, let him accept that destiny, and not fight against it to the aggravation of all difficulties. In such a view of the words we have no need of inserting a . We would no more need it in Greek than in English. The argument is here on the rapids, and its flow is far from smooth].
[As to the two clauses, they are, as Kling asserts, by no means tautological, but seem to imply more than he states. In the first, Paul confines himself to the allotment of Providence in the case of desertion. But he at once recollects himself, as standing upon a broad principle, applicable not only to the parties directly in view, and their particular allotments (), but also to all conditions and callings in life (). And here we see the reason why, in the first instance, he uses the term , the Lord, evidently referring to Christ. To the deserted one he intimates that it is the dear Saviour after all that rules in the lot, and it is not contrary to his or her salvation. It is a touch of tenderness. But when at once his view expands to all vocations and conditions of humanity, he uses the more seemingly universal epithet, God ( ). And then it was natural for him to add]and so I ordain in all churches.He here shows the great breadth of the principle he enjoined, and the emphasis he put upon it. It was nothing framed for the case of the Corinthians alone, but ran through all his teachings. Hence, they were the more bound to abide by it. Each one every where was to continue walking () in that course of life, and in that outward state, where Christianity found him. This thought afterwards is more definitely expressed by . Here we learn the general fact that Christianity does not disturb existing relations, so far as they are not sinful, but only aims to infuse into them a new spirit. Hence, it opposes every thing revolutionary. Neander.
1Co 7:18-19. Has any man been called who has been circumcised?In illustrating his general precept, he takes into consideration, first, the religious position of the individual, with its outward token showing whether he was a Jew or not when making a profession of Christianity. In the one case, as little as in the other, does he approve of a change being attempted; because nothing at all depended upon these external signs, but every thing (comp. 1Co 3:7) upon the keeping of Gods commandments (comp. Rom 2:25 ff.),upon the faith which works by love (Gal 5:6). In opposition to the externality of such self-chosen God-service he insists upon the moral characterthe obedience that involves faith (comp. 1Jn 3:23) as that which alone has or imparts value for the kingdom of God (comp. Calvin and Osiander). In 1Co 7:18, as also afterwards in 1Co 7:21, some take the clauses to be questions; others as hypothetical statements. The latter is the more emphatic. Yet we might also regard them as direct assertions, as for example: There is one who has been called, etc., let him not become uncircumcised. The word denotes the drawing of the prepuce again over the glandsits artificial restoration which was effected by a surgical operation. This was often practised by the Jews of a later time, both when they lapsed into paganism, and when, from shame or fear of the heathen, in times of persecution, they wished to hide their nationality, and, also, when they appeared naked as combatants in public sports (comp. 1Ma 1:15; Josephus Antiq. xii. 5, 1; and Sbkert Stud. and Crit., 1835, p. 657 ff.). Such were called , recutiti. A like measure must have been resorted to by the Corinthian Jewish converts, who wished not to be behind the converts from heathenism in their entire abandonment of the law, and who, therefore, wished to wipe out all trace of Judaism from their persons.Was any one called in uncircumcision, as in Rom 4:10 (comp. Act 15:1). The desire of the heathen converts to become circumcised we are to regard as a Jewish reaction against all such Hellenism. Both 1Co 7:18-19 are asyndetic by way of giving life and emphasis to the style.Let him not be circumcised. The circumcision is nothing, and the uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping of the commandments of God.[Supply: that, indeed, is something, yea, everything. In this, as in the two exactly parallel passages, Gal 5:6; Gal 6:15, the first clause is the same. Circumcision availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision; thus asserting the two sides of the Apostles principle of indifference to the greatest of the Jewish ceremonies, exemplified in his conduct by the circumcision of Timotheus on the one hand, and by the refusal to circumcise Titus on the other. The peculiar excellence of the maxim is its declaration, that those who maintain the absolute necessity of rejecting forms, are as much opposed to the freedom of the Gospel, as those who maintain the absolute necessity of retaining them. In contradistinction to this positive or negative ceremonialism, he gives, in the several clauses of each of these texts, his description of what he maintains to be really essential. The variation of the three passages thus become valuable, as exhibiting in their several forms the Apostles view of the essentials of ChristianityKeeping the commandments of God, Faith working by love, A new creature. These describe the same threefold aspect of Christianity with regard to man, which, in speaking of God, is described under the names of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. In this passage, where man is viewed chiefly in his relation to the natural order of the world, the point which the Apostle wished to impress upon his hearers was, that in whatever station of life they were, it was still possible to observe the commandments of God (perhaps with an implied reference to the two great commandments, Mat 22:36-39). In the two passages in the Epistle to the Galatians (1Co 7:6; 1Co 6:15), the more distinct reference to faith in Christ, and to the new creation wrought by His Spirit, is brought out by the more earnest and impassioned character of the argument. Stanley].
