Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:15
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.
15. A brother or a sister is not under bondage (literally, enslaved) in such cases ] The Roman Catholic divines, e.g. Lapide and Ambrosiaster, as well as the Canon law, held that in the case of the heathen partner refusing to live with the other when he or she embraced Christianity, the Christian was justified in contracting a fresh marriage. See Wordsworth, in loc.
to peace ] The marginal in peace is to be preferred, as signifying the spirit in which God called us.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But if the unbelieving depart – If they choose to leave you.
Let him depart – You cannot prevent it, and you are to submit to it patiently, and bear it as a Christian.
A brother or a sister is not under bondage … – Many have supposed that this means that they would be at liberty to marry again when the unbelieving wife or husband had gone away; as Calvin, Grotius, Rosenmuller, etc. But this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle. The sense of the expression is not bound, etc. is, that if they forcibly depart, the one that is left is not bound by the marriage tie to make provision for the one that departed; to do acts that might be prejudicial to religion by a violent effort to compel the departing husband or wife to live with the one that is forsaken; but is at liberty to live separate, and should regard it as proper so to do.
God hath called us to peace – Religion is peaceful. It would prevent contentions and broils. This is to be a grand principle. If it cannot be obtained by living together, there should be a peaceful separation; and where such a separation has taken place, the one which has departed should be suffered to remain separate in peace. God has called us to live in peace with all if we can. This is the general principle of religion on which we are always to act. In our relation to our partners in life, as well as in all other relations and circumstances, this is to guide us. Calvin supposes that this declaration pertains to the former part of this verse; and that Paul means to say, that if the unbelieving depart, he is to be suffered to do so peaceably rather than to have contention and strife, for God has called us to a life of peace.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. But if the unbelieving, depart] Whether husband or wife: if such obstinately depart and utterly refuse all cohabitation, a brother or a sister-a Christian man or woman, is not under bondage to any particular laws, so as to be prevented from remarrying. Such, probably, the law stood then; but it is not so now; for the marriage can only be dissolved by death, or by the ecclesiastical court. Even fornication or adultery does not dissolve the marriage contract; nor will the obstinate separation of any of the parties, however long continued, give the party abandoned authority to remarry. If the person have been beyond sea, and not heard of for seven years, it is presumed he may be dead; and marriage has been connived at in such cases. If there be no person to complain, it may be presumed that there is none injured. But I have known instances where even a marriage after seven years’ absence has been very unfortunate; the husband returning at the end of ten or twelve years, and to his utter distress finding his wife married to another man, and with issue of that marriage! There can be no safety in this case, unless there be absolute certainty of the death of the party in question.
God hath called us to peace.] The refractory and disagreeing party should not be compelled to fulfil such matrimonial engagements as would produce continual jarring and discord. At the same time each should take care that he give no cause for disagreements and separations, for the author of the Christian religion is the author of peace, and has called us to it.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If the unbelieving husband or the unbelieving wife will leave his or her correlate, that is, so leave them as to return no more to live as a husband or as a wife with her or him that is Christian,
let him depart. Such a person hath broken the bond of marriage, and in such cases Christians are
not under bondage, they are not tied by law to fetch them again, nor by the laws of God to keep themselves unmarried for their perverseness. But it may be objected, that nothing but adultery, by the Divine law, breaketh that bond.
Answer. That is denied. Nothing but adultery is a justifiable cause of divorce: no man may put away his wife, nor any wife put away her husband, but for adultery. But the husbands voluntary leaving his wife, or the wifes voluntary leaving her husband, with a resolution to return no more to them, breaks also the bond of marriage, frustrating it as to the ends for which God hath appointed it; and, after all due means used to bring again the party departing to their duty, doth certainly free the correlate. So that although nothing can justify repudiation, or putting away a wife or a husband, and marrying another, but the adultery of the person so divorced and repudiated; yet the departure either of husband or wife without the others consent for a long time, and refusal to return after all due means used, especially if the party so going away doth it out of a hatred and abomination of the others religion, will justify the persons so deserted, after due waiting and use of means to reduce him or her to their duty, wholly to cast off the person deserting; for no Christian in such a case, by Gods law, is under bondage.
But God hath called us to peace; for God hath called Christians unto peace, and in his ordinance of marriage aimed at the quiet and peace of his people in their service of him in their families and relations; and therefore as Christians ought not to disturb the peace of their own consciences, turning away their relations, though they be unbelievers; yet neither are they bound, if such will leave them, to court their own continual trouble and disturbance.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15. if . . . departthat is,wishes for separation. Translate, “separateth himself”:offended with her Christianity, and refusing to live with her unlessshe renounce it.
brother or a sister is notunder bondageis not bound to renounce the faith for the sakeof retaining her unbelieving husband [HAMMOND].So Deu 13:6; Mat 10:35-37;Luk 14:26. The believer does notlie under the same obligation in the case of a union with anunbeliever, as in the case of one with a believer. In the former casehe is not bound not to separate, if the unbeliever separate or”depart,” in the latter nothing but “fornication”justifies separation [PHOTIUSin cumenius].
