1 Corinthians 7:15-16

“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 1 Corinthians 7:15; the reason follows in 1 Corinthians 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 ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις 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 1 Corinthians 7:17. The words ἐν εἰρήνῃ, in peace, have often been understood as if they were εἰς εἰρήνην, “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 δέ 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 δέ 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 desertion such is the judicial name for the χωρίζεσθαι on the part of one of the spouses is 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 οὐ δεδούλωται 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, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

The two questions of 1 Corinthians 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 εἰ in the sense of whether; comp. moreover in the LXX. Joel 2:14; Jonah 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.