1Co 7:20-22. Each one in the calling in which he is called, in this let him abide.Paul here goes back to his general rule, thus finishing up the special application in 1Co 7:18, and introducing another illustration. The demonstrative, in this, comes in by way of emphasis. The , however, does not denote vocation, a position in life determined by the Divine Providence; for it nowhere else occurs with this meaning. (In Dion. H. the word is used to denote the distinctions among the citizens at Rome, i. e., classes, which, however, does not mean the same thing). Rather we might say, with Bengel, that it denotes the state in which the Divine calling finds one, which is instar vocationis: as a calling. [As he was called, so let him remain. Robinson]. But as applied, usage is against it. In the New Testament is uniformly used to denote the calling or invitation unto Gods Kingdom. This goes out broadly to all men, of every condition in life, addressing them as they are. It says, thou circumcised one, thou uncircumcised, thou slave, thou freeman, believe on the Lord Jesus! It takes the man, therefore, as he is, in his own peculiar position in society, and in this way designates this position as compatible with Christianity, and capable of being sanctified by it. Hence, no surrender of it is required. On the contrary, the injunction is to abide therein. So we at last reach the above-mentioned sense of the word, but not in such a way as to imply that carries in itself this signification of a peculiar vocation. [Of course the injunction here given is supposed to be limited by the obvious consideration that there is nothing in the persons condition which is inconsistent with the Divine vocation. If there be, a change will be necessitated.]As a slave art thou called.After specifying in 1Co 7:18 the religious distinction, which divided the entire human race at that time in respect to its outward token, and pronouncing it indifferent in relation to the kingdom of God, he comes now to the great distinction that existed in social life,that between slaves and freemen, and affirms that a position of servitude even is by no means inconsistent with that of a Christian, and, therefore, that the slave, who becomes a believer, need not be troubled about changing his outward state.Let it not concern youi.e., as though you, in this external bondage, could not, as a Christian, and as a freeman, pray or serve God; and must be curtailed of your Christian rights.But if also thou art able to become free, use it rather, , . The meaning here is much disputed. Some supplement with , from , take as equivalent to: but (aber), and attach , not to the whole sentence, but to , and translate: but if thou mayest in any way also become free, use this freedom rather. But against this it is justly objected: 1. that ought in that case to stand before , and 2. that what immediately precedes and what follows (1Co 7:22), as well as the scope of the whole clause, does not indicate that he is exhorting the slave to seek a change in condition. Rather the whole drift of the argument is the other wayto make men content with their lot, and so favors the other explanation, that which regards as equivalent to: sondern, on the contrary, and to mean: even though, and makes the being called as a slave, the object of ; and then translates: but even though thou mayest be made free, use your servitude rather, [as a means of discipline, and an opportunity for glorifying God by showing fidelity therein]. It may be said, indeed, that this conflicts with the general spirit of the Apostle. But in opposition to this Meyer justly observes: that the advice to improve opportunities for becoming free, which was rendered unimportant and trivial by the anticipation of the speedy advent of Christ, was, on the other hand, by no means incompatible with the exalted idea of Paul, that all men were one in Christ (Gal 3:28), and that in Christ the slave was free, and the freeman was a slave (1Co 7:22). Compare also Bengel (who adds explanatorily: for he, who might become free, has a kind master, whom it were better to serve than to seek other avocations, 1Ti 6:2, comp. 1Co 7:22 : and sets aside the apparent contradiction between this and 1Co 7:23, by saying: it is not said then, be not, but become not the servants of men), and Osiander, who, in the end, observes, that the severity of the advice becomes moderated by the consideration of the very tolerable condition of slaves in the civilized States of Greece, where, in many respects, they enjoyed the protection of law, and the masters did not have the power of life and death over them. The question assumes a different aspect altogether in the slave States of North America; for there the slaves are prevented from becoming Christians, and in this way good care is taken that the fundamental principles respecting the position of Christian slaves cannot come into application. And this is one of the most frightful violations of Christian principle. Burger. [Thank God! we can put this into the past tense now].22
for the slave who was called in the Lord is a freeman of the Lord, in like manner he who was called as a freeman is a slave of Christ.The advice just given, is here sustained by a general truth, and the person who was called as a slave is comforted in respect to his condition. The Apostle shows how the converted slave must estimate his relation to Christ, viz., as swallowing up all the evils of his earthly lot, and conferring on him a blessed emancipation; and how the freeman has to regard his relation to Christ, viz., as one that puts him under obligations to obey. Mark the connection between the phrases in the Lord and of the Lord.By called in the Lord, he signifies either, that which the calling involves, i.e., to be in Christ; or, what is simpler, the Being in whom the call is grounded. Or it may even denote the sphere in which the calling is to be fulfilledthe element in which the person called is to live. Hence it may be equivalent to: has become a Christian.In the expression: the Lords freeman, the Lord will, of course, not be understood as the person who had liberated the individual in question from His own service; since it was in Satans service that he was previously bound, but as the one to whom he belonged in consequence of his liberation from the yoke of the other, and for which he was under deep obligations to his deliverer. Yet he belongs to Christ, not as a slave, but as a freeman, since in the sphere of Christ there is liberty (comp. 2Co 3:17; Joh 8:32; Joh 8:36); there all slavery is done away, and the persons so liberated become His possession.Of course the freedom here spoken of is moral and religious freedomdeliverance from the bonds of guilt, and from the power of sin; just as in the antithesis, the servitude meant is a state of moral and religious obligation to Christof absolute inward dependence on His grace and will. The points here contrasted belong together, as complements of each other (comp. Rom 6:16 if.). Hence the distinction between master and slave is here virtually obliterated. To be the Lords freeman, and to be the Lords slave, are the same thing. The Lords freeman is one whom the Lord has redeemed from Satan, and made His own; and the Lords slave is also one whom Christ has purchased for Himself. So that master and slave stand on the same level before Christ. Comp. Eph 6:9. Hodge.]
1Co 7:23-24. Ye were bought with a price.The thought of belonging to Christ leads to the ground of this relation, viz., the purchase of the believer by Him (comp. 1Co 6:20).From this the exhortation follows, not to be faithless to the obligation thus imposed, by coming under servitude to men.become not the servants of men.As the transition to the plural shows, he is here addressing the Corinthians at large. What he dissuades them from, is not simply men-pleasing in general, and compliance with their immoral demands; nor yet undue attachment to human guides; but rather such a subserviency to popular opinion as would cause them to seek a change in their external social position (so Fritzsche and Meyer). Paul is here showing the Christian slaves a trace of freedom, even under their outward yoke. The slaves who are obedient to their masters for the Lords sake (1Pe 2:13, belong in truth to no man. Hence, no Christian, dearly purchased and called from sin, death and the devil, to true liberty, should make himself so dependent on man, as to imagine that he was not really free, even though he had a master over him (Besser).Less in accordance with the immediate connection Osiander says: No one should abrogate his true freedom, or his true subjection, by sacrificing his faith to unbelieving masters or companions. To suppose a reference here to slaves, implying that they should not serve men merely (Eph 6:6); or to freemen, that they should not dispose of their liberty;23 or, which would be better, that they should not become morally subject to men, is unwarranted.The whole digression from 1Co 7:17 [entered upon by way of illustration], he concludes with an exhortation essentially the same as in 1Co 7:20.Wherein each one was called, brethren, in that let him remain with God,Here also the emphasis is on the words in that ( ); and its antecedent denotes that relation in life which a person occupied when called. The adjunct with God ( ) is somewhat peculiar. It may mean: directing his mind towards God as in His presence (= ); or: as in Gods sight, tanquam in spectante Deo, (Grotius); (comp. Psa 23:2; Eph 6:6), or: in communion with God. The injunction would then be: let every one continue in his original condition and relations; and yet so conduct his affairs as not to disturb his fellowship with God in them. The last interpretation is undoubtedly to be preferred as introducing a new thought more definitely, and such a one too as refers that which is hinted at in 1Co 7:23, to its proper connection with the absolute principle of Christian life. [To live near to God is, therefore, the Apostles prescription both for peace and holiness. Hodge.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Christianity as the absolute religion is distinguished by the fact, that it takes up into its own sphere every legitimate occupation or function in life; and either ennobles it by its sanctifying power, or allows it as something indifferent, so far as its spiritual work is concerned. The contrasts in religion between Jews and Heathen, externally symbolized by circumcision and uncircumcision, vanish in the Christian sphere; there the only thing which is held valid and imparts value, is the entering of man, with his entire personality, into holy covenant with God. This takes place by faithfaith which works by love; so that the uncircumcised, who is thus found in faith, is like to the circumcised, who in like manner believes. Hence, neither the one nor the other has any reason for passing out from his own state into that of the other; as though circumcision, the token of bondage to the law, were unworthy of a Christian who has been freed from the law; or as though uncircumcision, the sign of a position outside the covenant and promise, were a hinderance to a participation in the same.The contrasts also of civil life, such as those which exist between the slave and the free, likewise vanish, so far as it respects the inward life. The slave, as be longing to Christ, is a freeman, bound only inwardly to Christ, whom he serves in everything which he has either to do or suffer in his position; since he does and suffers everything for His sake, or because it is the will of his Lord that he should do and suffer that which his position involves, and thus should honor Him, and prove that communion with Christ makes a servant faithful and zealous. On the other hand, the freeman, as a Christian, is bound to Christ; his acts proceed not from caprice, but in constant subjection to Christs will. As a person who is outwardly dependent on another, is a freeman when in communion with Christ, since in his devotion to Christ, all dependence upon other men is done away; so is the person who is outwardly independent of another, made a servant by his connection with Christ, since in his entire dependence on Christ, all arbitrariness, arising from his outward independence, is removed. Thus are both essentially alike; and the slave has no reason to strive after a change of his external position, as if his dignity as a free Christian man were conditioned upon it.