but God hath called us topeaceOur Christian calling is one that tends to “peace”(Ro 12:18), not quarrelling;therefore the believer should not ordinarily depart from theunbelieving consort (1Co7:12-14), on the one hand; and on the other, in the exceptionalcase of the unbeliever desiring to depart, the believer is not boundto force the other party to stay in a state of continual discord (Mt5:32). Better still it would be not to enter into such unequalalliances at all (1Co 7:40;2Co 6:14).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But if the unbelieving depart,…. If the unbelieving party, man or woman, separate themselves from the believing party on account of religion, and in hatred to it, and will not live with the believer unless Christ is denied, his Gospel abjured, and his ordinances and worship relinquished:
let him depart; he or she, though not without making use of all proper means to retain them; but if, after all, they will go, unless such things are complied with as are unreasonable and sinful, they are not to be held, but let go; and the deserted person may sit down contented, being not to be blamed, the fault entirely lying upon the deserter:
a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. The Ethiopic version reads it, “to such an one”; one that is called by grace a church member, and so a brother or sister in Christ, is not to be subject to an unbeliever in matters of conscience, in things appertaining to the worship of God, and the service and glory of Christ; nor, being in such circumstances, that either Christ must be forsaken, or the unbeliever will depart, are they obliged to yield to such an one, but rather suffer a departure; nor are they bound to remain unmarried, but are free to marry another person, after all proper methods have been tried for a reconciliation, and that appears to be impracticable; desertion in such a case, and attended with such circumstances, is a breach of the marriage contract, and a dissolution of the bond, and the deserted person may lawfully marry again; otherwise a brother, or a sister in such a case, would be in subjection and bondage to such a person:
but God hath called us to peace; which ought to be sought after and maintained, so far as it can be consistent with truth, the glory of God, the honour of Christ, and interest of religion. The believing party being threatened with a desertion, ought as much as possible to seek for peace and reconciliation, and do all that can be to prevent a departure; for saints are called by the grace of God, to follow after and cultivate peace, not only with one another in their Christian communion as saints, but with all men, even their enemies, and especially with such as are so nearly allied; wherefore the departure should not be easily admitted, or a new marriage be suddenly entered into, reconciliation, if it can be obtained, being most eligible and becoming a Christian.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Is not under bondage ( ). Perfect passive indicative of , to enslave, has been enslaved, does not remain a slave. The believing husband or wife is not at liberty to separate, unless the disbeliever or pagan insists on it. Wilful desertion of the unbeliever sets the other free, a case not contemplated in Christ’s words in Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9. Luther argued that the Christian partner, thus released, may marry again. But that is by no means clear, unless the unbeliever marries first.
But God hath called us in peace ( or ). Perfect active indicative of , permanent call in the sphere or atmosphere of peace. He does not desire enslavement in the marriage relation between the believer and the unbeliever.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Is not under bondage [ ] . A strong word, indicating that Christianity has not made marriage a state of slavery to believers. Compare dedetai is bound, ver. 39, a milder word. The meaning clearly is that willful desertion on the part of the unbelieving husband or wife sets the other party free. Such cases are not comprehended in Christ ‘s words. Hath called us to peace [ ] . Rev., correctly, in peace. Compare Gal 1:6, “into the grace” (ejn cariti, Rev., in); Eph 4:4, in one hope [ ] ; 1Th 4:7, in sanctification [ ] . Denoting the sphere or element of the divine calling. Enslavement in the marriage relation between the believer and the unbeliever is contrary to the spirit and intent of this calling.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. (ei de ho apistos chorizetai) But if the unbelieving or unsaved separates himself or herself of his or her own accord.
2) A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. (ou dedoulotai ho adelphos he adelpa en tois toioutois) A brother or sister has not been shackled or enslaved in such matters.
3) But God hath called us to peace. (en de eirene kekleken humas ho theos) But God has called us to, toward, or to abide in peace. Marital peace and tranquillity should pervade the Christian household, 2Co 13:11; 2Pe 3:14; Rom 14:19.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. But if an unbeliever depart. This is the second department of his statement, in which he sets at liberty a believing husband, who is prepared to dwell with an unbelieving wife, but is rejected by her, and in like manner a woman who is, without any fault on her part, repudiated by her husband; for in that case the unbelieving party makes a divorce with God rather than with his or her partner. There is, therefore, in this case a special reason, inasmuch as the first and chief bond is not merely loosed, but even utterly broken through. While some are of opinion that we are at this day situated in a much similar way with Papists, (403) we ought to consider wisely what difference there is between the two cases, that we may not attempt anything rashly.
In peace. Here, too, interpreters differ; for some take it in this way — “We are called in peace: let us therefore avoid all ground and occasion of quarrels.” I take it in a more simple way: “Let us, so far as we can, cultivate peace with all, to which we have been called. We must not, therefore, rashly separate from unbelievers, unless they first make a divorce. God, therefore, has called us in peace to this end, that we might cultivate peace with all, by acting properly towards every one.” This, then, belongs to the former department of his statement — that
believers ought to remain with unbelievers, if they are p1eased, etc., (1Co 7:12,)
because a desire for divorce is at variance with our profession.
