Lessons #209 and 210
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual delivery not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GW = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions about Divorce (1 Cor 7:10-16)
... 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
The message of 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 that we are considering is that believers should do everything possible to avoid divorce. To expound on this message, the apostle addressed his instruction to two different groups of married believers. The first group consists of believers who are married to each other as in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married. The apostle conveyed that the instruction he gave them was from the Lord Jesus as expressed in His teaching during His earthly ministry regarding the matter of divorce. The apostle merely interpreted and applied the Lord’s instruction to the Corinthians and so to the church at large. The instruction the apostle communicated was based on the teaching of the Lord about divorce where the exception for divorce that permits remarriage was not given but as we stated, we will deal with this issue of remarriage later. The second group of believers the apostle addressed his instruction, as we established in our introduction of the passage, consists of believers in mixed marriages. By mixed marriages, we mean marriages where believers are married to unbelievers because both got married as unbelievers but later one of them becomes a believer. It is this second group that is introduced in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 7:12 To the rest, again, as we established during our introduction of the section of 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 that is concerned with the matter of divorce. Our study today focuses on the instruction of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul to them about the matter of divorce. But before we examine the instruction given to this second group, let me repeat what I said in the introduction of this section. It is that we would not necessarily follow the sequence of the verses or clauses or phrases of the passage in our exposition. This means that we would not necessarily follow the order of the verses, clauses or phrases in our exposition. Instead, it is a given point we expound that will determine the verse or clause we consider. That notwithstanding, you can rest assured that by the time we complete our exposition of the passage that we would have considered every phrase or clause of the passage we are studying.
The instruction regarding divorce for those in mixed marriages is directly provided by the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul. It is this truth that is revealed in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 7:12 I, not the Lord. The phrase causes problem to some in that they think what the apostle wrote following the phrase must not be authoritative since they claim he was speaking as a private individual instead of in his apostolic authority or that he was pitching his authority against Christ’s. None of these is correct. In using the phrase I, not the Lord, the apostle meant to convey that the instruction he was about to give was not taught by the Lord Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. Thus, what he was about to instruct is directly from the Holy Spirit to the apostle. You see, the apostle was aware that he had the authority of Jesus Christ as His apostle so that he could communicate God’s word given by the Holy Spirit. In fact, he was aware that when he spoke or wrote to the churches, he was delivering God’s word not his opinion. This, we can learn from what he said to the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 2:13:
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
The apostle is clear that the word of God he wrote or preached was from God so there was no doubt that when he wrote, he wrote what the Holy Spirit intended for him to convey to the church. So, when he wrote the phrase of 1 Corinthians 7:12 I, not the Lord he meant to convey that he was not quoting the Lord Jesus Christ as he did in the instruction regarding divorce that was given to believers who are married to each other. The apostle asserts that the Lord Jesus did not address the issue of mixed marriages while on the earth but now through the Holy Spirit addressed it through the apostle. Again, we should emphasize that the apostle was aware that he wrote or conveyed God’s word but that what he was about to convey was not taught by the Lord during His earthly ministry. If the apostle did not believe this fact, then he would be the most arrogant person on the earth to give instruction to the church of God. No! He was not arrogant in using the phrase I, not the Lord we are considering but he was merely stating a fact that what he was about to give was not taught by the Lord during His earthly ministry. The implication is that the apostle understood that the Holy Spirit was directing him to state an element of the subject of divorce that concerns believers that the Lord Jesus did not address during His earthly ministry. So, what he wrote is simply to state that the Lord Jesus during His earthly ministry did not teach what he was about to instruct. This explanation is similar to what the apostle stated later in 1 Corinthians 7:25:
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
In any case, the apostle’s instruction is concerned first with believing men who are married to unbelieving women. That he addressed first believing men is conveyed in the conditional clause of 1 Corinthians 7:12 If any brother has a wife who is not a believer. There are two indicators that a believing man is in view in this clause. The first is the use of the word brother as we will demonstrate by considering the Greek word used. The word “brother” is translated from a Greek word (adelphos) that has several meanings in the Greek. It could mean brother in the sense of a male person from the same mother as the reference person. It is in this sense that the word is used by the apostle to reference those from the same mother as Jesus in His humanity in 1 Corinthians 9:5:
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?
The word may mean “a neighbor” as that is the sense of the Greek word in Jesus’ teaching regarding forgiveness of the one who wrongs us in Luke 17:3:
So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.
The Greek word may refer to a fellow country man or a compatriot as Apostle Peter used the word to describe the onlookers after he healed a crippled man, as stated in Acts 3:17:
“Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.