It is altogether another thing, however, when within the limits of Christendom a mighty irrepressible reaction arises against slaveholding, on the part of such as wish to be Christians, and to be counted a part of Christendom. For men who are destined one day to have part in Christ, the Son of Man, the Saviour of all (even though they have not as yet any actual part in Him), are even, on this account, bound to have their personality respected, and are not to be treated always as chattels. It is inconsistent, therefore, with the spirit of Christianity, for such as pass for Christians, to presume on perpetuating bondage; and Christendom ought not to rest until it has wiped out this stain. For such has been the tendency of the Gospel from the beginning. Ever since the first centuries, in proportion as Christianity has gained the ascendency, has it operated more and more to put an end to slavery.
2. Christian Freedom.There is something great in the freedom of a Christian, into which he has been lifted by faitha freedom wherein he is freed from all things, and is independent of all, and yet, through love, is the servant of all. (See Luthers remarkable treatise, which has this title). In that faith, which apprehends the eternal word of God, and beholds the unseen and future world disclosed therein, he acquires the pilgrim sense, which looks on the fashion of this world as passing away, and keeps from all entanglement in its business, in its connections and possessions, in its use and enjoyment; nor allows himself to be captivated by it. Yet, on the other hand, so long as he is outwardly occupied with it, he overlooks or neglects nothing; but rather bestows upon it all requisite duty, care, and oversight; attending to it, while he stands inwardly about it. His chief occupation, viz: his care for the kingdom of God and for a participation in it, he in no way suffers to be disturbed; and, for the sake of the highest good, he is always ready to sacrifice everything else, however dear; indeed, in all his having, and holding, and using, he is intent only upon how he can serve the Lord, further His ends, prove himself to be His follower, and do every thing in His name and to his honor (1Co 10:31. Col 3:17).So also in marriage he aims at the same thing, by his tender solicitude for his wife, by pious domestic discipline, by acquisition of a livelihood, by skill and fidelity in the use and enjoyment of temporal goods, by moderation, beneficence, etc. The same holds good, also, of joy and sorrow, and of the various experiences arising from the vicissitudes of life. In this also does the Christian maintain his inward freedom. Not that he is devoid of feelingnot that he affects a stoical apathy; rather, in the midst of deep emotions, his aim is to preserve a mastery over self, and keep composed in God; so that joy ever resolves itself into filial gratitude; and pain, into filial resignation; he is enthralled by no affections, he is carried away by no passionate desires.
[3. Importance of unity of religious faith in married life.According to its true ideal, marriage is the union of a man and woman in their entire personalities, and for their entire earthly existence. Being mutual complements of each other, they combine to form a larger and complex whole; for they are no more twain but one flesh. But in order to the perfection and harmony of this union, and for the fulfilment of ends for which it was instituted, it is necessary that there be a prevailing fellowship in thought and feeling, in ends and aims, in interests and pursuits, not only in respect to their natural, but also in respect to their spiritual life. Thus only can their influence on each other be kindly, and they prove mutual helpers in joy and sorrow, in cares and labors; thus only can they properly contribute to the happy development of each others character, and suitably coperate for the training of their children and management of their household; thus only can that good be realized, in all its fulness, which was contemplated when it was ordained that man should not live alone.
It follows, therefore, that precisely to the extent that the fellowship above spoken of fails, there will be a lack of sympathy and coperation, and occasion furnished for alienation, strife and separation. The perfect oneness of the flesh is in danger of being interrupted and broken, when there is not also oneness of spirit. And to such evil and bitter consequences do those Christians expose themselves who become voluntarily allied in marriage to the children of this world. Supposing their faith sincere, the bond which unites them to their partners can only be the lower one of the natural life. In all their deeper experiences, in all their more important hopes and aims, there is essential and irreconcilable antagonism. For what fellowship hath ighteousness with unrighteousness? and what Communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? Harmony, in such cases, can be preserved only by agreement to disagree, or by an inconsistent and irksome compliance of each with the wishes of the other in the greater part of those pursuits and pleasures which involve their common action. And when there is not in the worldling a conviction of the superior worth of religion, and a considerate affection, which tolerates what it cannot share in, the effect upon the religious life of the other can only be disastrous. Instead of that kindly sympathy and furtherance so needful to the cultivation of piety, there is perpetual obstruction interposed in the way of every higher duty. Household religion becomes impossible. And so also the religious instruction and training which the Christian parent would exercise upon the children, is neutralized by the irreligious example of the other.
For such evil results there can be no responsibility incurred when conversion has taken place after marriage. But those who have voluntarily hazarded them under earthly inducements must bear the burden of the blame and take the consequences, as the penalty for consenting to be unequally yoked, contrary to the very nature of the marriage rite. For the Christian the condition of a blessed marriage is, in the Lord. This is at once highest reason and Divine precept].