(403) “ Que nous auons auiourd’huy semblable cause de nous departir d’avec les Papistes;” — “That we have at this day similar ground of separation from Papists.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(15) But if the unbelieving depart.Supposing, however, the desire for separation arises from the unbelieving partner, how is the Christian partner to act? If the married life, for example, be made intolerable by the unbeliever urging the believer to join in such religious acts as conscience cannot approve, the Apostles previous commands for continued union do not hold good: a brother or a sister, in such cases, is not bound to insist upon the continuation of the union. Let the unbeliever, if he so desire, depart.
This permission is in no way contrary to our Lords permission of divorce on only one ground, for the Apostle has carefully reminded his readers that our Lords command does not apply to the case of a marriage between a believer and a heathen. In ouch cases we have no command from Him.
A brother or a sister.That is, a Christian. In such cases, when the unbelieving partner wishes to depart, let him or her do so. The Christian partner is not, under such circumstances, bound by the marriage to continue together. Their doing so might destroy that very peace in which (not to peace as in the English) God has called us.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
15. If the unbelieving depart The Christian may not desert the infidel; but suppose the infidel desert the Christian?
Let him depart Use no legal obstacles to prevent his going.
Is not under bondage Literally, is not enslaved; but the question now is, How far is the Christian emancipated? Different replies have been given, as, 1. That the Christian is released from the duty of compelling the unbeliever to remain in cohabitation; but to this the obvious replies are, first, that no such duty of compulsion to cohabit can have been supposed to exist, and, therefore, no emancipation from such duty was needed: and, second, it is a very awkward interpretation to make the apostle say, that the Christian is not enslaved to the duty of enslaving the opposite party. 2. That the Christian is required to let the infidel depart rather than give up Christianity in order to retain him. But, surely, Paul could not have understood any Corinthian believer as inquiring whether he should not apostatize in order to save the marriage cohabitation! Obviously, therefore, the only meaning is, that though the Christian may not dissolve the marriage tie, the infidel may.
To peace But the Christian calling to peace forbids the so conducting as to induce the unbeliever to depart. On the contrary, the Christian spirit should be most earnestly exerted to induce the unbeliever to remain, with the hope, expressed in the next verse, of a conversion to Christianity.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Yet if the unbelieving one separate themselves, let them depart. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases.’
Where the unbelieving partner seeks a divorce, or walks out because the person has become a Christian, or turns the Christian out, then no blame can attach to the Christian. They may let them depart. They need not feel bound to try to sustain, and make great efforts to preserve, what has become an impossible marriage, especially as this would usually mean that the other partner was seeking to pressurise them and the children into turning their backs on Christ.
‘Not under bondage in such cases.’ This may simply mean that they need not feel bound to make excessive efforts to prevent it, or it may mean that they are seen as released from their marriage and may therefore divorce the unbeliever and marry a Christian. This latter would seem intrinsic in the words, (although not directly referred to), in view of the invidious position a Christian woman may find herself in in such a case, especially if she had children to look after and bring up. It would also seem to be confirmed by seeing this position as contrasted with that in 1Co 7:11 where the woman was bound to remain single. But if so it is the exception that proves the rule and arises because of the decision of the non-Christian partner. However, Paul’s emphasis is on the fact that she need not feel under a burden to continue the marriage. It cannot be seen as a general approval of remarriage. Earlier Paul has made clear that in general the opposite is the case.
We can compare this case with that of the Ezra 9-10 (although that is more like the case of a believer actually marrying an unbeliever). There the presumption must be that having put away their idolatrous wives they were permitted to marry again although it does not actually say so. Permission was presumably given by default.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
‘But God has called us in peace.’ When God called us it was essentially in the sphere of peace, peace with God and peace from God. God does not seek to bring His people into a position of antagonism and conflict, nor does He want it. It may arise because of the nature of the unbelieving, but it is never God’s aim. If the result of trying to maintain the marriage is conflict on religious matters which results in the partner walking out then he/she need not feel burdened at his/her failure to maintain it because of their partner’s behaviour. But if they can live in peace with their unbelieving partner and prevent conflict then that is good. For Christians are to love their neighbours, including the unbelieving, and that includes an unbelieving partner. Indeed it must be recognised that there is a good chance that their influence might lead to their partner’s conversion as well (1Pe 3:1-2). Thus they too will enjoy God’s saving power. The Christian seeks to spread peace and goodwill, although not at the expense of faithfulness to Christ, and to seek to win others to peace with God.
On the other hand it is not necessarily true that they would save their partners. How do they know? Thus they are not bound if the other partner leaves. The very act would reveal an obstinacy of heart against God.
‘Called us.’ Here Paul is referring to God’s activity in calling men to Himself. The verb is in continual use from now until 1Co 7:24. Whatever their state the Christian partners can see themselves as people whom God has called, people who are chosen of God and special in His eyes. Besides this their worldly station is irrelevant. They are now God’s own, beloved people (Tit 2:14; 1Pe 2:9).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 7:15. Is not under bondage, &c. That is, says Hilary, “The Christian in this case is free to marry to another Christian.” “He is free,” says Photius, “to depart, because the other has dissolved the marriage.” “If he depart,” say Chrysostom, OEcumenius, and Theophylact, “because thou wilt not communicate with him in his infidelity, be thou divorced, or quit the yoke, &c.” But it must be remembered, that the present subject refers only to marriages between Christians and those who were professedly heathens. A brother or sister, in the case above mentioned, after all due means of peace and reconciliation have been in vain attempted, (for God hath called us to peace,) is not enslaved.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 7:15 . Paul had before enjoined that the Christian partner should not make a separation if the non-Christian consents to remain. But what, if the non-Christian partner seeks separation? In that case they were to let such an one go without detention ( , permissive, see Winer, p. 291 [E. T. 390]); “suas sibi res habeat; frater sororve sit aequo animo,” Bengel. And the reason for this was: “ A believer in such circumstances is not enslaved, nay, surely ( after the negative clause) it is in peace that God has called us ,” so that this our calling forbids such a living together as would be unpeaceful through constraint.
