1Cor 7:12-17 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 12. 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, . 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, . 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 . . "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; , 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; that is a heathen. 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 connexion with him as his wife, though they differed on the subject of religion. Let him not put her away . Though she is a heathen, 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, . (d) "not the Lord" , etc.

1 Corinthians 7:12-17

Verse 12. 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, 1Cor 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, Mt 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. 1Cor 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; 1Cor 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; that is a heathen.

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 connexion with him as his wife, though they differed on the subject of religion.

Let him not put her away. Though she is a heathen, 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, 1Cor 7:16.

(d) "not the Lord" Ezr 10:11, etc. Verse 13. Let her not leave him. A change of phraseology from the last verse, to suit the circumstances. The wife had not power to put away the husband, and expel him from his own home; but she might think it her duty to be separated from him. The apostle counsels her not to do this; and this advice should still be followed. She should still love her husband, and seek his welfare; she should be still a kind, affectionate, and faithful wife; and all the more so, that she may show him the excellence of religion, and win him to love it. She should even bear much, and bear it long; nor should she leave him unless her life is rendered miserable, or in danger; or unless he wholly neglects to make provision for her, and leaves her to suffering, to want, and to tears. In such a case, no precept of religion forbids her to return to her father's house, or to seek a place of safety and of comfort. But even then it is not to be a separation on account of a difference of religious sentiment, but for brutal treatment. Even then the marriage tie is not dissolved, and neither party are at liberty to marry again.

(*) "him" "not put him away" Verse 14. For the unbelieving husband. The husband that is not a Christian; who still remains a heathen, or an impenitent man. The apostle here states reasons why a separation should not take place when there was a difference of religion between the husband and the wife. The first is, that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. And the object of this statement seems to be, to meet an objection which might exist in the mind, and which might, perhaps, be urged by some, "Shall I not be polluted by such a connexion? Shall I not be defiled, in the eye of God, by living in a close union with a heathen, a sinner, an enemy of God, and an opposer of the gospel?" This objection was natural, and is, doubtless, often felt. To this the apostle replies, "No; the contrary may be true. The connexion produces a species of sanctification, or diffuses a kind of holiness over the unbelieving party by the believing party, so far as to render their children holy, and therefore it is improper to seek for a separation."

Is sanctified. ηγιασται. There has been a great variety of opinions in regard to the sense of this word. It does not comport with my design to state these opinions. The usual meaning of the word is, to make holy; to set apart to a sacred use; to consecrate, etc. Jn 17:17. But the expression cannot mean here,

(1.) that the unbelieving husband would become holy, or be a Christian, by the mere fact of a connexion with a Christian, for this would be to do violence to the words, and would be contrary to facts everywhere; nor,

(2.) that the unbelieving husband had been sanctified by the Christian wife, (Whitby,) for this would not be true in all cases; nor,

(3.) that the unbelieving husband would gradually become more favourably inclined to Christianity, by observing its effects on the wife, (according to Semler;) for though this might be true, yet the apostle was speaking of something then, and which rendered their children at that time holy; nor,

(4.) that the unbelieving husband might more easily be sanctified, or become a Christian, by being connected with a Christian wife, (according to Rosenmuller and Schleusner,) because he is speaking of something in the connexion which made the children holy; and because the word αγιαζω is not used in this sense elsewhere. But it is a good rule of interpretation, that the words which are used in any place are to be limited in their signification by the connexion; and all that we are required to understand here is, that the unbelieving husband was sanctified in regard to the subject under discussion; that is, in regard to the question whether it was proper for them to live together, or whether they should be separated or not. And the sense may be, "They are by the marriage tie one flesh. They are indissolubly united by the ordinance of God. As they are one by his appointment, as they have received his sanction to the marriage union, and as one of them is holy, so the other is to be regarded as sanctified, or made so holy by the Divine sanction to the union, that it is proper for them to live together in the marriage relation." And in proof of this, Paul says if it were not so, if the connexion was to be regarded as impure and abominable, then their children were to be esteemed as illegitimate and unclean. But now they were not so regarded, and could not so be; and hence it followed that they might lawfully continue together. So Calvin, Beza, and Doddridge interpret the expression.

