If you do any of the shopping, probably the strangest part is at the checkout. The magazine section there is perhaps the strangest collection in print. One of the strangest periodicals is the Hollywood marriage and divorce scene. The tragic life is so common in this area that it has become a parody. Because it is so common and tragic, it has become a parody. Commenting on this scene commentator said: “In Hollywood they get married early in the morning. That way, if it doesn't work out, you haven't wasted a whole day. The hardest thing in Hollywood is to keep the marriage a secret until the divorce leaks out. I was invited to a Hollywood wedding. Traffic was heavy, so I got there late -- just in time for the divorce. One Hollywood kid has good reason to be proud: at the last PTA meeting, he won the prize for having the most parents there. One actress is very sentimental: she always gets divorced in the dress her mother was married in. Finally, a Hollywood bride looked around as the groom put her down after carrying her across the threshold. Puzzled, the Hollywood bride said, "This place looks familiar. Have we been married before?". The tragedy outside of Hollywood is that for far too many people life now resembles art. The stuff of Hollywood yesteryear now can be seen in the everyday. These days it is not uncommon to read of prenuptial agreements, messy custody battles, haggling over spousal support and the list goes on and on.
The situation in Corinth was no different. When Paul dealt with the Greek cities such as Athens and Corinth, and other Roman cities, divorce was a frequent thing. Some in Corinth were saying it was better to remain single to be more spiritual. Ascetics considered sex carnal, not spiritual, and were divorcing their spouses. The Hedonists lived for pleasure and would divorce and remarry on the drop of a hat with only objective of selfish pleasure.
What’s important to distinguish up front is that I am not trying to pick on anyone. If you are divorced or remarried, it is not my intent to single you out or to embarrass you. I realize for many this issue is painful, and this is not an academic or theological exercise. It is a very personal and painful experience that has touched your lives. I hope we can all have a greater biblical understanding and know how to go forward as well as counsel others and consider the issue for those who may encounter the problem, both as a personal choice as well as with those they care about.
No one it seems has not been affected by the topic of Marriage and Divorce. We are either the participants, children or friends of someone who is or has gone through this process. The statistics and effects from depression to crime almost seem meaningless. The effects of divorce are all around us. What we need is the solution and God’s guidance.
1 Corinthians 7 guides us in family arrangements through three elements First with: 1) Guidelines for Christians Married to Other Christians (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), 2) Christians Married to Unbelievers Who Want to Stay Married (1 Corinthians 7:12-14), and finally for 3) Christians Married to Unbelievers Who Want to Leave (1 Corinthians 7:15-16).
In Addressing the topic of Divorce and & Remarriage, the Apostle Paul first gives:
1) Guidelines for Christians Married to Other Christians (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)
1 Corinthians 7:10-11. [10] To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband [11] (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (ESV)
Paul does not callously (cite) the Lord’s prohibition of divorce to beat down those whose marriages were in trouble and who were at wit’s end as to what to do. A man “who weeps with those who are weeping” (Rom. 12:15) surely would have spoken differently to those struggling with the demise of their marriages. From 1 Corinthians 6, at least four marital arrangements were practiced in that day—ranging from the common–law usus to the noble confarreatio. To the married covers every type. That both partners of the marriage in view here were Christians is clear from Paul’s giving them this charge/instruction (which he never gave to unbelievers) and from the fact that in verses 12–16 he deals specifically with marriages in which only one partner is a believer. (Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (280). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.)
Please turn to Matthew 19
Lest there be any doubt as to the source of the teaching here, the apostle adds, not I, but the Lord. It is in reality not Paul but the Lord himself who issues this order, for the order here stated is the one issued by Jesus himself in Matt. 5:32; 19:6, and when Paul says, “I give this charge/command” (present tense), he means that the order of Jesus has continuous, permanent force. In this instance Paul can use a word that was spoken by Jesus himself in regard to the permanency of marriage, a word that has validity for all time (Lenski, R. C. H. (1963). The interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second epistle to the Corinthians (285–286). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.)
We see Jesus responding to a challenge in Matthew 19
Matthew 19:3-4. [3] And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" [4] He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, (ESV)
“Keep your place in Matthew 19”
• Jesus gives a clear word on how God creates people male or female and no makeup or surgery will every change that. Transgenderism is a sad deviation from God’s design. Lest we think that the challenging of this notion is a new phenomenon, the notion of Biblical manhood and womanhood has been under attack by Satan from the Garden itself. Here in Matthew 19 the Pharisees wanted to see if Jesus would side with the teachings of Rabbi Shammai, who took a very strict view on divorce (divorce only for adultery), or if he would side with Rabbi Hillel, who took a very liberal view on divorce (divorce for any reason).