.] is not enslaved , so, namely, as still to remain bound in marriage to such a . [1128] The expression brings out the unworthy character of such a relationship. Comp Gal 4:3 ; Plato, Pol. ix. p. 589 E; Soph. Trach. 256; Mal 3:3Mal 3:3 f., 1Co 13:2 . See, on the other hand, the simple in 1Co 7:39 .
] not, as Hofmann takes it: “ In matters of the natural life ,” to which marriage belongs, but in accordance with the context: under such circumstances, i.e. in such a position of things, where the non-believing consort separates himself. Luthers renders well: “ in solchen Fllen .” Comp , Soph. Oed. Tyr. 892. , Plut. Glor. Ath. p. 350 A; Phi 4:11 ; , Antiph. i. 6, and Maetzner in loc [1131] , p. 131. Only a comma should be placed after ] is not the same as (Rosenmller, Flatt, Rckert, following older expositors; comp also Billroth), or . (de Wette, Osiander, Gratama, Maier); for that which is stated is not to what God has called us (see, on the other hand, 1Co 7:22 ; 1Pe 5:10 ), but in what ethical form God’s call has taken place. He has so called us, namely, to the Messiah’s kingdom, that He therewith caused peace to be proclaimed to us in respect of our relation to others (Eph 2:14 ff.). Analogous to this is the in Eph 4:4 ; 1Th 4:7 ; comp also on Gal 1:6 . To understand, however, the as referring to the peace of the soul with God (Harless, Hofmann) would be possible only if . were to be referred to binding of the conscience . And even in that case we should expect as correlative rather or (Gal 5:13 ).
[1128] Weiss, in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1866, p. 267 (comp. his bibl. Theol. p. 423), understands . of the burden of the conscience in view of Christ’s command respecting the indissolubleness of marriage. Precisely so Hofmann. But had Paul meant this, he must have indicated it more particularly. According to the context, . is the opposite of the in vv. 12, 13, denoting legal necessity , like in ver. 39
[1131] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
REMARK.
Since desertion ( ) appears here as an admissible ground for divorce, this has been thought to conflict with Mat 5:32 ; Mat 19:9 , and various explanations have been attempted (see Wolf in lo [1134] ). But the seeming contradiction vanishes, if we consider 1Co 7:12 , according to which Jesus had given no judgment upon mixed marriages; Mat 5:32 , therefore, can only bind the believing consort, in so far that he may not be the one who leaves . If, however, he is left by the non-believing partner, then, as this case does not fall under the utterance of Christ, the marriage may be looked upon as practically dissolved, and the believing partner is not bound. But to apply, as is often done, the permissive also to such marriages as are Christian on both sides the , that is to say, being an unchristianly-minded Christian (Harless) is exegetically inadmissible, seeing that the who are here spoken of (see 1Co 7:12 ) constitute the specific category of mixed marriages, in which, therefore, the one partner in each case falls to be reckoned among . So also pref. to 4th ed. p. vii. f.
Our text gives no express information upon the point, whether Paul would allow the Christian partner in such a union to marry again . For what negatives is not the constraint “ ut caelebs maneat ” (Grotius, al [1135] ), but the necessity for the marriage being continued. [1136] It may be inferred , however, that as in Paul’s view mixed marriages did not come under Christ’s prohibition of divorce , so neither would he have applied the prohibition of remarriage in Mat 5:32 to the case of such unions. Olshausen is wrong in holding a second marriage in such cases unlawful, on the ground of its being, according to Matthew, l.c [1137] , a . Christ Himself took no account of mixed marriages. Nor would 1Co 7:11 , which does not refer to marriages of that kind, be at variance with the remarriage of the believing partner (in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. l.c [1138] ).
[1134] n loc refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1135] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1136] Photius, as cited by Oecumenius, says very justly: , , , , , .
[1137] .c. loco citato or laudato .
[1138] .c. loco citato or laudato .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 15. But God hath called us to peace ] To domestic peace, which they that lack, Plus quam dimidiae beatitudinis suae parte privati sunt, saith Aristotle; They have lost the greater half of the happiness of their lives. This was verified in Phoroneus the lawgiver, and Sulla the Roman general. (Bruson.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
15 .] But if the wish for separation (implied by the present , is for being separated, see Winer, edn. 6, 40. 2. a, and compare Joh 10:32 ; Joh 13:6 ; Joh 13:27 ) proceed from the side of the UNBELIEVER (emphasis on ), let him (or her) depart (be separated off).
. ] , . , , , , . , . Photius, in cumenius.
may be taken as masc., in the case of such persons , as above by Phot [18] : but the seems harsh; it is better therefore to render it, in such cases.