Else were your children unclean, ακαθαρτα. Impure; the opposite of what is meant by holy. Here observe,

(1.) that this is a reason why the parents, one of whom was a Christian and the other not, should not be separated; and,

(2.) the reason is founded on the fact, that if they were separated, the offspring of such a union must be regarded as illegitimate, or unholy; and,

(3.) it must be improper to separate in such a way, and for such a reason, because even they did not believe, and could not believe, that their children were defiled, and polluted, and subject to the shame and disgrace attending illegitimate children. This passage has often been interpreted, and is often adduced to prove that children are "federally holy," and that they are entitled to the privilege of baptism on the ground of the faith of one of the parents. But against this interpretation there are insuperable objections.

(1.) The phrase "federally holy" is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scriptures, and what can be meant by it?

(2.) It does not accord with the scope and design of the argument. There is not one word about baptism here; not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be a separation between man and wife, where the one was a Christian and the other not. Paul states, that if such a separation should take place, it would imply that the marriage was improper; and of course the children must be regarded as unclean. But how would the supposition that they were federally holy, and the proper subjects of baptism, bear on this? Would it not be equally true that it was proper to baptize the children whether the parents were separated or not? Is it not a doctrine among Paedobaptists everywhere, that the children are entitled to baptism on the faith of either of the parents, and that that doctrine is not affected by the question here agitated by Paul? Whether it was proper for them to live together or not, was it not equally true that the child of a believing parent was to be baptised? But

(3.) the supposition that this means that the children would be regarded as illegitimate if such a separation should take place, is one that accords with the whole scope and design of the argument. "When one party is a Christian and the other not, shall there be a separation?" This was the question. "No," says Paul; "if there be such a separation, it must be because the marriage is improper; because it would be wrong to live together in such circumstances." What would follow from this? Why, that all the children that have been born since the one party became a Christian, must be regarded as having been born while a connexion existed that was improper, and unchristian, and unlawful, and of course they must be regarded as illegitimate. But, says he, you do not believe this yourselves. It follows, therefore, that the connexion, even according to your own views, is proper.

(4.) This accords with the meaning of the word unclean, ακαθαρτα

(a.) in a Levitical sense, Lev 5:2;

(b.) in a moral sense, Acts 10:28, 2Cor 6:17, Eph 5:5.

The word will appropriately express the sense of illegitimacy; and the argument, I think, evidently requires this. It may be summed up in a few words. "Your separation would be a proclamation to all, that you regard the marriage as invalid and improper. From this it would follow that the offspring of such a marriage would be illegitimate. But you are not prepared to admit this; you do not believe it. Your children you esteem to be legitimate, and they are so. The marriage tie, therefore, should be regarded as binding, and separation unnecessary and improper." See, however, Doddridge and Bloomfield for a different view of this subject. I believe infant baptism to be proper and right, and an inestimable privilege to parents and to children [This is Barnes' opinion, not necessarily the opinion of Online Bible]. But a good cause should not be made to rest on feeble supports, nor on forced and unnatural interpretations of the Scriptures. And such I regard the usual interpretation placed on this passage.

But now are they holy. Holy in the same sense as the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; for different forms of the same word are usual. That is, they are legitimate. They are not to be branded and treated as bastards, as they would be by your separation. "You regard them as having been born in lawful wedlock, and they are so; and they should be treated as such by their parents, and not be exposed to shame and disgrace by your separation.

(a) "now are they holy" Mal 2:15,16 Verse 15. 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, etc. 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.

(*) "bondage" "Not enslaved" (a) "called" Rom 12:18, 14:19, Heb 12:14 (1) "to peace" "in peace" Verse 16. For what knowest thou, etc. The apostle here assigns a reason why the believing party should not separate from the other needlessly, or why he should not desire to be separated. The reason is, the possibility or the probability that the unbelieving party might be converted by the example and entreaties of the other.

Whether thou, etc., How do you know but this may be done? Is there not a possibility, nay, a probability of it, and is not this a sufficient reason for continuing together?

Save thy husband. Gain him over to the Christian faith; be the means of his conversion and salvation. Comp. Rom 11:26. We learn from this verse,

(1.) that there is a possibility that an unbelieving partner in life may be converted by example of the other.

