The Monastic Pint Answers from church history on today's questions
Questions · Ethics

1 Corinthians 7:15: if the unbelieving depart

What Christian writers said, from about AD 198 to 1930.

25 passages · 14 writers · 8 centuries

The short answer

Tertullian and the Council in Trullo quote the passage that a believer is not to dismiss a consenting unbelieving spouse because that spouse is sanctified by the believer. Barnes says the marriage tie is not dissolved by a difference of religion, and Calvin and Browne say a believer may live with an unbeliever because marriage is sanctified. On verse 15, Chrysostom says it is better for the marriage to be annulled than for a breach to be made in godliness, Fausset says the believer is not bound to renounce the faith to keep an unbelieving husband, Wesley says the believer is at full liberty, and Calvin says the first and chief bond is broken. Luther says verse 15 leaves it free to the believer to take another, Browne says the deserted person must be free to marry again, Aquinas says the wife's sin frees the husband from the tie that kept him from marrying again in her lifetime, and Hodge objects to the view that desertion justifies divorce but not remarriage. Barnes says the remarriage reading is contrary to the apostle's argument and reads the freedom as liberty to live separate, and Robertson says it is by no means clear that the believer may marry again unless the unbeliever marries first.

The believer stays with an unbelieving spouse

10 passages · 9 writers · 100s to 1900s

Tertullian and the Council in Trullo quote the passage that a believer is not to dismiss a consenting unbelieving spouse because that spouse is sanctified. Augustine says a believing husband is advised not to put away an unbelieving wife who is pleased to dwell with him, and Aquinas says the believer may remain with her in hope of her conversion, though he is not bound to do so. Calvin, Browne, and Robertson say marriage with an unbeliever is sanctified, and Barnes says the marriage tie is not dissolved by a difference of religion.

c. 198–206 · Tertullian, To His Wife (Ad uxorem) 2.2

Therefore, when in these days a certain woman removed her marriage from the pale of the Church, and united herself to a Gentile, and when I remembered that this had in days gone by been done by others: wondering at either their own waywardness or else the double-dealing of their advisers, in that there is no scripture which holds forth a licence of this deed,—“I wonder,” said I, “whether they flatter themselves on the ground of that passage of the first (Epistle) to the Corinthians, where it is written: If any of the brethren has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to the matrimony, let him not dismiss her; similarly, let not a believing woman, married to an unbeliever, if she finds her husband agreeable (to their continued union), dismiss him: for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband; else were your children unclean.” It may be that, by understanding generally this monition regarding married believers, they think that licence is granted (thereby) to marry even unbelievers. God forbid that he who thus interprets (the passage) be wittingly ensnaring himself! But it is manifest that this scripture points to those believers who may have been found by the grace of God in (the state of) Gentile matrimony; according to the words themselves: “If,” it says, “any believer has an unbelieving wife;” it does not say, “takes an unbelieving wife.”

c. 1252–1256 · Thomas Aquinas, Supplement to the Third Part of the Summa Theologica Suppl., q. 59, a. 3, co.

I answer that, The faith of a married person does not dissolve but perfects the marriage. Wherefore, since there is true marriage between unbelievers, as stated above (A[2], ad 1), the marriage tie is not broken by the fact that one of them is converted to the faith, but sometimes while the marriage tie remains, the marriage is dissolved as to cohabitation and marital intercourse, wherein unbelief and adultery are on a par, since both are against the good of the offspring. Consequently, the husband has the same power to put away an unbelieving wife or to remain with her, as he has to put away an adulterous wife or to remain with her. For an innocent husband is free to remain with an adulterous wife in the hope of her amendment, but not if she be obstinate in her sin of adultery, lest he seem to approve of her disgrace; although even if there be hope of her amendment he is free to put her away. In like manner the believer after his conversion may remain with the unbeliever in the hope of her conversion, if he see that she is not obstinate in her unbelief, and he does well in remaining with her, though not bound to do so: and this is what the Apostle counsels (1 Cor. 7:12).

1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: 1 Corinthians 7.12

Let him not put her away - Though she is a pagan, 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, 1Co 7:16.