[18] Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 858 891
. ] Not = [E. V.], but signifying the moral element in which we are called to be: see reff. and 1Co 7:22 below.
The meaning is, ‘let the unbeliever depart, rather than by attempting to retain the union, endanger that peace of household and peace of spirit, which is part of the calling of a Christian.’
Observe, (1) that there is no contradiction, in this licence of breaking off such a marriage, to the command of our Lord in Mat 5:32 , because the Apostle expressly asserts, 1Co 7:12 , that our Lord’s words do not apply to such marriages as are here contemplated. They were spoken to those within the covenant , and as such apply immediately to the wedlock of Christians ( 1Co 7:10 ), but not to mixed marriages .
De Wette denies this, and holds that Paul is speaking only of the Christian’s duty in cases where the marriage is already virtually broken off , and by his remarks on Mat 5:32 , seems to take in a wide sense, and to regard it as a justifiable cause of divorce because it is such a breaking off . This however appears hardly consistent with 1Co 7:12 ; for, if it were so, there would be a command of the Lord regarding this case. At all events, we may safely assume that where the Apostle is distinctly referring to our Lord’s command, and supplying what it did not contain, there can be no real inconsistency : if such appear to be, it must be in our apprehension, not in his words. (2) That the question of re-marrying after such a separation, is here left open : ou this, see note on Mat 5:32 . (3) That not a word here said can be so strained as to imply any licence to contract marriages with unbelievers. Only those already contracted are dealt with: the is expressly forbidden, 2Co 6:14 , and by implication below, 1Co 7:39 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 7:15 a . The Christian wife or husband is not to seek divorce from the non-Christian (1Co 7:12-14 ); but if the latter insists on separation, it is not to be refused: “But if the unbeliever separates, he may separate” let the separation take its course ( , pr [1049] impv [1050] ): for this impv [1051] of consent, cf. 1Co 7:36 , 1Co 14:38 . (pf. of fixed condition ) “the brother or the sister in such circumstances is not kept in bondage”; cf. 1Co 7:39 the stronger vb [1052] of this passage implies that for the repudiated party to continue bound to the repudiator would be slavery . Christ’s law forbids putting away (1Co 7:10 ff.), but does not forbid the one put away to accept dismissal. Whether the freedom of the innocent divorced extends to remarriage , does not appear: the Roman Church takes the negative view though contrary to the Canon Law (see Wordsworth, in loc. ); the Lutheran Church the affirmative, allowing remarriage on desertio malitiosa ; “in view of 1Co 7:11 , the inference that the divorced should remain unmarried is the safer” (so Hn [1053] , against Mr [1054] ). If, however, the repudiator forms a new union, cutting off the hope of restoration, the case appears then to come under the exception made in Mat 5:31 . With , neut., cf. , Rom 8:37 ; and , Phi 4:11 .
[1049] present tense.
[1050] imperative mood.
[1051] imperative mood.
[1052] verb
[1053] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[1054] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
1Co 7:15 b , 1Co 7:16 . ; The Christian spouse forsaken by the heathen is free from the former yoke; but such freedom is undesirable . Two considerations make against it: Peace is better for a Christian than disruption ( 1Co 7:15 b ); and there is the possibility of saving the unbeliever by remaining with him, or her (1Co 7:16 ). Thus P. reverts, by the contrastive , to his prevailing thought, that the marriage tie, once formed, should in every way possible be maintained. On this view of the connexion, the full stop should be set at , and the colon at . “In peace,” etc. opposed to , like in 1Co 7:11 appeals to the ruling temper of the Christian life, determined once for all by God’s call in the Gospel, “ex quo consequitur retinendum esse nobis infidelem, ac omnibus officiis demerendum; nedum ut vel eum ipsi deseramus, vel ad nos deserendos provocemus” (Bz [1055] ); cf. Rom 12:18 , for the general thought. For the construction of , cf. 1Th 4:7 , Gal 1:6 , Eph 4:4 .
[1055] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
is not under bondage = has not been enslaved (App-190.)
in. App-104.
to = in, as above. Peace is the atmosphere of the Christian calling, and should decide all the problems of life. Compare 1Co 14:33. Rom 12:18. 2Co 13:11. Col 3:15.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
15.] But if the wish for separation (implied by the present ,-is for being separated, see Winer, edn. 6, 40. 2. a, and compare Joh 10:32; Joh 13:6; Joh 13:27) proceed from the side of the UNBELIEVER (emphasis on ), let him (or her) depart (be separated off).
.] , . , , , , . , . Photius, in cumenius.
may be taken as masc., in the case of such persons,-as above by Phot[18]:-but the seems harsh; it is better therefore to render it, in such cases.
[18] Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 858-891
.] Not = [E. V.], but signifying the moral element in which we are called to be: see reff. and 1Co 7:22 below.
The meaning is, let the unbeliever depart, rather than by attempting to retain the union, endanger that peace of household and peace of spirit, which is part of the calling of a Christian.
Observe, (1) that there is no contradiction, in this licence of breaking off such a marriage, to the command of our Lord in Mat 5:32,-because the Apostle expressly asserts, 1Co 7:12, that our Lords words do not apply to such marriages as are here contemplated. They were spoken to those within the covenant, and as such apply immediately to the wedlock of Christians (1Co 7:10), but not to mixed marriages.