Jesus told them God’s intent for marriage. Quoting Genesis 2:24,:
Matthew 19:5-9. [5]and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." [7] They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" [8] He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." (ESV)
• The Pharisees misunderstood Dt. 24. Moses didn’t command the Jews to divorce one another, he simply regulated a practice already in existence. That’s why in Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus spoke: [31]"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' [32] But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (ESV). Therefore, in answer to the disciples’ question, Jesus explained that God allowed Moses to permit divorce only because of His peoples’ “hardness of heart” (vv. 7–8), and that it was permissible only in the case of sexual immorality (Matt. 5:31–32). The word for sexual immorality is the Greek word proneia. This is a general term that encompasses an array of sexual sins-including fornication (during betrothal), incest, adultery (moichea), homosexuality and lesbianism. In the Old Covenant the penalty was death (Ex. 20:10). Therefore, the innocent spouse was clearly free to remarry. Divorce is therefore not God’s ideal, but His concession. It is not commanded, but permitted, and it is not the first option but a last resort. Divorce is contrary to God’s plan for humanity, and when allowed in cases of adultery is only a gracious concession to the innocent party in an irreconcilable case of unfaithfulness. Where there is repentance, there can be restoration.
The direct charge in 1 Corinthians 7:10 is that “the wife should not separate from her husband. In the context of Greco-Roman practice, the verb here for separation means to divorce and is synonymous with the verb ?f???a? (aphienai) in 7:11b, which Paul uses to command the husband not to send away his wife. There are no biblical grounds for our common understanding of Separation. There is reasonable action of physical removal for a short time to allow counseling. But to have an indeterminable time of physical separation, goes against the instruction we have already seen of coming together often, lest you be tempted. It is too easy to divorce, when physically separated. If there is physical or mental cruelty, it is the role of the Church to intervene and discipline accordingly (Mt. 18, 1 Cor. 5). Therefore, if you are not a member of a local church that believes in the process of discipline, then you are not availing yourself of the God ordained protection that he created in the Church. You are living common law with God. Christ died for his bride. (Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (281). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.)
Some of the believers in Corinth had already divorced each other or were in motion to that end. To those persons the apostle says in verse 11, but if she does leave, she should remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband. She is to remain unmarried (present tense continuous action) like the other unmarried (v. 8), or, better, she is to be “reconciled” to her husband (aorist, accomplished action). The stress of the passage on maintaining the marriage bond unbroken definitely strengthens the injunction for separated marriage partners to become reconciled (Mare, W. H. (1976). 1 Corinthians. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 10: Romans through Galatians (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (229). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.).
• We just saw Jesus declare that God has instituted marriage, so that what he has joined together, no one should separate (Matt. 19:6). He means that the marriage partners have no right to annul the vows they have made. Neither the husband nor the wife has the “power to render a marriage invalid.” In other words, in the parenthesis here in 1 Cor. 7 Paul is repeating the teachings of Jesus by permitting no exceptions to the rule of marriage. When Paul writes that a wife leaves her husband, he does not approve of the separation. Rather he commands her to remain unmarried or to be reconciled to her husband. By implying that the marriage bond should not be broken, Paul accepts the reality of separation. Yet he forbids remarriage and counsels the wife who initiates divorce to be reconciled to her husband (Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 18: Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New Testament Commentary (221–222). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.)
The command to be reconciled with the husband (?ata??a??t?, katallageto) assumes here that the wife is the guilty party who has ruptured the relationship. Paul’s counsel does not think in terms of a failed marriage but of the personal failure of the married partner. Since she initiated the breakup, it is her Christian responsibility to take the initiative in healing the breach (Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (283). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.). If a Christian does divorce another Christian, except for adultery, neither partner is free to marry another. They must stay single or rejoin their former mate. In God’s eyes that union has never been broken. Divorce may happen, and such a person is not ostracized from the community. What is not allowed is remarriage…. If the Christian husband and wife cannot be reconciled to one another, then how can they expect to become models of reconciliation before a fractured and broken world? (Fee, G. D. (1987). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (296). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.)
