Instruction to the Married; Remaining in One’s Calling (1 Corinthians 7:10–24)

Instruction to the married—not to dissolve marriage, whether aa) both are believers (verses 10–12), or bb) one side is an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12–24)

1 Cor. 7:10–11. To the married I give this charge—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

“Intending to repeat the commandment clearly prescribed by the Lord, that one ought not to divorce one’s wife except in case of adultery, he says: ‘not I.’ For what was said above was not clearly stated by the Lord, although it accords with His teaching, but this He set forth clearly; such is the difference in expression between ‘I’ and ‘not I.’ Do not, however, take even the Apostle’s words as merely human, for he says: ‘I think that I also have the Spirit of God’ (1 Cor. 7:40)” (holy Chrysostom). What then is the commandment? “The wife should not separate from her husband, and the husband should not divorce his wife.” The Lord had especially in mind the husbands when He commanded them not to divorce their wives, “except on the ground of sexual immorality” (Matt. 5:32). But the Apostle directs this commandment especially to the wives. It is true that in Corinth women enjoyed greater rights, and the husbands gave themselves greater freedom. The latter he had already restrained somewhat by the strict judgment on the incestuous man, applying this severity then to all fornicators and adulterers as well. Now he humbles the wives so that they do not hastily proceed to divorce. Therefore he says: “If she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband,”—reconciled, that is, made to agree. He makes no mention of the causes of separation, therefore—whatever the cause may be. He said this to one wife; but since throughout his discourse the husband and wife go in perfect equality with him, one must suppose that this limitation also applies to the husband, that is, that if he abandons his wife, let him remain unmarried or be reconciled to his wife. The blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle strives to keep the marriage bonds indissoluble. For in prescribing continence to the one who separates, he thereby prevents divorce. In forbidding marriage with another, he compels both sides to return to the former marriage.” He limits their freedom so that even if there are causes for separation, they may be more willing to use all means of reconciliation than to hurry toward divorce. Neither does this exclude the word ‘adultery,’ understood to be under the condition of sincere repentance on the part of the one who sinned. That in the earliest times this matter was so understood can be inferred from the words of Hermas, who in his fourth commandment says that if a husband, knowing that his wife is unfaithful, remains with her, he sins; but likewise he also sins if he does not receive her when she repents and promises to be faithful.

In giving instruction to the married, one side of whom belongs to the unbelievers, the Apostle even in such marriages, α) advises the believers not to separate if the unbelievers married to them wish this (1 Cor. 7:12–16); and in order to dispose them to this, he portrays, β) how he teaches all everywhere to remain in that state in which each was called to faith (1 Cor. 7:17–24). This latter discourse seems to be separate; but it leads directly to the goal, that is, it disposed them to act as the Apostle counseled.

1 Cor. 7:12–13. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.

“This ‘I say’ means: I have not found this law to be written in the sacred Gospel (transmitted from the Lord), but I am establishing it now. And that the apostolic laws are the laws of the Master Christ is manifest to those learned in divine things. For the Apostle said: ‘Since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me’ (2 Cor. 13:3); and: ‘Not I, but the grace of God that is with me’ (1 Cor. 5:10); and again: ‘By the grace given to me’ (Rom. 12:3). So too here he gives a law because the Holy Spirit speaks through him” (Theodoret).

What then is the substance of the law? “If, he says, a wife has an unbelieving husband or a husband has an unbelieving wife, they should not abandon each other” (holy Chrysostom). “He does not legislate taking an unbelieving wife and does not command the believing wife to be joined with an unbelieving husband, but gives rules for those joined before the preaching was received. For it happened that a husband believed while the wife remained in unbelief, and vice versa: the wife accepts the preaching while the husband remains in the sickness of unbelief. And the Apostle commands the healthy one to bear the weakness of the one remaining with him in marriage, caring for his salvation” (Theodoret).

1 Cor. 7:14. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

This passage is not altogether clear. How are unbelieving spouses sanctified because of believers? One cannot of course understand here a gracious sanctification, for the sole path to such sanctification is faith and the reception of the sacraments of baptism and chrismation. An unbelieving husband and unbelieving wife, wishing to live with a believing wife and believing husband, despite the faith in Christ the Lord, though they show hidden good disposition or benevolent condescension to this faith, one can suppose in this only a seed of future personal faith and the sanctification that will result from it, but not sanctification itself. How then to understand: “is made holy”? One must understand: the husband as a husband is made holy, and the wife as a wife, that is, in the marriage relation. In other words: your marriage, believing wife, with an unbelieving husband has not turned into unlawful cohabitation because you believed; rather, your faith has sanctified this marriage (is made holy—ηγιασται, already sanctified) and your husband in the marriage relation. The same believing husband should keep in mind regarding his unbelieving wife. The Apostle’s aim is to calm the disturbance of conscience from not understanding how to act, and moreover to prevent the divisions and dissolutions of families that could make much noise and adversely affect the work of preaching, and especially that, since the unbelieving husband and wife do not turn away from the believing wife and husband, there is hope that they too will eventually turn, as he says of this directly below.

