1 Corinthians 7:15Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Here the matter is no longer adultery. What, then, does "if the unbeliever wishes to separate" mean? For example, if he commands you, by the right of marriage, to offer sacrifices and share in his impiety, or else to leave, it is better to leave marriage than piety. "For the brother or sister is not enslaved in such cases." If the unbeliever daily insults and stirs up quarrels over this, it is better to separate. The Apostle expresses this in the words, "For God has called us to peace." The unbeliever himself gives the occasion for this, just as the adulterer does.

"But if the unbeliever wants to depart, let him depart." For example, if he commands you either to take part in his unbelief or to renounce the rights of marriage, then separate. It is better to dissolve the bonds of marriage than to violate piety. "A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. The Lord has called us to peace." If the husband quarrels with you because you do not participate in his unbelief, then separate from him. In such a case you are not enslaved to him. That is, you are not compelled to follow him in such matters. It is better to separate from him than to quarrel, because God does not desire this either: "The Lord has called us to peace." Therefore, if the husband quarrels with you, he himself has given the cause for divorce.

But if the unbeliever wishes to separate from the believer, let him separate. For in this there is no necessity and no danger for the believer.

On the contrary, he commands that if an unbeliever rejects a believer because of faith in Christ, the believer must separate, so as not to prefer a spouse to Christ, who must be preferred even to one's own soul. But now many, disregarding the Apostle's command, unite themselves with pagans. They defile the temples of Christ with idols and do not understand that they are part of the body whose ribs they are. The Apostle permitted union with unbelievers to those who, already having husbands, later believed in Christ. He did not permit it to those who, being Christian women, married pagans. To these latter he says elsewhere: "Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? What communion has light with darkness?

2. Therefore, if every marriage is from God, marriage cannot be destroyed. Why, then, did the Apostle say, "If the unbeliever wants to depart, let him depart"? By this he showed with admirable precision, first, that among Christians the cause of divorce is excluded, and second, that not every marriage is from God. Christian women are not joined to pagans by divine will. The law forbids this. 3. Here we meet what Solomon says: "Fathers prepare house and possessions for sons, but a wife is prepared for a man by God" (Prov 19:14). Whoever reads Greek sees no contradiction here. In Greek the word άρμόξεται is well chosen. This word describes agreement and fitting order in everything.

That is, a spouse who hates the Father of marriage is not worthy of respect. Such a marriage is not worthy of approval, since it is not consecrated to God. Therefore there is no sin when the one rejected because of God is joined to another. By an insult against the Creator, the right of marriage is annulled for the one who has been abandoned. Nor is that person to be accused of union with another. The unbeliever who divorces sins both against marriage and against God, because he did not wish to live in a marriage consecrated to God. Therefore marital fidelity is not to be preserved for him, since he departed because he does not wish to hear that the Creator of marriage is the God of Christians. Truly, one should not contend in court with the one who departs. He departed out of hatred for God, and by this very fact he will not be worthy.

"But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not enslaved in such cases." Let the believing side, says the Apostle, give no occasion for separation. But if the sick side wishes to depart, you are blameless and free from accusation. "For the Lord God has called us to peace." If the Lord said, "I did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword, to set a man against his neighbor" (Mt 10:34-35), what the Apostle says does not contradict this. Rather, he explains the Lord's teaching. For, he says, the saving preaching does not introduce confusion into life. On the contrary, it seeks rather the true and God-loving peace. It first breaks up an evil agreement, and through disagreement attains praiseworthy concord. For those who received the divine preaching became teachers of unbelievers. Beyond expectation, they produced a wondrous transformation and brought divided households into most beloved agreement. The Apostle says this here also.

Having set forth the essential thoughts concerning marriage and celibacy, the Apostle now teaches the indissolubility of marriage, whether both spouses are Christians or only one of them. With respect to Christians, this teaching is proclaimed as the Lord's commandment, already known in the Old Testament. For persons in a mixed marriage, it is given as personal counsel, since the Lord's commandment could not have binding force for an unbelieving person. By commanding the wife not to leave her husband and the husband not to put away his wife, the Apostle Paul seems to give preference to the husband. Yet clearly this is nothing more than the customary way of presenting the form of divorce then in practice.

Eating what has been offered to idols, when one has the sound understanding that an idol is nothing and cannot influence the nature of food, does not make the eater impious. Impiety lies in acknowledging the idol as something. So too, living with an unbeliever in marital communion does not make one unclean, as fornication and adultery make one unclean. The natural act of cohabitation contains nothing unclean in itself. In fornicators and adulterers, lustful desires make it unclean. Therefore the Apostle commanded them to live peacefully in the marriage union with unbelievers. Yet he did not establish this unconditionally, but on condition of the unbelieving person's consent.