Illustration: Why would this be so? Perhaps some of you know the story of Isobel Kuhn. She was a popular author and missionary to China, was married to John, a man just as strong willed and stubborn as she was. The two had many conflicts. John, for example, had a cook in China to whom he was devoted but whom Isobel couldn’t stand. Tensions grew, and Isobel sulked and stewed and finally exploded. She and John had a blazing argument. Stuffing her hat on her head, Isobel stalked from the house, through town, and onto the plain boiling with rage. She said to herself, “I am not going to live with a man who gives a lazy servant preference over his wife.” She walked for hours, enraged, not caring where she went. She finally returned home, but the situation remained tense although John told Isobel she could dismiss the servant. The local church leaders visiting wanting to know why the cook had been fired, John wouldn’t back Isobel. And he didn’t hire anyone else, sending all the domestic duties on her. Other issues soon arose. For a long time, the marriage was painful and stressed. But John and Isobel were committed to the Master. They were committed to personal spiritual maturity and to working and maintaining the relationship, however difficult it seemed. Furthermore, Isobel often walked out on John, but in that remote region on the Chinese-Thai border, there was nowhere for her to go. The two finally built a satisfying, fulfilling marriage. Near the end of her life, Isobel wrote these words: “I feel many modern marriages are wrecked on just sharp shoals as this. A human weakness is pointed out. The correction is resented. Argument grows bitter. Young people are not ready to forgive, not willing to endure. Divorce is too quickly seized upon as the way out. [But] to pray God to awaken the other person, to be patient until he does so—this is God’s way out. And it molds the two opposite natures into one invincible whole”.
Second, in Addressing the topic of Divorce and & Remarriage, the Apostle Paul gives:
2) Guidelines for Christians Married to Unbelievers Who Want to Stay Married
1 Corinthians 7:12-14. [12] 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. [13] If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. [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. (ESV)
What counsel does Paul offer those Christians who are married to an unbeliever? Let’s make sure we understand the situation Paul is dealing with. He is not talking about whether a believer should marry an unbeliever. It was unthinkable to him that a Christian should ever entertain the notion (He said explicitly in 2 Cor. 6;14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers). In 1 Cor. 7:39 he explicitly says the Christian is free to marry ‘only in the Lord’. (Ellsworth, R. (1995). Strengthening Christ's Church: The Message of 1 Corinthians. Welwyn Commentary Series (121). Darlington, England: Evangelical Press.).
What were Christians to do who were already married to unbelievers, possibly even to the immoral and idolatrous? Were they free to divorce the one to whom they were unequally yoked and then free either to live singly or marry a believer? Those were honest questions. In light of Paul’s teaching that their bodies were members of Christ and were temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:15–20), the Corinthian Christians were justifiably concerned about whether or not to maintain marital union with an unbeliever. Some may have thought that such a union joined Christ to Satan, defiling the believer and the children and dishonoring the Lord. The desire for a Christian partner would be very strong. Jesus had not taught directly about that problem, and so Paul says, to the rest I say (I, not the Lord). That is not a denial of inspiration or an indication that Paul is only giving his own human opinion. It is only to say that God had not given any previous revelation on the subject, but Paul was now setting it forth. If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. The present tense prohibition, me aphieto, stresses that the marriage relationship is not to be broken at any time. The literal meaning is “He [she] is not to be attempting at one point or another to divorce her [him].” (Mare, W. H. (1976). 1 Corinthians. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 10: Romans through Galatians (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (230). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.)
“To live with” means to live together in a marriage commitment (cf. 1 Pet. 3:7). The verb “to consent” (s??e?d??e??, syneudokein) implies not only willingness but also some measure of approval (cf. Luke 11:48; Acts 8:1; 22:20; Rom. 1:32). The verb also assumes that the Christian husband has not coerced his wife to become compliant. The principle of mutual agreement (1 Cor. 7:5) as the basis for making decisions in marriage applies in this case as well. (Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (285–286). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.).
Please turn to 1 Peter 3
Christians married to unbelievers were not to worry that they themselves, their marriage, or their children would be defiled by the unbelieving spouse. On the contrary, the very opposite was the case. Both the children and the unbelieving spouse would be, as verse 14 indicates, made holy/sanctified because of the believing wife or husband. Paul is setting forth a high view of the grace of God at work through the believer toward members of his/her own household (cf. 1 Pet. 3:1), and for him that constitutes grounds enough for maintaining the marriage (Fee, G. D. (1987). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (302). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.).
Peter outlines this concept in 1 Peter 3
1 Peter 3:1-7. [3:1] Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, [2] when they see your respectful and pure conduct. [3] Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear-- [4] but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. [5] For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, [6]as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. [7] Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (ESV)
• God may use the faithfulness of a believing spouse instrumentally in the conversion of the unbelieving spouse. This is not an invitation for nagging but honoring your spouse through godly conduct showing them in a tangible way what biblical love and grace is, that it may prayerfully lead to repentance.