De Wette denies this, and holds that Paul is speaking only of the Christians duty in cases where the marriage is already virtually broken off,-and by his remarks on Mat 5:32, seems to take in a wide sense, and to regard it as a justifiable cause of divorce because it is such a breaking off. This however appears hardly consistent with 1Co 7:12; for, if it were so, there would be a command of the Lord regarding this case. At all events, we may safely assume that where the Apostle is distinctly referring to our Lords command, and supplying what it did not contain, there can be no real inconsistency: if such appear to be, it must be in our apprehension, not in his words. (2) That the question of re-marrying after such a separation, is here left open: ou this, see note on Mat 5:32. (3) That not a word here said can be so strained as to imply any licence to contract marriages with unbelievers. Only those already contracted are dealt with: the is expressly forbidden, 2Co 6:14, and by implication below, 1Co 7:39.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 7:15. ) .-, let-be separated) Let him be divorced. A brother or a sister should be patient, and not think that that ought to be changed, which he or she cannot change. [The believing party is not bound to renounce the faith for the sake of the unbelieving party.-V. g.]- , is not under bondage) There was more decided liberty in the latter case on this account, that the believing party was not likely to obtain much assistance from the unbelieving magistrate; although, even in the present day, the same principle holds good for liberty and peace; but with that exception [proviso], let her remain unmarried, 1Co 7:11.- , but in peace) An axiomatic truth; one that proceeds from things internal to things external. There had been formerly enmity, Eph 2:15.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 7:15
1Co 7:15
Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart:-[If the desire for separation is pressed by the unbeliever, making it intolerable for the Christian, he or she must be passive; and, if the unbeliever withdraws from such a union, let him not be hindered in so doing. The unbeliever is not constrained to keep up the union.]
the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: -There has been doubt as to the meaning of this expression. Does it mean that bond is not binding in such cases? The Roman Catholic Church and most of the Protestant churches allow remarriage in the case of willful desertion. The meaning most likely is that the believer can regard the unbelievers act as final, and need not seek to live with him, while yet in such cases remarriage is not approved. The Christian should be prepared to restore the marriage relation when possible, and this certainly is safe ground. If, however, the unbeliever should marry another person, he would by the act commit adultery and in that case the wife or husband would be at liberty to marry.
Just here I wish to emphasize the thought that there is so much looseness in the churches on the marriage relation, so little regard for Scripture teaching, it is well to guard the point that the violation of the marriage vow not only must exist, but it must be the cause and ground of separation-or the adultery of the unbeliever as in the case before us-to justify remarriage of the separated party. Frequently the guilt of a husband is known, the crime is condoned by the wife, she lives with him knowing his guilt. Finally other causes lead to a separation; and then, when she wishes to marry again, the infidelity of the husband, which did not cause the separation, is made the excuse to justify the new marriage. Unless the separation took place on account of the lewdness of the companion, it cannot be ground for remarriage. Frequently a woman lives with a lewd husband who is one with a harlot. She becomes one with him who is one with a harlot-lives this life of doubtful virtue, and some other trouble grows up. She separates from him for this, and makes his lewdness merely the excuse for marrying again. This is not allowable. She is in adultery all the time. Not only must she have separated from the former husband because of his adultery, to justify her, but the present husband must have been satisfied that was the cause of it when he married her, else his marriage was in intent and at heart adultery. The intention has everything to do with obedience to the command of God. It must not be an incidental happening to obey God when we go and do as we please, but a clear and distinct purpose to be governed by the law, to justify it. For a man and woman to recklessly rush ahead in marriage, determined to do it, law or no law, and after it is done to look around and see if they can find any ground to justify, does not relieve them from intentional guilt of marrying whether there be law or no law.
but God hath called us in peace.-The believer must make all the efforts in his power to live in peace with the unbeliever, sacrifice everything save obedience to God. Jesus said: If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luk 14:26).
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Serve God in Your Calling
1Co 7:15-24
There was much unsettlement in regard to marriage in the church at Corinth. An unnatural asceticism was showing itself in some quarters and a lawless self-indulgence in others. Against these tendencies Paul resolutely set himself. While he held that marriage should be contracted only in the Lord, he also taught that where it had been consummated it should not be dissolved at the instance of the Christian, though the wish of the unbelieving partner might be acceded to. Children, also, born when one of their parents was a heathen, might be reckoned clean.
