Section 3

How, then, is uncleanness overcome in this case, so that marital relations are permitted, while a husband is not blamed for putting away a wife who has committed sexual immorality? Because here there is hope that the lost partner may be saved through the marriage, whereas in the other case the marriage has already been broken. There both are corrupted; here the fault belongs to only one of the two.

What I mean is this. A woman who has committed sexual immorality has made herself defiled. If “the one who is joined to a prostitute is one body with her,” then a man who has relations with a prostitute also becomes defiled; and in that case all purity is driven away. But here it is not so. How, then? The idolater is unclean, but the wife is not unclean. If she shared with him precisely in that respect in which he is unclean—I mean his impiety—then she too would become unclean. But as things stand, the idolater is unclean in one respect, while the wife shares with him in another matter in which he is not unclean. Their communion is marriage and bodily union.

Again, there is hope that the unbelieving spouse may be won back by the believing wife, because she has an intimate bond with him. In the other case such restoration is much more difficult. How can the woman who dishonored her husband in the past, became another man’s, and destroyed the rights of marriage win back the man she wronged, when she now remains like a stranger to him? Again, after sexual immorality, the man is no longer truly her husband in the same way; but here, even if the wife is an idolater, the husband’s marital right has not been destroyed.

Paul does not simply command a believer to live with an unbeliever under every circumstance, but only with one who is willing. This is why he says, “and he is willing to live with her.” Tell me, what harm is there if devotion to God remains unharmed and there are good hopes for the unbeliever, if those already joined remain together rather than creating occasions for needless conflict? He is not speaking here about people who have not yet married, but about those who are already joined. He did not say, “If anyone wishes to take an unbelieving wife,” but, “If anyone has an unbelieving wife.” That is, suppose someone receives the word of faith after marrying or being given in marriage, while the other spouse remains in unbelief but still wishes to live together: let the marriage not be torn apart.

“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife.” Such is the abundance of your purity. What then? Is the pagan holy? Certainly not. Paul did not say, “He is holy,” but, “He is sanctified in the wife.” He says this not to show that the man himself is holy, but to remove the believing wife’s fear as completely as possible and also to draw the unbelieving husband toward a desire for the truth. Uncleanness is not in the bodies that are joined together, but in the will and in the thoughts.

Then he gives a proof. If you yourself remained unclean while giving birth, and the child comes not from you alone, then the child would necessarily be unclean—or at least half clean. But in fact the child is not unclean. Therefore he adds, “Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy,” meaning that they are not unclean. He calls them “holy” with an intentionally strong expression, again removing the fear created by such a suspicion.

“But if the unbeliever separates, let him separate.” In such a case the issue is no longer sexual immorality. What does “if the unbeliever separates” mean? Suppose he tells you that because of the marriage you must sacrifice and share in his impiety, or else leave him. It is better for the marriage to be broken than for devotion to God to be broken. Therefore Paul adds, “The brother or the sister is not enslaved in such cases.” If every day the unbelieving spouse attacks you and brings conflict upon you for this reason, Paul says, it is better to be released. This is what he indicates when he says, “God has called us in peace.” The unbelieving spouse has now provided the cause for the separation, just as the sexually immoral spouse does in the other case.

“For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband?” This again belongs with the instruction, “Do not put him away.” If he is not creating conflict, remain, Paul says, because there may even be gain in it. Remain; exhort him, counsel him, persuade him. No teacher can have as much power to persuade him as his wife. Yet Paul does not impose a necessity on her or demand absolutely that she accomplish this, lest the burden become too heavy. Nor does he tell her to give up hope. Instead he leaves the outcome suspended in the uncertainty of the future: “How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? And how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?”

Again: “Only let each person walk as God has assigned to him, as the Lord has called each. Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not undo his circumcision. Was anyone called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God. Let each person remain in the calling in which he was called. Were you called as a slave? Do not be concerned about it.” These outward conditions contribute nothing to faith, he says. So do not become contentious or disturbed; faith has swept aside all such distinctions.

“Let each person remain in the calling in which he was called.” Were you called while having an unbelieving wife? Keep living with her; do not put your wife away because of the faith. Were you called while a slave? Do not be troubled; remain in your service. Were you called uncircumcised? Remain uncircumcised. Did you become a believer while circumcised? Remain circumcised. This is what he means by, “as God has assigned to each.” None of these things is an obstacle to godliness. You were called while a slave; another while married to an unbelieving wife; another while circumcised.