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
[1Co 7:12-24. This section shows 1. the method in which Christianity entered into, and revolutionized human society. 1. It assailed no existing social institutions from without; marriages, callings, conditions were to remain as they were. 2. It wrought from within, sanctifying and ennobling the individual character. 3. It employed the existing bonds of society, as conductors through which to diffuse its saving powersanctifying wives through husbands, and husbands through wives; children through parents, and parents through children, and even servants through masters, and masters through servants. 4. It aimed at the preservation of peace, as far as possible, in consistency with being in God. 5. It ignored outward distinctionscounting the external condition as of little moment, in comparison with the inward state. 7. It begot contentment with the outward estate, by imparting a blessing which more than counterbalanced all earthly ill. 8. It reconciled the opposite poles of human condition, freedom and obligation in the love it engendered, making the slave a freeman, and putting the freeman under obligations to serve, and making all alike free, and alike obligated. And 9. It placed all in the presence of God, in whose sight it constrained believers to live; whose honor it urged all to subserve; and from whom it invited all to derive their chief good. II. The true mode of preaching the Gospel. It Isaiah 1, to bring the individual to believe in, love and serve the Lord; 2, to teach him how to improve the circumstances of his condition to the discipline and improvement of his character; 3, to show him how he is to make the very evils that press upon him a means for illustrating the greater power of the Gospel, and for promoting the glory of God.]
Starke (Hedinger):1. To the pure all things are pure (Tit 1:15). As it does not injure a pious man to dwell under godless rulers, so also does it not injure a believer to dwell with a heathen wife, [i.e., in case he finds himself living with her when called, and she consent to dwell with him without interfering with his religious oligations], 2. Where married people profess one Christ and one Gospel, and yet, one party, if not both, cleave to the world, there is then certainly an occasion for exercising patience and charity, 1Co 7:12-13. And 3. If one of the married parties is a believer, then is the other party sanctified by the communion of the marriage state, and the children are holy in virtue of that gracious covenant which God has instituted with believers and their seed. Gen 12:7. 4. A pious partner may be able to win and convert his irreligious companion, by means of the word, prayer, and Christian conversation. (1Pe 3:14). 5. If one of the married parties becomes faithless, and withdraws from his covenant, and can be recovered by no instrumentality, then is the other party free, and the Church authorities themselves declare him free, 1Co 7:15. 6. It is not enough that married, people should hold together in friendship and in earthly communion, but each ought to assist in promoting the salvation of the other, 1Co 7:16. Starke:Since one condition and calling is in itself the same as another before God, it becomes every one to be content with whatsoever state he is in. 1Co 7:17.We must forget what we were before we belonged to Jesus, and think only of how we may sanctify our hearts for Him now.In Christ no regard is paid to external conditions, whether it be for honor or contempt. Outward circumstances pass for nothing before God; they neither hinder nor help in the matter of our eternal salvation. Act 10:34. God is no respecter of persons. 1Co 7:18-19. It is a glorious proof of the preminence of Christianity, that it adapts itself to all nations, communities, ages and conditions in life, and is to them what salt and seasoning is to our food. 1Co 7:20.Thou poor man! art thou doomed to live in servitude and oppression; be of good comfort! Thou mayest yet please God, and attain to everlasting liberty (Eph 6:8). 1Co 7:21.To be a servant in the eyes of the world, and a freeman in Christ before God, is honor, comfort, and blessedness enough. Gal 3:26; Gal 3:28. Hast thou been made free, abuse not thy freedom for a cover to iniquity. (1Pe 2:16); but serve thy Lord, Christ, in righteousness and true holiness (Tit 2:14). 1Co 7:22.Away with all lords and masters, who are opposed to Christ,Gratefully should we estimate the great benefit of freedom of conscience which we have in the Evangelical Church, and improve it all the more worthily, Php 1:27. 1Co 7:23.Although one vocation in life may be subject to more temptations than another, yet every one nevertheless stands under the providence of God; and if sufficient care be taken, we can remain with God in all. So, then, this remaining with God in every calling should be the first thing sought for and practised. 1Pe 1:15, 1Co 7:24.
Berlenb. Bib.:When married to a heathen, or an infidel, a Christian ought simply and earnestly to consider the providence of God herein, and not cut himself loose arbitrarily. Rather he should regard and improve such a state as a happy opportunity for exercising the spirit of Christ; and to this end he should pray for this spirit, and endeavor to convince and win the unconverted spouse at least by his good conduct alone, if by nothing else.Thou art not at liberty to refrain from any possible means for effecting, at least preparatorily or initiatively, the conversion of thy associate. Since we all belong to each other, God uses all conditions and occasions for sanctifying one person through another. God desires, therefore, that we all aim at this point. This is a sacred thing in His sight. Therefore our conditions and circumstances are wisely ordered with reference to this end.The children are holy. By prayer they are taken from Satan and consecrated to God as their rightful Lord. 1Co 7:12-14.Liberty should be enjoyed with a readiness to suffer if need be; then it is good, and one can accept it. This is better than arbitrarily to consent to be a slave.God does not begrudge us peace. But, at all events, we are not to think of our own trials, but to look to the sanctification of the other.Suffering comes from sin. If a way, however, is open to a better condition, let a person improve it. Not that we should shrink from necessity and privation; but if God shows a way of escape, let us escape; and then be prepared to suffer again, if God will.Where God appoints, there I abide in peace. But peace is often lost, simply because people are not prepared for all circumstances. 1Co 7:16.Each one has his own duties. Hence we are not to look upon others. Be thou only true on thy part. God wills not that any should perish; but, in the apportionment of other matters, we must concede to Him His absolute right.Each one stands under the providence of God, and as that eye leads, so let each one walk suitably to his calling, and do nothing in and of himself. Let no one undertake anything which he is not certain in his own conscience that God would have him do. Only on such terms can a man be sure of Gods blessing.In spiritual matters we should faithfully follow the promptings of the Spirit of God. But in externals, the Gospel as little requires us to imitate the ways of others, however innocent, as it allows others to enforce their ways upon us. All arbitrariness is hereby cut off; and our conduct exhibits all suitable obedience to God, industry and fidelity, submission and patience,in short the whole round of Christian duty towards God, our neighbor and ourselves.On such righteous behaviour in our calling, our well-being for time and eternity depends. Not that we become blessed through such external performances, but our mode of life is so closely connected with the spiritual state of our souls, that the one cannot exist aright without the other. He, who in external matters lives disorderly, falsely and iniquitously, cannot possibly remain sound and honest within. He who, on the contrary, is in heart well ordered, governed and protected by God, can also conduct himself rightly in external things.Inward perfection consists in following ones gifts.Outward