Holy Chrysostom says: “The Apostle said this so that the wife (believing) should not fear to become unclean from cohabitation with such a husband (unbelieving), and vice versa. On the contrary, the purity of the believing wife overcomes the uncleanness of the unbelieving husband, just as the purity of the believing husband overcomes the uncleanness of the unbelieving wife. The idolater is unclean, but his wife is not unclean because of this. If she participated with him in that in which he is unclean, that is, in ungodliness, she would herself become unclean; but now the idolater is unclean in one thing, and in another thing he shares with his wife, in which he is not unclean, for in marriage and conjugal relations they participate mutually with each other. Besides, here there is hope that the wife of the unbeliever will convert him, for she is his own. Moreover, she does not live with the unbeliever simply, but by his wish. So tell me, is there any harm in their remaining united, when also piety is preserved in its entirety, there remains good hope for the conversion of the unbeliever, and occasions for needless quarrels are avoided? ‘The unbelieving husband is made holy.’ How? Is an unbeliever holy? He did not say holy, but ‘is made holy because of the wife,’ he said this not to recognize the unbeliever as holy, but to comfort the wife as much as possible and to arouse in the husband a desire for truth. Uncleanness is not in the bodies of those united, but in the will and thoughts.” Theodoret holds that for the purpose of calming the conscience and preserving family peace, “the Apostle employed an emphatic manner of speech, persuading them not to abandon cohabitation.” In a similar sense also the children from such marriages are holy. Not holy in the sense that Christians are holy, for children even of consecrated Christians are born in such a state that they require sanctification through the sacraments,—but in the sense that they are not unclean, illegitimate, worthless children. Holy Chrysostom says: “Holy,’ that is, not unclean. He calls them holy by this name, so that by such a name to even more powerfully drive away the fear of the spouses.”

1 Cor. 7:15. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. The brother or sister is not enslaved in such circumstances; God has called you to peace.

Just as eating food offered to idols—with the sound understanding that an idol is nothing and can have no influence on the nature of the food—does not make the eater impious (for the impiety lies in acknowledging the idol to be something), so too living with an unbeliever in the marriage bond does not defile, as fornication and adultery defile. The natural act of cohabitation has in itself nothing unclean; it is the lustful desires in fornicators and adulterers that make it unclean. This is why the Apostle commanded them to live peaceably in the marriage union with unbelievers. Yet he laid this down not unconditionally, but on condition that the unbelieving party consents. As soon as that consent is lacking—that is, if the unbelieving husband is unwilling to live with a believing wife, but demands that she either return to her former impiety or leave him—then it is clear that such a husband must be left; for to change one’s faith is not even to be thought of, while to remain with the husband, holding the faith in defiance of him, would be deliberately to bring discord and quarrels into the family. And so he says: for the sake of peace, let go of such husbands and wives; in that case you are free from the yoke of marriage and not bound by it. “The believing party,” says the Apostle, “must give no occasion for separation; but if the ailing party wishes to depart, you are guiltless and free from blame” (Theodoret). “If the unbeliever commands you to offer sacrifice and to share in his impiety by right of marriage, or else to leave him, it is better to give up the marriage than godliness. If the unbeliever daily insults you and stirs up quarrels, it is better to separate: for God has called us to peace. The unbeliever himself gives the occasion for this” (St. Chrysostom).

But how has “the Lord called us to peace,” when the Lord Himself says, “I came not to send peace upon the earth” (Matt. 10:34)? — “What the Apostle says does not contradict the Lord’s teaching but explains it. For, he says, the saving preaching does not introduce turmoil into life; on the contrary, it seeks all the more that true and God-loving peace. It first breaks up an evil concord (in impiety) and through disagreement attains a praiseworthy unanimity. For those who received the divine preaching, becoming teachers of the unbelievers, brought about, beyond all expectation, a wondrous change, and led families that had been divided into a most desirable harmony. This is precisely what the Apostle expresses immediately afterward” (Theodoret).

