The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Corinthians — Section 249

tre~t1!1ent or. for. so~e simil~r re_ason. The_ canse of separation mny or may not be- suft1~1ent ~o Justify 1t, but m ~1ther case 1t must not be regarded as severing the marriage tie. Only two alternatives are open. 'l'he wife thus separated must remain unmarried, since a ne~ union would imply that the previous one was null and void; or tihe must be reconciled to her husband and return to live with him. '!'his last is in eYery way the desirable course, and every means should be used to brina it about. Husband and wife cannot go apart without sin and scandal to the Christian°name and their religious profession requires them to reconsider their position and remove :very barrier to reunion. The apostle is not here speaking of adultery, which is of itself a dissolution of the marriage bond and a sufficient ground for divorce (Matt. xix. 9), but simply of the general rule that married persons are bound to each other for life. With what prayerful deliberation should such a union be contracted! A step that cannot be retraced should not be taken without thought. II. ,vHERE ONE OF THE PARTIES IS CHRISTIAN- AND THE OTHER HEATHEN. The case suppo~ed is not that of a C~ristian enter!ng into wedlock with a heathen spouse, which Paul m ano~her _place forbids (2 C?r. _v1._ 14); b~t the case where· one of the parties. already mamed, 1s converted to Chnst1amty. This must have frequently happened in the early history of the Church, just as it is of constant occurrence in modern missions among the heathen. How does this complication affect the sanctity of the marriacre bond? Is it not a union of the dead and the living, between whom there is a great gulf? The Lord Jesus had given no utterance on the ~ubject of mixed marriages, and there- fore the apostle gives his inspired judgment regarding it. If the unbelieving partner is content to remain, the Christian partner is not to seek a separation. If the unbelieving partner refuses to remain, the Christian partner is not to hinder separation. 1. Consider the case where the unbelieving partner is content to remain. The Christian spouse is not to seek a separation as if the marriage were unholy;" For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband" (ver. 14). The apostle does not mean that an unbeliever, in virtue of conjugal union with a believer, becomes personally holy; but that he or she is thereby consecrated or hallowed. As the altar sanctifieR the gift that is laid upon it (Matt. xxiii. 19), so the Christian reflects something of his own character upon everything connected with him. His property, bis business, bis family, are all in a sense holy, as belonging to one who is in covenant with God, and are under his special protection. Hence the pagan hus- band or wife is a privileged person on the ground of uniou with a Christian spouse. The tares in the wheat-field are sacred for the sake of the wheat (Matt. xiii. 29); the ungodly men in Israel were privileged because they belonged to a holy nation. The reason adduced by Paul in support of this position is very significant. "Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy" (ver. 14). It was an accepted maxim that the children of such mixed marriages were born within the Church. This principle was recognized among the Jews, as the case of Timothy shows (Acts xvi. 1-3). But if the children of such a marriage are reckoned holy, the marriage whence they spring cannot be unholy or in~onsistent with the Law of God. "If the root is holy, so are the branches" (Rom. x1. 16); and, conversely," If the branches aro holy, so is the root." The children take their standing from the Christian parent, who is regarded as the nobler of the two. 2. Consider the case where the unbelieving partner refu~es to remain. In this case the Christian parlner is not to insist on maintaining the union, but to let the other depart. For: (1) "The brother or the sister is not under bondaae in such cases." The marriage is not to be dissolved at the instance of the believing partner; but if the other refuses to remain, the cont~act is 1;10 longer binding. It would be a case of bondaae if the one were held to a nmon which the other has wilfully broken up. (2) "God bath called us in peace." The gospel was not intended to produce variance and strife in families; and if this is to be the result of the heathen partner continuing to dwell with the Christian, it were better to let him have his wish and live apart. From the very centre of life out to its circumference, God desires us to live iu peace. (3) The Christian partner is not to prevent the departure of the other, in the hope of being instrumental in his or her conversion. '!'his is at best uncertain, and peace is not to be hazarded therefore. .And if such a union is not to be maintained for the sake of a possible conversion, much less is it to be contracted with that view. REMARKS. 1. This passage is generally adduced as the Bible warrant for the view  • cH. vn. 1-<I.O.] THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE COll.INTHIANS. 251