perfection consists in discharging ones own obligations in such conditions and callings as God has placed us in. 1Co 7:17.Men often gladly pass by the essential commands of God, and take up some incidental matters as the main objects of their regard (comp. Mat 23:23); but Paul says: nothing is as you, apprehend it.But to perform the will of Godto be obedient to His light, and Spirit, and wordthis is of consequence; and the new creature in Jesus Christ is every thing (Gal 6:15), 1Co 7:11.Most men make themselves servants to each other; but O! let each man recognize the greatness of his own soul, and what it has cost. It has cost the blood and life of God, which is more than all the world,yea, hundred thousand worlds. And yet, oftentimes, this soul, so great, so noble, is sold for a trilling enjoymenta little piece of foolery,All those, who in any respect act upon Christ, their true pattern, have passed into the imagination and thoughts of men, and so have become their servants. But so far as thou art a servant of men in any other sense, thou withholdest from God His due. The Lord tolerates no rivals: He also needs no vicegerent, nor anything of the sort. He is alone, and there is no second. His honor He will give to no other. (Is. 12:8). He is the bridegroom, and to Him only the bride shall listen. He is the Lord, and to Him only shall men hearken, 1Co 7:23.So great is the value put upon the immortal soul, that God takes upon Himself the labor and the care of it, calls each one especially out of His own free grace, and appoints certain ways and methods, in which each one may and should pass his life on earth beneficially and well. For this also he furnishes all the means requisite, and wisely ordains the result; and everything which He gives into our hands, He sanctifies to our use, if we will but follow Him. But each one must be certain of his calling; and in this calling let him remain and improve his gifts to the general good. Let us adorn the place to which God has appointed us, so that everything may stand and go on well in His house.Our calling and its use must be sanctified by remaining with God and in His presence. Apart from this, our calling is subject to a curse, although in itself it were never so proper and promising. Each one must learn to look upon his state and calling wisely, and remember how it has become corrupt in and through the fall, and how the best things in life also have become vitiated by a will alienated from God, and how much that is impure cleaves to most of the modes of life, and now all such things continue only under the forbearance of a holy and merciful Creator. Bethink thyself, accordingly, how humbly and worshipfully thou hast to live in thy station before God. The blessing to spring from it must be sought from God and in communion with Him. What comes from God is good, and can also transpire in the name of God.Faith is quiet communing with God; and while it is nothing pusillanimous, neither is it at the same time audacious. It is God in us.Were we always calm in that position where we happened to be, and only sought to fulfil these, the ordinary duties of a true Christian satisfactorily, this would be the best thing for us, and the most acceptable to God.There is no station in which one cannot attain to blessednessin which he may not live in God and abide in Him; and this we can do through lovean affection which we may cherish in all circumstances. 1Jn 4:16. Everything then turns on this, that each in his own station abide with God and keep near to Him. 1Co 7:24.
Rieger:
1Co 7:20-21. If God has not allowed thine external circumstances to hinder His bringing to thee His heavenly calling, and to advance thee thereby to the glorious possession of our Lord Jesus Christ, suffer thou not such circumstances to hinder thee from walking worthily in the Gospel, but regard thy station in life as a most favorable opportunity for serving the will of God in thy day and generation. Do not defer the inward duty, viz., obedience to the heavenly calling, because of some external circumstance. Think not to effect this or that change first, but in whatever circumstances God summons thee, and deems thee worthy of His calling, in those be assured that He will bring thee successfully through. Everything turns on the amount of light a person has from the Lord, to enable hint to fulfil his vocation conscientiously, and to make it tolerable also for himself. God does not advise us to change our external condition, but to change our hearts. But if any mode of life can be spent with God, and is the light of His presence, let a person therein abide with God.
[Barnes:
1Co 7:20; 1Co 7:24. Change in a mans calling should not be made from a slight cause. A Christian should not make it unless his former calling were wrong, or unless he can by it extend his own usefulness. But when that can be done he should do it, and do it without delay. if the course is wrong, it should be forthwith abandoned. No consideration can make it right to continue it for a day or an hour; no matter what may be the sacrifice of property, it should be done. If a man is engaged in the slave trade, or in smuggling, or in piracy, or highway robbery, or in the manufacture and sale of poison, it should be at once and forever abandoned. And in like manner if a young man who is converted can increase his usefulness by changing his plan of life, it should be done as soon as practicable.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
Ver. 12. Let him not put her away ] For to the pure all things are pure. Uxoris vitium aut tollendum, aut tolerandum est, saith Varro in Gellius. Mend a bad wife, if thou canst; bear with her, if thou canst not.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
12 16 .] Directions for such Christians as were already married to Heathens. Such a circumstance must not be a ground per se of separation, and why: but if the unbelieving party wished to break off the union, let it be so .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
12. ] , the rest , perhaps in respect of their letter of enquiry , the only ones not yet dealt with . At all events, the meaning is plain, being those who are involved in mixed marriages with unbelievers.
, . ] I , i.e. I Paul, in my apostolic office, under the authority of the Holy Spirit (see above on 1Co 7:10 ), not the Lord , i.e. not Christ by any direct command spoken by Him: it was a question with which HE did not deal , in His recorded discourses. In the right arrangement of the words (txt) the stress is not on , but on : But to the rest I say (I, not the Lord) .
presupposes his own wish to continue united.
, not , and , not , below, see reff.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 7:12-13 . “But to the rest” as distinguished from Christian couples (1Co 7:10 ) “say I, not the Lord”: this is my word, not His. On the problem of mixed marriages, which Jesus had no occasion to regulate, the Ap. delivers his own sentence. Not that he exhorts , whereas the Lord commands (Cm [1039] ) is a word of authority (virtually repeating , 1Co 7:10 ), as in 1Co 14:34 ; 1Co 14:37 , 1Co 15:51 , 2Co 6:13 , Rom 12:3 ; much less, that he disclaims inspiration upon this point (Or [1040] , Tert [1041] , Milton), or betrays a doubt of his competence (Baur): he quoted the dictum of Jesus where it was available, and on the fundamental matter, and indicates frankly that in this further case he is proceeding on his personal judgment. The Christian spouse is forbidden to cast off the non-Christian in terms identical for husband and wife, only (or : 1Co 7:13 ) standing over against (1Co 7:12 ). , used of the specifically in 1Co 7:11 , is now applied to both parties: cl [1042] Gr [1043] uses or (Mat 5:31 ) of the husband as dismissing the wife, of the wife as the deserting husband; “in the structure of the two verses, with their solemn repetition, the equal footing of man and wife is indicated” (Hn [1044] ; cf. notes on 1Co 7:2-4 above). – , “is jointly well-pleased,” implying that the agrees with the Christian spouse in deprecating separation, which the latter (after 1Co 7:10 f.) must needs desire to avoid; cf. , for the force of -, Luk 11:48 , Act 8:1 .