(2.) That this should be an object of intense interest to the Christian husband or wife, because

(a) it will promote the happiness of the other;

(b) it will promote their usefulness;

(c) it will be the means of blessing their family; for parents should be united on the subject of religion, and in their example and influence in training up their sons and daughters; and

(d) because the salvation of a beloved husband or wife should be an object of intense interest.

(3.) This object is of so much importance, that the Christian should be willing to submit to much, to bear much, and to bear long, in order that it may be accomplished. Paul said it was desirable even to live with a heathen partner to do it; and so also it is desirable to bear much, very much, with even an unkind and fretful temper, with an unfaithful and even an intemperate husband, or with a perverse and peevish wife, if there is a prospect that they may be converted.

(4.) This same direction is elsewhere given, 1Pet 3:1,2.

(5.) It is often done. It is not hopeless. Many a wife has thus been the means of saving a husband; many a husband has been the means of the salvation of the wife. In regard to the means by which this is to be hoped for, we may observe that it is not by a harsh, fretful, complaining temper; it is to be by kindness, and tenderness, and love. It is to be by an exemplification of the excellency of religion by example--by patience when provoked, meekness when injured, love when despised, forbearance when words of harshness and irritation are used, and by showing how a Christian can live, and what is the true nature of religion; by kind and affectionate conversation when alone, when the heart is tender, when calamities visit the family, and when the thoughts are drawn along by the events of Providence towards death. Not by harshness or severity of manner is the result to be hoped for; but by tender entreaty, and mildness of life, and by prayer. Preeminently this is to be used. When a husband will not hear, God can hear; when he is angry, morose, or unkind, God is gentle, tender, and kind; and when a husband or a wife turn away from the voice of gentle entreaty, God's ear is open, and God is ready to hear and to bless. Let one thing guide the life. We are never to cease to set a Christian example; never to cease to live as a Christian should live; never to cease to pray fervently to the God of grace, that the partner of our lives may be brought under the full influence of Christian truth, and meet us in the enjoyments of heaven.

(b) "save thy husband" 1Pet 3:1,2 (2) "how knowest" "What" Verse 17. But as God hath distributed, etc. As God hath divided-- εμερισεν; i.e., given, imparted to any one. As God has given grace to every one. The words ειμη denote simply but in the beginning of this verse. The apostle here introduces a new subject; or an inquiry varying somewhat from that preceding, though of the same general nature. He had discussed the question whether a husband and wife ought to be separated on account of a difference in religion. He now says that the general principle there stated ought to rule everywhere; that men who become Christians ought not to seek to change their condition or calling in life, but to remain in that situation in which they were when they became Christians, and show the excellence of their religion IN that particular calling. The object of Paul, therefore, is to preserve order, industry, faithfulness in the relations of life, and to show that Christianity does not design to break up the relations of social and domestic intercourse. This discussion continues to 1Cor 7:24. The phrase, as God hath distributed," refers to the rendition in which men are placed in life, whether as rich or poor, in a state of freedom or servitude, of learning or ignorance, etc. And it implies that God appoints the lot of men, and orders the circumstances of their condition; that religion is not designed to interfere directly with this; and that men should seek to show the real excellence of religion in the particular sphere in which they may have been placed by Divine Providence before they became converted.

As the Lord hath called every one. That is, in the condition or circumstances in which any one is when he is called by the Lord to be a Christian.

So let him walk. In that sphere of life; in that calling, 1Cor 7:20; in that particular relation in which he was, let him remain, unless he can consistently change it for the better, and THERE let him illustrate the true beauty and excellence of religion. This was designed to counteract the notion that the fact of embracing a new religion dissolved the relations of life which existed before. This idea probably prevailed extensively among the Jews. Paul's object is to show that the gospel, instead of dissolving those relations, only strengthened them, and enabled those who were converted the better to discharge the duties which grow out of them.

And so ordain I, etc. This is no peculiar rule for you Corinthians. It is the universal rule which I everywhere inculcated. It is not improbable that there was occasion to insist everywhere on this rule, and to repress disorders which might have been attempted by some who might suppose that Christianity dissolved the former obligations of life.