The Apostle refers both to vocation and to the Christian life as a divine calling, 1Co 7:18-24. We are all called to our trade or profession as much as a student is to the ministry. It is interesting that a man will speak of his business as his calling. God has a purpose for each of us, and summons us to fulfill it. Unless we are specially led to do otherwise, we should, on entering the Christian life, remain in the same calling in which our former life was spent. The only difference is that we are to stay in it with God, 1Co 7:24. In every service, however lowly, we should have an eye toward Christ. All may be done in Him, with Him, for Him.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
A brother: Mat 12:50, Jam 2:15
but: 1Co 14:33, Rom 12:18, Rom 14:19, 2Co 13:11, Gal 5:22, Heb 12:14, Jam 3:17, Jam 3:18
to peace: Gr. in peace
Reciprocal: Deu 24:2 – she may go 1Co 5:11 – called 1Co 7:10 – Let 1Co 7:39 – wife 1Co 9:5 – a sister Col 3:15 – to the
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 7:15. It should be noted in this verse that it is the unbeliever that is determined to desert the marriage, in spite of the willingness of the other to continue even under the “present distress.” The believer is told to let him depart, which denotes that he is not obligated (is not under bondage) to hold the unbeliever with him if it would have to be done under continual strife or “family quarrels,” for God is wanting his creatures to live in peace if possible, in which they were called. But that has nothing to do with the question of remarriage for either of them. In truth, 1Co 7:11 orders that if the departing wife should change her mind and desire the marriage relation again, she must go back to her husband. And that would mean also that the husband would be required to remain single, else the wife could not obey 1Co 7:11 even if she wanted to. All of this is in keeping with Mat 19:9 which clearly teaches that no married person may be remarried to another, except upon the immorality of the present marriage companion.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Here another doubt is resolved by the apostle, in case the unbelieving party, either husband or wife, depart, that is, refuse to cohabit and dwell with their believing yoke-fellow, and so make void, as much as in him or her lieth, the marriage-bond, out of hatred to the faith.
In that case, if they will go, let them; you are not bound to leave your family to follow them. However, let every Christian husband or wife omit nothing, but endeavour in every thing to the utmost, to oblige and win, to incline and engage, their unbelieving yoke-fellows to live quietly with them: for God hath called us to peace; and therefore we must give no occasion of quarrel with, or separation from, so near a relation.
And besides, by the peaceable dwelling together, there is hope of, and a fair opportunity for, the gaining and bringing over the unbeliever to the faith of Christ, and of being the instrument of his or her salvation. But however that may be, let every Christian discharge his duty in every relation in which God has set him.
This order I appoint in all churches to Christianity, knowing it to be agreeable to the mind of God, “That no Christian could pretend his profession of religion to excuse him from the duties of any relation.”
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
1Co 7:15-17. But if the unbelieving party depart, let him, or her depart And take the course they think best. A brother or sister A Christian man or woman; is not under bondage Is at full liberty; in such cases: but Let it be always remembered; God hath called us to peace To live peaceably with them, if it be possible: and therefore it ought to be our care to behave in as inoffensive a manner as may be, in all the relations of life; that so, if there must be a breach, the blame may not be chargeable upon the Christian. For what knowest thou, &c. As if he had said, It is of great importance that you should conduct yourselves properly toward those who thus make, as it were, a part of yourselves, and that you should adorn the gospel by the most amiable and engaging behaviour possible, that thereby the unbeliever may be gained over to Christianity. And surely the everlasting happiness of the person, now the companion of your life, will be more than an equivalent for all the self-denial to which you may be required at present to submit. See on 1Pe 3:1-2. But However it be, whether the unbeliever be converted or not; as God hath distributed to every man The various stations of life, and various relations, let him take care to discharge his duty therein; for the gospel disannuls none of them: And as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk By declaring here, and 1Co 7:20; 1Co 7:24, that men were bound, after their conversion, to continue under all the moral and just political obligations, which lay on them before their conversion, the apostle condemned the error of Judaizers, who taught, that, by embracing the true religion, all the former obligations, under which the convert lay, were dissolved. The gospel, instead of weakening any moral or just political obligation, strengthens them all. This I ordain in all churches This I lay down as a general rule for all Christians to observe, and insist on it, as a matter of the greatest importance.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 15, 16. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such things; but God hath called us in peace. 16. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? and how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
The rule to be followed in this case is given in 1Co 7:15; the reason follows in 1Co 7:16. The Christian spouse should in this case consent to a separation which she could not refuse without going in the face of incessant conflicts. The word, let him depart, throws back the whole responsibility on the non-believer. The expression might signify, in such circumstances (the refusal of the heathen spouse). But the plural leads more naturally to the sense, in such things, in this kind of matters. The apostle is no doubt thinking of the transient element in earthly relations in general, when compared with the eternal interests which alone can bind the believer absolutely. He has probably already in view the other analogous relations with which he proceeds to deal in this connection from 1Co 7:17. The words , in peace, have often been understood as if they were , to peace. But if this had been Paul’s idea, why not express himself so? He means rather that the call to faith which they accepted, bore from the first a pacific character, for it consisted in the offer of peace with God; and consequently the stamp of peace ought to be impressed on all their earthly conduct. Chrysostom regarded this last remark as intended to restrict the liberty of separation granted in the previous words; in this sense: Nevertheless consider well that it is to peace thy Master has called thee, and see yet whether thou couldest not maintain the union. But as Edwards says, if the non-believer has left the Christian, how is it possible to exhort the latter to live in peace with the former? Is it not clear that by persisting to impose her presence, the Christian spouse would put herself directly in contradiction to the spirit of peace? For this conduct could not fail to issue in a state of perpetual war. The is adversative: but. It contrasts with the subjection, which is denied, the duty of living in peace, which is affirmed. One might also, like Beet, translate the in the sense of, and moreover; this would give a gradation: And not only are ye not subject in this case…, but moreover there is a duty to…
The difficult question in regard to this verse is to determine whether the is not under bondage includes, besides the right of separation, that of remarriage for the Christian spouse. Edwards cites the fact that this was the opinion of Ambrosiaster, whereas the Council of Arles (314) decided the question in the opposite sense. Among Protestants, malicious desertionsuch is the judicial name for the on the part of one of the spousesis regarded in general as equivalent to adultery, and consequently as authorizing a new marriage. I do not think that it is possible exegetically, as Edwards proposes, to decide the question in the latter sense, for, as Meyer observes, the simply authorizes separation, without containing, either explicity or implicitly, the idea of a new union. In any case, in application to our present circumstances, it must not be forgotten that separation between a Christian and a heathen spouse is not subject to the same conditions as separation between two Christian spouses. For the latter, the rule has been given, and that by the Lord Himself, 1Co 7:10-11.