[1039] John Chrysostom’s Homili ( 407).
[1040] Origen.
[1041]ert. Tertullian.
[1042] classical.
[1043] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[1044]
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 7:12-16
12But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
1Co 7:12 “to the rest” This would refer to previously married pagan couples where one had become a believer. This cannot be used as a prooftext for a believer marrying an unbeliever. This refers to a situation where both were originally unbelievers. One had received Christ and hopefully in time, so would the other (cf. 1Co 7:16).
NASB, NRSV”I say, not the Lord”
NKJV”I, not the Lord”
TEV”(I, myself, not the Lord)”
NJB”these instructions are my own, not the Lord’s”
This is not a disclaimer of inspiration by Paul, but simply a recognition that Paul did not know about any teachings of Jesuson this particular issue. Paul asserts his sense of inspiration in 1Co 7:25; 1Co 7:40 of this chapter.
“if” This is a first class conditional sentence. There were mixed couples in Corinth. This shows both the effectiveness of Paul’s preaching and the difficulty involved in being married to an unbeliever.
“he must not divorce her” This is a present active imperative, like the parallel in 1Co 7:13.
1Co 7:14
NASB, NKJV,
NJB”For the unbelieving husband is sanctified”
NRSV”For the unbelieving husband is made holy”
TEV”For the unbelieving husband is made acceptable to God”
This is a perfect passive indicative as is the parallel phrase in 1Co 7:14. This does not imply that the unbelieving spouse is saved. This relates to the concern of some in Corinth that being married to an unbeliever might equal their participation in sin. They may have heard Paul’s teaching about one flesh (cf. 1Co 6:16-20). This must relate to the godly influence of the believing spouse on the family. This cannot relate to the unbeliever’s position in Christ. There is no way to be spiritually saved except through personal faith and repentance in Christ. Evangelism is the goal of the believer for his/her spouse (cf. 1Co 7:16).
NASB, NIV”the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband”
NKJV, NRSV”the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband”
NJB”the unbelieving wife is sanctified through the brother”
REB”the wife through her Christian husband”
There is a Greek manuscript variation in this phrase. Most of the early Greek manuscripts have “the brother” instead of “believing husband” (cf. MSS P46, *, A, B, C, D*, G, and P). Greek scribes changed it to balance it with the previous parallel phrase (cf. MSS c, DC, K, and L). The UBS4 rates “brother” as “A” (certain).
“for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy” There have been many interpretations of this phrase; it refers to
1. legitimacy of children (i.e., legal sense)
2. ceremonial cleanliness (i.e., Jewish sense)
3. the unbelieving spouse and children sharing in the blessings of the one Christian in the home (i.e., spiritual sense)
Many have tried to interpret this verse in relation to the practice of infant baptism, but this seems highly improbable since the relationship of the believer to the children is exactly the same as the relationship of the believer to the unbelieving spouse. See SPECIAL TOPIC: HOLY at 1Co 3:17.
1Co 7:15 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence. Christianity caused some homes to break up (cf. Mat 10:34-36; Luk 12:49-53).
NASB, NKJV”is not under bondage in such cases”
NRSV”in such a case the brother or sister is not bound”
TEV”In such cases, the Christian partner whether husband or wife, is free to act”
NJB”In these circumstances the brother or sister is no longer tied”
This is a perfect passive indicative of the term “enslaved.” This implies that Christians in this particular cultural situation may not instigate divorce proceedings, but if the unbelieving partner does, it is permissible. This has no relation to believers marrying non-believers; this situation refers to two married unbelievers of which one has been converted. In context this refers to separation, not remarriage (cf. 1Co 7:11), although Paul’s terminology is very similar to the “binding and loosing” of Jewish jurisprudence in which remarriage was assumed following Deu 24:1-4. James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World, says,
“the term translated ‘separation’ in 1Co 7:15 refers to divorce because the ancients had no equivalent of the modern legal concept of separation” (p. 247).
However, the issue of divorce seems to be settled for Paul in Jesus’ teachings (cf. Mar 10:2-12). Paul advocates “singleness” to those not “bound” and remarriage to those whose spouse has died!
“God has called us to peace” This is a perfect active indicative. It refers to peace with God which issues in peace within the believer and within his home. God wants His children to have happy, loving, fulfilling homes. This is often impossible with an aggressive, unbelieving spouse and sometimes impossible with an immature, selfish, sinful Christian spouse! This lack of peace is the very reason why some “Christian” homes break up. Often one partner may be a believer, but not a mature one. Peace is not present in all “Christian” homes! I just cannot believe that Paul, in this context, is advocating staying together at any cost! There are dangerous physical and emotional situations. This cannot be a hard and fast universal mandate. It must be interpreted in context and with other texts. It is so hard to balance our respect for Scripture and the historical, cultural aspect in revelation (i.e., the Bible).
The UBS4 text prefers (B rating) “you” plural, which is found in MSS *, A, C, K, instead of “us” (MSS P46, cf8 i2, B, D, F, G). There are many textual variants related to the pronouns.
1Co 7:16 “Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife” There are two possible interpretations here which are diametrically opposite.
1. this passage probably follows 1Pe 3:1-12 where evangelism is a meaningful reason for continuing the marriage relationship (cf. NRSV, TEV, NJB, NEB, NIV)
2. marriage is not primarily for evangelism; it is for companionship and fellowship, therefore, a believing partner should not stay with the unbelieving partner in a situation of abuse and unlove, simply for the hope of evangelism (cf. footnote, Phillips translation, and LB)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
the rest. App-124.
any. App-123.
a wife, &c. = an unbelieving (Greek. apistos, as in 1Co 6:6) wife.
be pleased. Greek. suneudokeo. See Act 8:1.