Being unequally yoked, one flesh with an unbeliever, can be frustrating, discouraging, and even costly. But it need not be defiling because one believer can sanctify a home. This is what Paul means back in 1 Cor. 7:14, that to be made holy/sanctify does not refer to salvation; otherwise the spouse would not be spoken of as unbelieving. The word hagiazo (“to sanctify”) does not refer to moral purity—Paul is certainly not teaching that the unbelieving partner is made morally pure. What the word emphasizes is a relationship to God, a claim of God on the person and family to be set apart for him (cf. Acts 20:32; 26:18). The perfect tense of the verb hegiastai stresses that, being in a Christian family, the unbeliever has already become and continues to be a part of a family unit upon which God has his claim and which He will use for his service (Mare, W. H. (1976). 1 Corinthians. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 10: Romans through Galatians (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (230). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House).
How is this sanctification effected? Paul is not thinking of some magical process. Nor does he believe that holiness can be transferred to another, as in the manner of an infectious disease. The idea hinges on the two becoming one flesh (Gen. 2:24; cited in 1 Cor. 6:16) and on God’s blessing of marriage. In 1 Cor. 6:15–17, he argues that Christians are members of Christ’s body and that one who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her. Here in 1 Cor. 7:14, he argues that an unbeliever joined to a Christian spouse is made holy. What is the difference? A Christian who has relations with a prostitute cannot convey holiness, because that union is outside the will of God. Fornication is the antithesis of holiness. Marriage, on the other hand, is a divine institution that accords with God’s will for man and woman. The sanctification is matrimonial and familial, not personal or spiritual. God’s indwelling that believer and all the blessings and graces that flow into the believer’s life from heaven will spill over to enrich all who are near. In addition, although the believer’s faith cannot suffice for the salvation of anyone but themselves, a believer is often the means of other family members coming to the Lord by the power of their testimony. (Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (288–289). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
• Many of you can testify of the power of a spouse in your faith and sanctification. This in many ways is like the concept of your spouse receiving an inheritance: you have nothing to do with it, yet you benefit. Timothy himself is an example of this: Having an unbelieving father, but believing mother Lois and grandmother Eunice, he became an apostle. (Acts 16:1. Phil 2:19-22, Heb. 6:4-6). Think of the situation when God was about to destroy Sodom (Gen. 18:26), God was willing to bless many wicked people for the sake even of a few of His own people in their midst.
The Christian need not fear that the children will be unclean, defiled by the unbelieving father or mother. God promises that the opposite is true. They would otherwise be unclean if both parents were unbelievers. But the Lord guarantees that the presence of just one Christian parent will protect the children. It does not at all mean that the children are made holy in themselves, that is, that they necessarily live clean and pure lives. Rather it means that they are set apart in a place of privilege. They have at least one parent who loves the Lord, and who tells them the gospel story. There is a strong possibility of their being saved. They are privileged to live in a home where one of the parents is indwelt by the Spirit of God. In this sense, they are sanctified. It is not that their salvation is assured but that they are protected from undue spiritual harm and that they will receive spiritual blessing. Because they share in the spiritual benefits of their believing parent, they are holy. Often the testimony of the believing parent in this situation is especially effective, because the children see a clear contrast to the unbelieving parent’s life, and that leads them to salvation. This verse also includes the assurance that it is not wrong to have children when one parent is a Christian and the other is not. God recognizes the marriage, and the children are not illegitimate (MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments (A. Farstad, Ed.) (1 Co 7:14). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.).
Illustration The problem with this situation is how the couple in a mixed marriage often recognize each other. Statistically, one-half of the church members in the nation marry outside their own faith. The divorce rate among inter-faith couples is more than twice as high as among those who marry within their faith (Tan, P. L. (1996). Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: Signs of the Times. Garland, TX: Bible Communications, Inc.)
Divorce devastates the entire family. Separation affects husband, wife, children, relatives, and friends. Because it is harmful to everyone, divorce is something God hates (Mal. 2:16). In societies where the extended family is a close-knit unit, relatives exert themselves to prevent divorce if at all possible. In the church community, too, members have the corporate responsibility to help fellow members when they need counsel and advice. When difficulties arise in family life, the members of Christ’s body should lend their corporate wisdom to deter permanent ruptures in family life and should facilitate healing. Describing the church, Paul writes: “If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it. If one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it” (1 Cor. 12:26) (Kistemaker, S. J., & Hendriksen, W. (1953-2001). Vol. 18: Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New Testament Commentary (222). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.).
