and the Christian wife is forbidden to repudiate her heathen husband. The same word is used in both cases, because, by the laws both of the Greeks and of the Romans, the woman as well as the man, had, on legal grounds, the right of divorce. Having said that these mixed marriages might be lawfully continued, he proceeds to remove the scruples which the Christian party might entertain on that point. He shows there is nothing unholy in such a connection.
14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
Timothy 4:5. This use of the word is specially frequent in application to persons and communities.
The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were, therefore, constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their children were holy; so were their wives. “If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches,”
<451116>
Romans 11:16. That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children.
Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was, according to the constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of God, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were none the less conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, <490203>
Ephesians 2:3. When, therefore, it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, the meaning is, not that they are rendered inwardly holy, nor that they are brought under a sanctifying influence, but that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the temple sanctified the gold connected with it; or the altar the gift laid upon it, <402317>
Matthew 23:17, 19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though its internal nature remained the same, it became something sacred. Thus, the pagan husband, in virtue of his union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified; he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the guardian of one of his chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in virtue of their believing mother, were children of the covenant.
That this is so, the apostle proves from the fact, that if the parents are holy, the children are holy; if the parents are unclean, the children are unclean. This is saying literally what is expressed figuratively in
<451116>
Romans 11:16. “If the root be holy, so are the branches.” It will be
remembered that the words holy and unclean, do not in this connection express moral character, but are equivalent to sacred and profane. Those within the covenant are sacred, those without are profane, i.e. not consecrated to God. There are two views which may be taken of the apostle’s argument in this verse. The most natural, and hence the most generally adopted view is this: ‘The children of these mixed marriages are universally recognized as holy, that is, as belonging to the church. If this be correct, which 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.’ To this it is indeed objected by several modern commentators, that it takes for granted that the Corinthians had no scruples about the church-standing of the children of these mixed marriages. But this, it is said, is very improbable so soon after the establishment of the church, when cases of the kind must have been comparatively few. The principle in question, however, 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 the 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, <441601>
Acts 16:1-3. The apostle constantly assumes that his readers were familiar with the principles and facts of the Old Testament economy. Comp. 10:1-13.
The other view of the argument is this: ‘If, as you admit, the children of believers be holy, why should not the husband or the wife of a believer be holy. The conjugal relation is as intimate as the parental. If the one relation secures this sacredness, so must the other. If the husband be not sanctified by his believing wife, children are not sanctified by believing parents.’
This, however, supposes a change in the persons addressed. Paul is speaking to persons involved in these mixed marriages. Your children naturally means the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or wives. Whereas this explanation supposes your to refer to Christians generally. In either way, however, this passage recognizes as universally conceded the great scriptural principle, that the children of believers are holy. They are holy in the same sense in which the Jews were holy. They are included in the church, and have a right to be so regarded. The child of a
Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, and to all the privileges of the theocracy. So the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism and to all the privileges of the church, so long as he is represented by his parent;
that is, until he arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and bound to act for himself. Then his relation to the church depends upon his own act. The church is the same in all ages. And it is most instructive to observe how the writers of the New Testament quietly take for granted that the great principles which underlie the old dispensation, are still in force under the new. The children of Jews were treated as Jews; and the children of Christians, Paul assumes as a thing no one would dispute, are to be treated as Christians. Some modern German writers find in this passage a proof that infant baptism was unknown in the apostolic church.
They say that Paul could not attribute the holiness of children to their parentage, if they were baptized — because their consecration would then be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange reasoning. The truth is, that 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. The Rabbins say: Peregrina si proselyta fuerit et cum ea filia ejus — si concepta fuerit et nata in sanctitate, est ut filia Israelita per omnia. See Wetstein in loc. To be born in holiness (i.e. wimin the church) was necessary in order to the child being regarded as an Israelite.
So Christian children are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized because they are holy.
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.
The command in the preceding verse was founded on the assumption, that the unbelieving party consented to remain in the marriage relation. If the unbeliever refused thus to remain, the believer was then free. The believer was not to repudiate the unbelieving husband or wife; but if the unbeliever broke up the marriage, the Christian partner was thereby liberated from the contract. This is the interpretation which Protestants have almost
universally given to this verse. It is a passage of great importance, because it is the foundation of the Protestant doctrine that willful desertion is a legitimate ground of divorce. And such is certainly the natural sense of the passage. The question before the apostle was, ‘What is to be done in the case of these mixed marriages?’ His answer is, ‘Let not the believer put
away the unbeliever, for Christ has forbidden a man to put away his wife for any cause except that of adultery, <400532>
Matthew 5:32. But if the
unbeliever breaks up the marriage, the believer is no longer bound.’ There is no conflict here between Christ’s command and Paul’s instructions.
Both say, a man cannot put away his wife (nor of course a wife her husband) on account of difference of religion, or for any other reason but the one above specified. The apostle only adds that if the believing party be, without just cause, put away, he or she is free.
A brother or sister is not in bondage (ouj dedou>lwtai equivalent to ouj de>detai V. 39), i.e. is not bound; if the unbeliever consent to remain, the believer is bound; if the unbeliever will not consent, the believer is not bound. In the one case the marriage contract binds him; in the other case it does not bind him. This seems to be the simple meaning of the passage.
Others understand the apostle as saying that the believer is not bound to continue the marriage — that is, is under no obligation to live with a partner who is unwilling to live with him. But the one part of the verse should be allowed to explain the other. An obligation which is said to exist in one case, Paul denies exists in another. If the unbeliever is willing to remain, the believer is bound by the marriage contract; but if she be unwilling, he is not bound.
But God hath called us in peace (ejn eijrh>nh| i.e. w[ste ei+nai ejn eijrh>nh|).
Peace is the state in which the called should live. The gospel was not designed to break up families or to separate husbands and wives.
Therefore, though the believer is free if deserted by his unbelieving partner, the separation should be avoided if possible. Let them live together if they can; and let all proper means be taken to bring the unbelieving party to a sense of duty, and to induce him to fulfill the marriage covenant. This is the common view of the meaning of this clause. Others understand it in a directly opposite sense, viz., as assigning a reason why the separation should take place, or at least why the attempt to detain an unwilling husband or wife should not be pressed too far. ‘As God hath called us to live in peace, it is contrary to the nature of our vocation to keep up these ill-assorted connections.’ This, however, is contrary to the whole animus of the apostle. He is evidently laboring throughout these verses to prevent all unnecessary disruptions of social ties.