1 Cor. 7:16. For what do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Or what do you know, O husband, whether you shall save your wife?

“If the husband does not trouble you, then remain with him, he says; from this there may even come benefit; remain and exhort, counsel, persuade: no teacher can persuade as a wife can. Yet the Apostle does not compel her, nor demand this of her without fail, so as not once again to lay too heavy a burden upon her; he advises her not to despair, and leaves the matter in doubt, because the future is unknown” (St. Chrysostom). “Undertake the labor with good hope, he says; you have God as helper of your zeal” (Theodoret). The work of conversion to the faith is accomplished by grace; but how? — that is a mystery. Grace has many instruments, but through which of them it will pass into a sinful or unbelieving soul, and whether it will pass at all, no one can determine. For here freedom also enters with its own rights, whose deviations cannot be defined, but with which God, who works all things in all to good, takes account. That is why the Apostle says, “For what do you know, O wife; for what do you know, O husband?”

To set the Corinthians still more at ease in this regard, the Apostle declares to them that he nowhere bids anyone change the outward condition in which he was called to the faith, but commands him to remain in it. The thought he brings forward is that the outward things count for nothing in the matter of salvation; here everything depends on faith and on the grace that builds up the spirit for the sake of faith. One may be in the lowest condition and yet be highest in spirit, or highest in condition and yet be most worthless in spirit. So, he says, do not look to the outward; let it remain as it was. “All this counts for nothing with respect to faith; therefore do not dispute or be troubled; faith is above all this. Let each remain in the calling in which he was called. Were you called while married to an unbelieving wife? — Remain with her; do not drive out your wife because of the faith. Were you called as a slave? — Do not grieve, and remain a slave. Were you called uncircumcised? — Remain uncircumcised. Did you come to believe while circumcised? — Remain circumcised. None of this is a hindrance to godliness. You were called in the condition of a slave, another while married to an unbeliever, another in circumcision” (St. Chrysostom). The way of salvation and all the treasures of grace are open equally to all.

1 Cor. 7:17. Only, as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each, so let him walk; and so I ordain in all the churches.

“Only” — ει μη — if not, unless. I urge you not to separate, in the hope that perhaps the unbelieving party may believe and turn to the Lord. But even if this does not come about, or if no such hope can be entertained, still do not separate, submitting to that law which says that one must live in the lot God has given, in the condition in which one was called. To make the structure of this text clearer, the words “so let him walk” should be placed first: “so let him walk, as God has distributed to each”—“distributed,” εμερισεν, measured out a part or portion—“and as the Lord has called each,” that is, in whatever condition he was called. “So let him walk,” so let him live, not tearing himself away from it, but remaining in it. “God alone knows what is profitable for each and what is better—whether that a believer should from the outset be joined in marriage to an unbeliever, or to a believer. Sometimes it is better for a believer to be joined and to live with a believer, and sometimes with an unbeliever. This has been borne out in fact. But the reasons for it no one can know except God, who has so arranged and distributed the lots, and except the Lord, who has called each in this or that condition. And if God and the Lord have arranged and apportioned such unions according to what is more profitable for each, then a believer who finds himself joined to an unbeliever ought not to be burdened by it, nor to seek release and freedom, but to abide in that in which he was called, and to live such a life” (Oecumenius). Oecumenius applied his explanation of the apostolic saying only to the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever and the reverse; but what he said in regard to them may be applied to all other conditions as well. The Apostle’s statement is general, though it was uttered on a particular occasion.

“So I ordain in all the churches.” I establish such an order not among you alone, but everywhere the same. “He said this so that, learning that they had others as partners in the same way of life, they might be all the more zealously disposed to submit to the Apostle’s ordinance” (Theophylact).

1 Cor. 7:18. Was anyone called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised.

He sets forth examples of just how he ordains this everywhere, and at the same time clarifies what it means to remain in that in which one was called. He brings forward only two cases: circumcision and uncircumcision, and slavery and freedom. Surely it was instructive for the Corinthians to touch upon these.

“Let him not become uncircumcised” — μη επισπασθω. This word suggests the artificial restoration of the circumcised part, after which the circumcision is no longer noticeable, and the circumcised man becomes as though he had never been circumcised. In our Slavonic translation a remark is even added: “let him not make himself uncircumcised”. Photius, in Oecumenius, cites the observation of St. Epiphanius that by certain medical means a circumcised man could be made uncircumcised. Others report that during the persecution of Antiochus many Jews used these means to conceal their Jewishness. It is conjectured that some of the Jews who had come to believe did the same—some out of zeal, that no trace of Judaism might remain, others for some other reason. It is as though, having them in view, St. Paul wrote: do not do this; it is vain labor; both circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing in the matter of salvation. Perhaps it was so.