The two questions of 1Co 7:16 have been frequently understood, from Chrysostom to Tholuck, in a sense opposed to liberty of separation: What knowest thou whether thou shalt not save…? Edwards has proved by several examples, taken from classic Greek, the grammatical possibility of taking in the sense of whether; comp. moreover in the LXX. Joe 2:14; Jon 3:9. But, as he rightly says, the context is decidedly opposed to this interpretation. It would assume that meaning of the preceding proposition which we have been obliged to reject; and so understood, the saying would demand of the Christian, with a view to a result very problematical and rendered almost impossible by the refusal of cohabitation on the part of the heathen spouse, an altogether disproportionate sacrifice.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
15-16. If the unbeliever depart, let him depart: a brother or sister has not been enslaved in such things, but God has called you in peace. From this verse we see that you are to be true to God, in every case and regardless of consequences, even though your companion may abandon you forever. For how do you know, O wife, if you shall save your husband, and how do you know, O husband, if you shall save your wife? There is certainly a strong probability that by the grace of God you will save your companion. This, however, you can only do by a life of unswerving devotion to God.
If you are not true, heroic and steadfast, your companion will destroy you instead of getting saved. Many foolish women have pandered to the wicked caprices of their worldly husbands, till they have grieved the Holy Spirit away, forfeited all their power to save their husbands, and gone with them into sin and perdition.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 15
Is not under bondage. The meaning seems to be that the Christian is not bound in such cases, that is, in those mentioned above (1 Corinthians 7:12-14,) to sunder the domestic tie, but may live in peace with an unbelieving partner.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 7:15. After dealing with the case of 1Co 7:12, if she agrees to live with him, Paul takes up now the other alternative, if the unbeliever separates himself; thus completing his counsel to the rest, i.e. to those married to unbelievers.
Let him separate himself; refers probably to simple separation, as opposed to live with him, 1Co 7:12; but doubtless includes divorce. If the unbeliever wishes to go, do not prevent him. To be obliged to force oneself on a reluctant heathen husband or wife, would be a bondage inconsistent with Christian liberty.
Moreover in peace etc.: additional reason for letting him go. The Gospel came proclaiming peace, Eph 2:14; Eph 2:17; in contrast to the bondage, and therefore confusion, which would follow an attempt to force oneself on an unbeliever. The peacefulness of Christianity forbids this.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
7:15 {10} But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in {m} such [cases]: {11} but God hath called us to peace.
(10) He answers a question: what if the unfaithful forsake the faithful? Then the faithful is free, he says, because he is forsaken by the unfaithful.
(m) When any such thing happens.
(11) Lest any man upon pretence of this liberty should give an occasion to the unfaithful to depart, he shows that marriage contracted with an infidel ought to be kept peaceably, that if it is possible the infidel may be won to the faith.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
On the other hand if the unbeliever in a mixed marriage wants to break up the marriage, the believing partner should allow him or her to do so. The reason for this is that God wants peace to exist in human relationships. It is better to have a peaceful relationship with an unbelieving spouse who has departed than it is to try to hold the marriage together. This is true if holding the marriage together will only result in constant antagonism and increasing hostility in the home. However, notice that the Christian does not have the option of departing (1Co 7:10-11).
Another view is that Paul meant that separation should be prevented if at all possible since that would disrupt the peace of the marriage union. [Note: Johnson, p. 1240.] However this view presupposes that peace existed between the husband and wife, which seems unlikely since one of them wanted a divorce from the other.
When the unbeliever departs, the Christian is no longer under bondage (Gr. douleuo, lit. to be a slave). Does this refer to bondage to hold the marriage together or bondage to remain unmarried? Many of the commentators believed it means that the Christian is free to let the unbeliever depart; he or she does not have an obligation to maintain the marriage. [Note: E.g., Robertson and Plummer, p. 143; Fee, The First . . ., pp. 302-3.] Among these some hold that the believer is not free to remarry (cf. 1Co 7:11). [Note: E.g., William A. Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce.] Most of these believe that the Christian is free to remarry. [Note: E.g., Barrett, p. 166; Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 70; Lenski, pp. 294-95; Lowery, p. 518; Morris, p. 111; and Keener, p. 65.] The Greek text does not solve this problem. I think Paul was not addressing the idea of remarrying here.
I would counsel a Christian whose unsaved spouse has divorced him or her to remain unmarried as long as there is a possibility that the unsaved person may return. However if the unsaved spouse who has departed remarries, I believe the Christian would be free to remarry since, by remarrying, the unsaved partner has closed the door on reconciliation. [Note: See Robertson, 4:128.]