dwell. Greek. oikeo. See Rom 7:17.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
12-16.] Directions for such Christians as were already married to Heathens. Such a circumstance must not be a ground per se of separation,-and why: but if the unbelieving party wished to break off the union, let it be so.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 7:12. ) but to the rest, who are living in marriage.-, I) see 1Co 7:25, note.-, I say) he does not use the expression, I command, as in 1Co 7:10. I say, viz. this, which is spoken of, 1Co 7:12-13; 1Co 7:15-16, and mostly indeed at 1Co 7:15-16; for if 1Co 7:12-14, be considered separately, they flow from 1Co 7:10.-, she be pleased) There might be many, who either doubted or were not averse from the faith.- , let him not put away) This rule was stricter in the Old Testament. That the difference between the Old and New Testament is here regarded, we gather from 1Co 7:18; 1Co 7:15, note.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 7:12
1Co 7:12
But to the rest say I, not the Lord:-[The contrast here and in verse 10 is not between commands given by Paul as an inspired apostle and as a private individual. He expressly claims that all the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord (1Co 14:37), and he speaks of that knowledge into which he was guided as given by the Holy Spirit, as by the word of the Lord (1Th 4:15). He must therefore not be regarded as here claiming apostolic authority for some things he writes and not for others. The real point of the contrast is between a subject on which the Lord while on earth gave direct instruction, and another subject on which he now gives his commands through an inspired apostle, as was promised by Jesus on the night of his betrayal: Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth. (Joh 16:13). The Lord had given instructions regarding divorce (Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:3-9; Mar 10:2-12; Luk 16:18), and Paul here has only reiterated what he had already commanded.]
If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.-Hitherto his direction has been to them when both husband and wife were Christians. He now introduces another class. Sometimes in the preaching of the gospel, a husband would believe and the wife would not. The fact that the provision is here made by Paul for them to separate when the unbeliever is unwilling to live with the believer, with the direction that a widow may marry only in the Lord (verse 39), and that Christians are forbidden to be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2Co 6:14)-to be so tied to them as to be controlled by them- clearly suggests that it is not well for believers to marry unbelievers, nor to enter into any relation by which they would be controlled by unbelievers. But he gives directions to those who found themselves so married to them. If the unbelieving wife is content to dwell with the believing husband, let him not depart.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
speak
So far from disclaiming inspiration, the apostle associates his teaching with the Lord’s. Cases had arisen (e.g.) 1Co 7:12-16 as the Gospel overflowed Jewish limitations, not comprehended in the words of Jesus; Mat 5:31; Mat 5:32; Mat 19:5-9 which were an instruction, primarily, to Israel. These new conditions demanded authoritative settlement, and only the inspired words of an apostle could give that. 1Co 7:40.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
speak: 1Co 7:6, 1Co 7:25, 2Co 11:17
If: Ezr 10:2, Ezr 10:3, Ezr 10:11-19
Reciprocal: Deu 24:1 – send her 1Co 5:11 – called 1Co 7:10 – yet 1Co 7:27 – thou bound 2Co 8:8 – speak
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 7:12. 1, not the Lord means by Paul’s permission and not by command of the Lord. (See the notes on 1Co 7:6.) A man might have been tired of married life and thought he could be relieved of the burden by putting his wife away, using as a special excuse that she was an unbeliever. Paul means that he should not do so if the wife is willing to remain with him.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Duties of the Married where One of the Parties is unconverted, 12-17.
1Co 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.
1Co 7:13. And the woman, etc. Two noteworthy reasons are given for this injunction.
First reason:
1Co 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother:[1] else were. . . unholynot 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 (Exo 20:8), or vessels (Exo 28:38), or persons (Exo 29:1; Exo 29:35; Exo 29:44). Seizing on this principle, our apostle in one place applies it to foodas sanctified by the word of God and prayer (1Ti 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 Zaccheuswho 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.
1Co 7:15. But and if he departeth, let him depart. Some, disgustedpossibly enragedat the change in their wivesor husbands, as the case might beand 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 peacetherefore, in the last extremity, separation must be peacefully submitted to, and this surrender may yet be blessed to the resisting party.
Second reason:
1Co 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, 2Sa 12:22, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me? (i.e. whether He will not be so); Est 4:14, Who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? Joe 2:14, Who knoweth if he will return and repent? etc.; and the same in Jon 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.
1Co 7:17. OnlyI have only this to sayas the Lord[3] hath distributed to each man, as God[4] hath called each, so let him walkeach, in his special case, as may seem most conducive to the great end of the marriage relation.
And so ordain I in all the churchesOn 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 () on the contrary has been urged as inconsistent with this view; but though opposition is undoubtedly expressed, all depends on where the opposition lies.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
1. Here we have another case of conscience put by the Corinthians to the apostle; namely, whether such husbands as had heathen and infidel wives might put them away?
And whether such wives as had infidel husbands, might not, and ought not, to depart from them?
The apostle resolves the case, That they ought, according to the intent and end of marriage, to cohabit and dwell together: and he assigns the reason for it, because the unbelieving or infidel wife is sanctified to the believing or Christian husband.
How sanctified?
Not in her nature, but in her use; so that they might lawfully cohabit and converse together, being by marriage made one flesh with him or her that is holy.
“And for our children,” says he, “they are not seminally unclean, like the children of Heathens, but federally holy.”
How are they holy?
Not with an inherent, internal, personal holiness; for the holiest man’s child is born in sin, and by nature a child of wrath; but with an external, relative, and federal holines. They are not common and unclean, like the children of infidels, but fit to be partakers of the privileges of the church, to be admitted into covenant with God, as belonging to his holy people: Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.
Observe, He doth not say, Else were your children bastards, but now are they legitimate, (as the enemies of infant baptism, those duri infantum patres, would make them speak:) but else were they unclean, that is, Heathen children not to be owned as a holy seed, and therefore not to be admitted into covenant with God as belonging to his holy people.
If by holiness here the apostle means a matrimonial holiness, as the Anabaptists dream, then, according to their interpretation of the word holy, the apostle speaks neither pertinently nor truly.
Not pertinently, 1. For then the answer had been nothing to the purpose. The case put was concerning husbands and wives, not concerning men and whores; and the question propounded by the Corinthians, was not, whether a believing husband, and an unbelieving wife, were lawful man and wife together? nobody questioned that: but, whether the Christian husband might put away his heathen, wife?
The apostle answers, he ought not, if she were willing to dwell with him, for she is sanctified to him; not sanctified in respect of her personal condition, but in respect of her conjugal relation, otherwise their children would be looked upon as unclean, like the children of heathens: but now are they holy, that is, to be accounted visible saints, and as such to be admitted to church-privileges.
2. According to this interpretation of the word holy, the apostle had not spoken truly: for the children of heathens born in lawful wedlock, are no more bastards than the children of Christians; for their parents’ marriage frees them from the charge of illegitimacy as well as others.
Add to this, that in all the New Testament, though the word holy be used above five hundred times, yet in never once signifies legitimacy, but is always used for a state of separation to God.