Why does he say, “let the uncircumcised not be circumcised”? Were there really those who, having been called uncircumcised, were being circumcised? — Surely there were. They were driven to it by the talk of the Judaizers. Theophylact writes: “Some, on the contrary, being carried away by the seeming great glory of circumcision, were being circumcised after receiving the faith. To them St. Paul says that this adds nothing to the matter of faith and salvation”.

The Apostle mentions both this case and that one, either in prevention or in rebuke and correction.

1 Cor. 7:19. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is everything.

“Neither circumcision contributes to the work of salvation, nor does uncircumcision harm it. Only one thing is required—the keeping of the commandments” (Oecumenius). “And both the circumcised and the uncircumcised taste the good that comes from the fulfillment of the commandments” (Photius in Oecumenius). In the Epistle to the Romans the Apostle teaches that before God what is precious is circumcision of the heart. What he requires here is one with this. For circumcision of the heart is the cleansing of it from passions; and the commandments are directed against the passions, so that one who fulfills them drives the passions out of the heart, or circumcises it. In another place the Apostle opposes to circumcision and uncircumcision faith, helped by love, and also the grace of the Holy Spirit. And all this is encompassed in the fulfillment of the commandments, as a necessary means. Faith leads to the sources of grace; one who drinks of it is strengthened to fulfill the commandments; and in fulfilling them reaches the purity of heart, or its true circumcision; the pure heart burns with love. This is what is needed, and circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing, as is any other external state or position.

1 Cor. 7:20. Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called.

Already for the second time the Apostle says this; and yet a third time will he say it at the end of this section (1 Cor. 7:24). This commandment to impress upon the mind is what he aims at; for that reason he brings examples. “What mode of life did you have, in what class did you stand, in what state were you when you believed, in that remain. By ‘calling’ he means the bringing to faith” (Theophylact).

1 Cor. 7:21. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, make use of the opportunity instead.

“Do not be concerned about it,” μη σοι μελετω, the Greeks say: τι με μελει? What does it matter to me? And the Apostle wishes to say: What does it matter that you are a slave? Do not pay any attention to this, and do not think about it (Photius in Oecumenius). “Make use of the opportunity instead” μαλλον χρησαι, “rather use slavery” (Photius in Oecumenius), rather remain in slavery, and having accepted faith in that state, advance in it.

Holy Chrysostom says on this passage: “See how he views slavery. Just as circumcision brings no benefit at all and uncircumcision harms not at all, so likewise slavery and freedom. But in order to show this as clearly as possible, he says: ‘But if you can gain your freedom, make use of the opportunity instead’ (χρησαι), that is, all the more serve. Why then does he command the slave to remain a slave when he could become free? To show that slavery not only causes no harm, but even affords benefit. I know that some claim that the words ‘make use of the opportunity instead’ speak of freedom, and interpret them thus: if you can become free, be freed. But such a thought would be entirely contrary to Paul’s intention; in comforting the slave and proving to him that slavery causes him no harm, he would not command him to seek freedom, for then another might say: but if I cannot become free, do I suffer humiliation and harm? Therefore Paul does not mean that, but wishes to show, as I said before, that one freed from slavery obtains no benefit; even if, he says, it were in your power to become free, you would do better to remain a slave.” Theodoret writes: “Grace knows no distinction between slavery and lordship. Therefore do not flee slavery as unworthy of faith; but even if it is possible to obtain freedom, remain in slavery and wait for your reward. He urges not to avoid slavery under the pretext of piety.”

1 Cor. 7:22. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord. Likewise whoever was called as a free person is a slave of Christ.