If the unbelieving depart, the believer is not in bondage

8 passages · 6 writers · 300s to 1900s

Chrysostom says that if the unbeliever demands a sacrifice or buffets the believer, it is better for the marriage to be annulled or for them to separate, and Fausset says the believer is not bound to renounce the faith to retain an unbelieving husband. Wesley says the believer is at full liberty, and Calvin says a believer rejected by an unbeliever is freed from the bond of marriage. Aquinas says the baptized believer is not bound to cohabit with a wife who is unwilling to be converted, and Robertson says one hesitates to interpret Paul as advocating divorce unless the unbeliever strongly insists on it.

c. 386–397 · John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians 19.4

“Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart,” for in this case the matter is no longer fornication. But what is the meaning of, “if the unbelieving departeth?” For instance, if he bid thee sacrifice and take part in his ungodliness on account of thy marriage, or else part company; it were better the marriage were annulled, and no breach made in godliness.

1546 · John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, part 1 (chapters 1-14) 7.15

But if an unbeliever depart. This is the second department of his statement, in which he sets at liberty a believing husband, who is prepared to dwell with an unbelieving wife, but is rejected by her, and in like manner a woman who is, without any fault on her part, repudiated by her husband; for in that case the unbelieving party makes a divorce with God rather than with his or her partner. There is, therefore, in this case a special reason, inasmuch as the first and chief bond is not merely loosed, but even utterly broken through.

1871 · A. R. Fausset, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on 1 Corinthians 7.15

if … depart—that is, wishes for separation. Translate, "separateth himself": offended with her Christianity, and refusing to live with her unless she renounce it. brother or a sister is not under bondage—is not bound to renounce the faith for the sake of retaining her unbelieving husband [Hammond]. So De 13:6; Mt 10:35-37; Lu 14:26. The believer does not lie under the same obligation in the case of a union with an unbeliever, as in the case of one with a believer. In the former case he is not bound not to separate, if the unbeliever separate or "depart," in the latter nothing but "fornication" justifies separation [Photius in Æcumenius]. but God hath called us to peace—Our Christian calling is one that tends to "peace" (Ro 12:18), not quarrelling; therefore the believer should not ordinarily depart from the unbelieving consort (1Co 7:12-14), on the one hand; and on the other, in the exceptional case of the unbeliever desiring to depart, the believer is not bound to force the other party to stay in a state of continual discord (Mt 5:32).

Whether the freed believer may marry again

7 passages · 6 writers · 1200s to 1900s

Luther says 1 Corinthians 7:15 leaves it free to the believer to take another, Browne says the deserted person must be free to marry again, and Aquinas says the wife's sin frees the husband from the tie that kept him from marrying again in her lifetime. Hodge objects to the view that desertion justifies divorce but not remarriage. Barnes says the remarriage reading is contrary to the apostle's argument and reads the freedom as liberty to live separate, and Robertson says it is by no means clear that the believer may marry again unless the unbeliever marries first.

c. 1252–1256 · Thomas Aquinas, Supplement to the Third Part of the Summa Theologica Suppl., q. 59, a. 5, ad 2

Reply to Objection 2: The sin of the wife who refuses to cohabit without insult to the Creator frees the husband from the tie whereby he was bound to his wife so as to be unable to marry again during her lifetime. It does not however dissolve the marriage at once, since if she were converted from her blasphemy before he married again, her husband would be restored to her. But the marriage is dissolved by the second marriage which the believing husband would be unable to accomplish unless he were freed from his obligation to his wife by her own fault.

1520 · Martin Luther, On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church matrimony

A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases” (1 Cor. vii. 15). Here the Apostle permits that the unbelieving one who departs should be let go, and leaves it free to the believer to take another. Why should not the same rule hold good, if a believer, that is, a nominal believer, but in reality just as much an unbeliever, deserts husband or wife, especially if with the intention of never returning? I cannot discover any distinction between the two cases. In my belief, however, if in the Apostle’s time the unbeliever who had departed had returned, or had become a believer, or had promised to live with the believing wife, he would not have been received, but would himself have been authorised to marry another woman.

1834 · Albert Barnes, Notes on the Bible: 1 Corinthians 7.15

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 ... - 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.