Therefore, to make it signify so here, is a bold practising upon scripture a racking and wresting of the word of God, to maintain a private opinion, to make the text speak what they would have, and not what the apostle intends.
But the argument for infant baptism from this text runs thus: “If the holy seed among the Jews were therefore to be circumcised and made federally holy, by receiving the sign of the covenant, and being admitted into the number of God’s holy people, because they were seminally holy; for the root being holy, the branches were also holy: then by like reason the holy seed of Christians ought to be admitted to baptism, and receive the sign of the Christian covenant, the laver of regeneration, and so be entered into the society of the Christian church.”
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
1Co 7:12-13. To the rest Who are married to unbelievers; speak I By revelation from God; not the Lord Who, during his ministry, gave no commandment concerning the matter. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not Is a heathen, not yet converted; let him not put her away If she consent to dwell with him. The Jews indeed were obliged, of old, to put away their idolatrous wives, Ezr 10:3; but their case was quite different. They were absolutely forbid to marry idolatrous women; but the persons here spoken of were married while they were both in a state of heathenism. It is probable that some of the more zealous Jewish converts, on the authority of that example of Ezra, contended that the Corinthians, who before their conversion had been married to idolaters, were bound to put away their spouses, if they continued in idolatry. Therefore the sincere part of the church having consulted the apostle on that question, he ordered such marriages to be continued, if the parties were willing to abide together. But as a difference of religion often proves an occasion of family quarrels, and there was danger, if the believers should be connected in marriage with idolaters and open sinners, lest they should be drawn by their partners into similar vices and abominations, the apostle advised them, in his second epistle, in contracting marriages after their conversion, by no means to marry idolaters, 2Co 6:14. And On the other hand, if any Christian woman have an unbelieving husband, whether he be a Jew or a Gentile, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not leave him Nor put him away, as the expression (the same that is used in the preceding verse) implies. And it is certain, though the Jewish law did not put it into a womans power to divorce her husband, yet that in those countries, in the apostles days, the wives among the heathen had a power of divorce as well as the husbands; and that the Roman women practised it in a most scandalous manner, as did several Jewish ladies of distinguished rank; and among them, even Josephuss own wife. See Lardners Credibility, part I, vol. 2. p. 890, Juv. Sat., ver. 222-230.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 12, 13. But to the rest, speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away; 13. and the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband.
Those whom the apostle calls the rest, in contrast to the spouses of 1Co 7:11, can only be the married who do not both belong to the Church, and only one of whom was present at the reading of this letter. The sequel will leave no doubt of this interpretation. It is clear that neither the apostle nor the Church would have authorized a marriage between a member of the Church and a Jew or heathen; but one of two spouses might have been converted after marriage; hence the possibility of mixed marriages. Jesus could not have thought of giving a direction for such cases; so the apostle declares that he has no command to transmit from the Lord on this subject. It is therefore himself, Paul, who must regulate the case, drawing its solution, by way of deduction, from the essence of the gospel. It seems to me even that the expression, I, not the Lord, excludes not only any positive ordinance uttered by the Lord during His life, but even any special revelation proceeding from Him on the subject. It does not follow, however, that he puts himself in this respect on the same footing as any other Christian. How, if it were so, could he say with authority in 1Co 7:17 : So ordain I in all the Churches? He knew himself to be enlightened, as an apostle, with a wisdom superior to ordinary Christian wisdom, and that even in cases in which he had neither an external revelation (1Co 7:10), nor an inward revelation properly so called (1Co 11:23) to direct him.
Two cases might present themselves in mixed marriages: Either the heathen spouse consented to remain with the Christian spouse; this is the case treated 1Co 7:12-14. Or he refused; this is the case treated 1Co 7:15-16.
On the first supposition, the Christian spouse, whether husband or wife, ought to remain united to the Jewish or heathen spouse; for the consent of the latter implies that he will not annoy the Christian in the discharge of her religious obligations.
The term , put away, is here applied to the wife as well as to the husband, perhaps because, as Bengel finely observes, in the eyes of the Church the Christian wife is, despite her sex, the nobler of the two; or, more simply, because, in case of the heathen desiring to remain with his wife, it is she who would speak the leave-taking (give the cong) if she refused. This direction given for the first case, the apostle is careful to justify it, precisely because this is his ordinance, and not the Lord’s.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
But to the rest [the further application of the law or principle] say I [as an inspired apostle], not the Lord [with his own lips]: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 12
That believeth not; who is not a Christian.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 7:12-13. To the rest: to those married to unbelievers, whose case is so different from that of 1Co 7:10-11 that it requires special treatment, and which now alone remains.
Not the Lord; implies that Mat 19:6 does not apply to them. The intimate connection of heathenism with the details of social life made the position of Christians married to heathens so peculiar that it could not be dealt with on the ground of words spoken by Christ to those only who were worshippers of the true God. Therefore, having no command of Christ to quote, Paul himself speaks. Cp. 1Co 7:25.
Has a wife an unbeliever; whom he has already married, before or since his conversion. To marry such is, in 1Co 7:39, expressly forbidden.
Agrees to live with him; implies that both husband and wife are willing.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
7:12 {8} But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
(8) Eighthly, he affirms that those marriages which are already contracted between a faithful and an unfaithful or infidel, are firm: so that the faithful may not forsake the unfaithful.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
No divorce for Christians whose mates are unbelievers 7:12-16
In this situation, too, Paul granted an exception, but the exceptional is not the ideal. He also reiterated his principle of staying in the condition in which one finds himself or herself.
". . . one of the great heathen complaints against Christianity was exactly the complaint that Christianity did break up families and was a disruptive influence in society. ’Tampering with domestic relationships’ was in fact one of the first charges brought against the Christians." [Note: Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 70.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
"The rest" refers to persons not in the general category of 1Co 7:10. Paul had been speaking of the typical married persons in the church, namely, those married to another believer. Now he dealt with mixed marriages between a believer and an unbeliever, as the following verses make clear.
For these people he could not repeat a teaching of Jesus because He had not spoken on this subject. At least as far as Paul knew He had not. Nevertheless the risen Lord inspired Paul’s instructions on this subject so they were every bit as authoritative as the teaching Jesus gave during His earthly ministry.
The Corinthians may have asked Paul if a believing partner should divorce an unbelieving mate rather than living mismatched with him or her. This is the problem he addressed. He counseled the believer to go on living with the unbeliever if the unbeliever was willing to do so.
"The point is clear: in a mixed marriage the Christian partner is not to take the initiative . . . in a move towards [permanent] separation." [Note: Barrett, p. 164.]