“A freed person,” απελευθερος, a manumitted slave. To the external state of slavery and manumission the Apostle opposes freedman status in the Lord Jesus Christ and slavery to Him. Here they both come together in one and the same person. Freedom in the Lord is liberation from slavery to sin, the world, and the devil. It is produced in the heart on the basis of faith by the grace of the Holy Spirit, transmitted through the sacraments. One who has turned to the Lord and has been mystically united with Him is already a freedman of Christ: such is the mystery of our faith. But one obtains this freedom as a result of complete self-surrender to the Lord and full submission to His will, which one witnesses at the beginning by determination, and then throughout life in all one’s deeds. In the very moment when one surrenders himself wholly in this way into slavery to the Lord, the Lord by His grace frees him from his former moral slavery; the enemy is driven from the heart, the enchantments of the world are unmasked and seen in their repellent deformity, and over the sin living within is given power to trample it and tread upon its neck every time it lifts up its head. This happens to everyone—whether slave or externally free, even if a king—it is all the same. “In relation to Christ, he says, both are equal. Just as you are a slave of Christ, so is your master. When is a slave free while remaining a slave? When he is freed from passions and mental illnesses, when he does not give himself over to avarice, anger and other such passions” (holy Chrysostom). For who is as free as one freed from sin? And who serves in such bitter slavery as one enslaved to the passions? (Theodoret).

1 Cor. 7:23. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human beings.

Just before this he said that even if they had the possibility to gain freedom, they should remain in slavery, but now he says: “Do not become slaves of human beings.” How is this? One must understand here slavery not as external, but as spiritual—moral, and precisely only in relation to human beings. Spiritual slavery, as we have seen, appears in various forms: there is slavery to the passions, slavery to the world and the devil. From this comprehensive slavery Christians receive freedom in the Lord Jesus Christ. “You are bought,” he says, “at the price” of the blood of the Only-begotten Son of God, all of you are bought, both slaves and free, and you ought to serve the Lord in every way. This is moral. Consequently, “do not become slaves of human beings” is also moral. What then is this? Do not be a people-pleaser. This is one subtle but much-evil side of slavery to the world, to human opinions, human customs and the desires of people with whom one must live. The Apostle says as it were: that you are slaves is not important in Christ, but this have in mind—do not become slaves to human opinions, customs and desires against the will of the Lord. You are bought by the Lord; let His will govern in you in all things, and in whatever way the opposite of this will is shown, agree not to do anything to please men. This rule accords with the Apostle’s other rules: not to gratify the flesh in lust, not to please oneself, and here: not to please men when this violates the will of the Lord.

Theodoret writes: “He does not set down anything contrary to what was said; but he commands that one should not have a slavish manner of thinking, neither the one who is called a slave nor the one who is named free.” Theophylact: “He says this not only to slaves, but also to the free, exhorting all Christians to do nothing out of pleasing men and in no way to obey them when they command what is unlawful, for this is what it means to be enslaved to men.” Saint Chrysostom speaks at length on this: “It is possible to be a slave and not enslaved, and to be free and not free. When, then, is a slave not enslaved? When he does everything for God, when he serves not hypocritically and not from pleasing men: this is what it means to be enslaved to men and to remain free. And conversely, when is a free person enslaved? When he serves men in something base, in gluttony, greed, or ambition. Such a man, though free, is worse than any slave. Here is an example of each. Joseph was a slave, but was not enslaved to men; therefore even in slavery he was freer than all the free, because he did not submit to his mistress. His mistress, on the other hand, though she was free, proved herself lower than any slave, and could not bend him, the free one, to what he did not wish. Truly he was not a slave, but in the highest degree free. Thus there are limits to slavery, set by God, there are laws to which it may extend, and these must not be transgressed. When a master requires nothing contrary to God’s will, then one must obey him and submit, and it should not extend further; thus the slave remains free! If you go further, then you become enslaved, though you are free. Such was not Joseph; he was everywhere and in all things truthful and remained free. Nothing could enslave him—neither chains, nor slavery, nor his mistress’s love, nor dwelling in a foreign land—but he always remained free. This is the highest freedom, which shines even in slavery”.

1 Cor. 7:24. Brethren, let each one remain in that state in which he was called, before God.

Again, for the third time, he repeats the same. Here—both as a conclusion and to prevent a misunderstanding that might arise in some from the words: “be not enslaved to men.” He means not this, he says, so that you should flee from your masters. No, the law that was stated before—to remain in that same state in which one was called—remains unchanged even now. “By the foregoing words,” Theophylact writes, “the Apostle does not suggest that slaves should flee from their masters. Far from it! That he is not suggesting this is clear from the present words: ‘let each one remain in that in which he was called,’ that is, even if called in slavery, remain in it. He added the words ‘before God,’ so that, on the other hand, one should not turn away from God on account of obedience to masters who command what is unlawful. He removes both: both that, under the pretext of pleasing God, one should not flee from masters, and that one should not turn away from God by obeying masters more than one ought.”