Finally, in Addressing the topic of Divorce and & Remarriage, the Apostle Paul first gives:
3) Guidelines for Christians Married to Unbelievers Who Want to Leave
1 Corinthians 7:15-16. [15]But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. [16] For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (ESV)
Tertullian (160–230 A.D.), the theologian of Carthage, wrote about unbelieving husbands being angry with their Christian wives because they wanted to kiss martyrs’ bonds, embrace Christians, and visit the cottages of the poor. Often when an unbelieving spouse wants to leave the marriage the believer has no control over the outcome. But Paul says that Christians should not even try to insist on the spouse’s staying if he or she is determined to go. If the unbelieving partner separates/leaves, let it be so/let him leave. If the unbeliever begins divorce proceedings, the Christian partner is not to contest. Again, the word leave (chorizo) refers to divorce. Let it be so/ leave is not permission, but it is an aorist imperative: a command. This is in the middle voice: meaning that the unbeliever is the one who initiated this action. If the unbelieving partner separates/leaves this would include desertion. Desertion is exactly like adultery in its effect. Both disrupt the marriage tie. There is only this difference in the case of adultery, the innocent spouse may forgive and continue the marriage, or may accept the dire result, the sundering of the marriage. In the case of desertion the former is not possible; the deserted spouse can no longer continue a marriage, for none exists. Since one who fails to provide for his family is “worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8), we could consider desertion a legitimate ground for divorce even when the deserting partner claims to be a believer. The act of desertion presumably disproves his or her profession of faith (Pratt, R. L., Jr. (2000). Vol. 7: I & II Corinthians. Holman New Testament Commentary (117). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.).
The brother or the sister is not enslaved/under bondage in such cases. In God’s sight the bond between a husband and wife is dissolved only by death (Rom. 7:2), adultery (Matt. 19:9), and an unbeliever’s leaving. When the bond is broken in any of those ways, a Christian is free to remarry. By implication, the permission given for a widow or widower to remarry (Rom. 7:3; because the person is no longer “joined,” or bound, to the dead partner) can extend to the present case, where a believer is also no longer bound, not enslaved/under bondage. Anyone who is guilty of desertion will almost inevitably enter into a new relationship very soon, and thus the original union will be broken anyway (MacDonald, W. (1995). Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments (A. Farstad, Ed.) (1 Co 7:15). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.)
God allows divorce in such a case of desertion because He has called us to peace. “Peace” means not causing conflict by disputing the decision to end the marriage. “Peace” could also refer to “peace of mind.” They should not become excessively agitated by the divorce. A peaceful attitude can be present even in divorce. “Peace” in this context is the opposite of division (cf. Luke 12:51) and refers to harmony among individuals (Garland, D. E. (2003). 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (291). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.).
Please turn to Romans 12
Yet, if the unbelieving husband or wife cannot tolerate the spouse’s faith and desires to be free from the union, it is better that the marriage be dissolved in order to preserve the peace of His child. Fighting, turmoil, bickering, criticism, and frustration disrupt the harmony and peace that God wants His children to have. Again, it is a concession.
As Paul told the Romans in Romans 12:
Romans 12:9-19. [9] Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. [10] Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. [11] Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. [12] Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. [13] Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. [14] Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. [15] Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. [16] Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. [17] Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. [18] If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. [19] Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." (ESV)
• It is not always possible to be at peace with everyone, even when one makes the effort. If hostility arises in marriage, and one party offends, then it is up to God to punish. In the previous chapter Paul told the Corinthians not to go to court but by mediation to settle their differences peacefully (1 Cor. 6:1–8). The offended spouse should not seek legal measures to try to inflict as much pain on the offender as possible. The law should be used to protect from harm, not inflict pain on an offending spouse, even if they want to leave the relationship.
Finally in verse 16, we see the plain statement of fact that a wife has no assurance that she will save her husband, and a husband has no assurance that he will save his wife. Regardless of a Christian’s motives and hopes, if the partner stays in the marriage unwillingly or reluctantly, the likelihood is even less, and the disruption of family peace is assured. In contrast with weighty matters like adultery or desertion, inter-personal relational difficulties can be found in most marriages, sometimes for protracted periods. Though grievous they are often able to be calmed through patience, prayer and skilled counselling. Indeed, all marriages need the investment of loving thoughtfulness and unselfish effort. The teaching of the Lord and his apostle reflected in this passage show how seriously believers should approach marriage. No decision for this life is so important or far-reaching (Barnett, P. (2000). 1 Corinthians: Holiness and Hope of a Rescued People. Focus on the Bible Commentary (114). Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications.).
(Format note: Outline & some base commentary from MacArthur, J. (1996). 1 Corinthians (407–415). Chicago: Moody Press.)
