5
12—16,
θαρτά ἐστι, viv δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν.
γὰρ ""οἶδας, γύναι, “ei τὸν ἄνδρα σώσεις; ἢ
Rom. i. 32, ii. 4 f.; Gal. v. 21, 23; Eph. v. 27. w Cf. Acts x. 18, xix. 2; Jo. ix. 25; Jer. xxxvii. 6.
1 SGP om. second η.
15. εἰ δὲ ὁ ἡ χωριζέσθω: οὐ " δεδούλωται ὅ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ] ἀδελφὴ ἐν "τοῖς Γτοιούτοις. "ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ "" κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς 2 ὁ "Θεός: 16. Y rt
u Gal. i. 6; Eph. iv. 4; 1 Th. iv. 7.
827
8 ix. το;
Rom. vi. 18, 22; Gal. iv. Tit. ii. 2 Ρε!. Ἱ]. 19; Acts vii. 6.
t Neut.,
v Here only
, ™ ἄπιστος ” χωρίζεται,
ν
τί *” oidas, ἄνερ,
ὄνμας (?): ΝΑΟΚ 46, 73, cop. (Alexandrian); so Tisch., W.H. ¢zt., Nestle.
R.V. marg.
ημας: BDGL, latt. vg., syrr. (Western); Treg., Al., W.H. marg., R.V. txt, El.
band (or wife) in the same act—‘sanc- tified 1m the wife, brother,’’ respectively —and treats him (or her) henceforth as sacred. ‘‘Whatever the husband may be in himself, in the wife’s thought and feeling he is a holy object. . . . Similarly the Christian’s friends, abilities, wealth, time, are, or should be, holy” (Bt.). Marriage with an unbeliever after con- version is barred in 2 Cor. vi. 14.
The (relative) sanctity of the uncon- verted spouse is made more evident by the analogous case of children: ‘‘Else one must suppose that your children are unclean; but as it is, they are holy!” P. appeals to the instinct of the religious parent; the Christian father or mother cannot look on children, given by God through marriage, as things unclean. Offspring are holy as bound up with the holy parent; and this principle of family solidarity holds good of the conjugal tie no less than of the filial derived there- from. See the full discussion of this text in Ed.; it has played no small part in Christian jurisprudence, and in the doctrine of Infant Baptism; it ‘ enunci- ates the principle which leads to Infant Baptism, vzz. that the child of Christian parents shall be treated as a Christian” (Lt.).—On ἐπεὶ ἄρα, aliogui certe, si res se aliter haberet, see v. 10 and parls.; viv δέ, as in ν. 11, is both temporal and logical (cf. xv. 20, gRom. vi. 22).
Ver. Ίσα. πε Christian wife or hus- band is not to seek divorce from the non- Christian (12-14); but if the latter insists on separation, it is not to be refused: “But if the unbeliever separates, he may separate”’—let the separation take its course (χωριζέσθω, pr. impv.): for this impv. of consent, cf. ver. 36, xiv. 38.— οὐ δεδούλωται (pf. of fixed condition) “the brother or the sister in such cir- cumstances is not kept in bondage’’; cf. ver. 39—the stronger vb. of this passage implies that for the repudiated party to
continue bound to the repudiator would be slavery. Christ’s law forbids putting away (1ο ff.), but does not forbid the one put away to accept dismissal. Whether the freedom of the innocent divorced ex- tends to remarriage, does not appear: the Roman Church takes the negative view—though contrary to the Canon Law (see Wordsworth, im loc.); the Lutheran Church the affirmative, allow- ing remarriage on desertio malitiosa ; ‘‘in view of ver. 11, the inference that the divorced should remain unmarried is the safer” (so Hn., against Mr.). If, how- ever, the repudiator forms a new union, cutting off the hope of restoration, the case appears then to come under the exception made in Matt. v. 31. With ἐν τοιούτοις, neut., cf. ἐν τούτοις, Rom. Vili. 37; and ἐν ols, Phil. iv. 11.
Vv. 150, 16. ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ ὁ Θεός .. « σώσεις; The Christian spouse forsaken by the heathen is free from the former yoke; but such freedom is undesirable. Two considerations make against it: Peace is better for a Christian than disruption (156); and there is the possibility of sav- ing the unbeliever by remaining with him, or her (16). Thus P. reverts, by the contrastive δέ, to his prevailing thought, that the marriage tie, once formed, should in every way possible be maintained. On this view of the con- nexion, the full stop should be set at ἐν' τοιούτοις, and the colon at 6 Θεός. “In peace,”’ etc.—opposed to χωριζέσθω, like καταλλαγήτω in ver. 11—appeals to the ruling temper of the Christian life, de- termined once for all by God’s call in the Gospel, ‘‘ex quo consequitur retinen- dum esse nobis infidelem, ac omnibus. officiis demerendum; nedum ut vel eum \psi deseramus, vel ad nos deserendos provocemus”’ (Bz.); cf. Rom. xii. 18, for the general thought. For the construc- tion of ἐν εἰρήνῃ, cf. 1 Thess. iv. 7, Gal. i. 6, Eph. iv. 4.—Ver. 16 follows up the