The Greek word translated “brothers” in 1 Corinthians 7:12 may also be used to describe one who has the same beliefs with the one that uses the word, irrespective of gender, that is, the word refers to “a fellow believer.” It is in this sense of one who shares the same faith and so belongs to the Christian community, that is, a “fellow believer” that Apostle Paul used the word to describe Timothy to the Thessalonians, who was a Gentile because although his mother was Jewish, his father was a Greek, in 1 Thessalonians 3:2:
We sent Timothy, who is our brother and God’s fellow worker in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith,
It is in this same sense of those who belong to the same family of God regardless of gender and so with the same beliefs, that is, “a fellow believer” that the apostle used the Greek word in our passage of 1 Corinthian 7:12 although specifically he used it to refer to “a male believer.” The second indicator the apostle is concerned with a believing man is the clause of the NIV of 1 Corinthians 7:12 a wife who is not a believer. The phrase “not a believer” is the way the translator of the NIV translated a Greek adjective (apistos) that may mean “unbelievable, incredible” as it is the word used to describe Apostle Paul’s question to Agrippa of why it would be difficult for him to accept the matter of resurrection of Jesus Christ, as used in Acts 26:8:
Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?
The word may mean “unbelieving” as the word is used in the rebuke of Lord Jesus to people of His generation in Luke 9:41:
“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you and put up with you? Bring your son here.”
The word may simply refer to an “unbeliever” as it is used in the instruction regarding close partnership with unbelievers in 2 Corinthians 6:14:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 7:12 it means “unbelieving” as a reference to a wife who has not believed in Christ for eternal salvation.
The instruction of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul to a believing husband in a mixed marriage is not to divorce the wife as in the last sentence of 1 Corinthians 7:12 he must not divorce her. The instruction recognizes the possibility of divorce as evident in the word “not” used that is translated from a Greek particle (mē) that means “not” but its usage allows for doubt or for not stating something absolutely. In effect, if the apostle had used another Greek particle (ou) that also means “not” but used for an absolute negation, the instruction against divorce here would have been absolute. As it stands, the Holy Spirit through the apostle conveys that divorce is possible because the instruction given here is conditional. The condition for a believing husband not to divorce an unbelieving wife is her consent to continue to be married to him, as stated in the clause of 1 Corinthians 7:12 and she is willing to live with him. The word “willing” is translated from a Greek word (syneudokeō) that may mean “to approve” as it is used to describe those who endorse individuals that live sinful lives that are contrary to God’s word in Romans 1:32:
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
The word may mean “to be willing to do something.” It is in this sense that it is used in our passage of 1 Corinthians 7:12. The word “live” is translated from a Greek word (oikeō) that means “to live” or “dwell” in the sense of to reside in a place as the word is used to indicate the Holy Spirit indwells believers in Romans 8:9:
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
The word may mean “to live” in the sense of “to inhabit” as that is the sense that the word is used to describe God in 1 Timothy 6:16:
who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
It is in the sense of “to live in marriage” that the word is used in our passage of 1 Corinthians 7:12. Thus, if an unbelieving wife consents to remain married to a believing husband, then he has no right to divorce her.
The Holy Spirit directed the apostle to recognize that the divorce practice of the Greco-Roman world is different from that of the Jewish people where only the husband can initiate divorce. Therefore, the Holy Spirit directed the apostle to repeat the instruction about divorce in a mixed marriage but this time he addressed a believing wife as she has also the right to initiate a divorce. Similar to the instruction given to a believing husband, the instruction begins with a conditional statement in 1 Corinthians 7:13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer. This instruction is directed to a believing wife. You see, the word “woman” is translated from a Greek word (gynē) that may mean “woman as an adult female person” as it is used in the prohibition of such a person from teaching adult males regarding spiritual matters in 1 Timothy 2:12:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
The word may mean “wife.” that is, a married woman as it is used in the command issued to believing women in Christian marriage in Ephesians 5:22:
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
It is in the sense of “a believing wife” that the word is used in 1 Corinthians 7:13. The meaning “wife” is demanded by the word “husband” used in the clause of 1 Corinthians 7:13 a husband who is not a believer. This is because the word “husband” is translated from a Greek word (anēr) that may mean “an adult male” in contrast to a woman. However, in some contexts, it means “husband.” Thus, for consistence, if the word is translated “husband” in our clause then the Greek word that means “woman” in the preceding clause should also be translated “wife.” Anyway, that the wife addressed is a believer is made certain by the clause a husband who is not a believer.
The instruction to a believer in a mixed marriage not initiating a divorce, is restated to the believing wife married to an unbelieving husband as in the sentence of 1 Corinthian 7:13 she must not divorce him. The word “divorce” in verse 13 is translated from the same Greek word (aphiēmi) used in verse 12 in instructing a believing husband not to divorce an unbelieving wife. The implication of this is that our interpretation that there is no perceivable difference between the Greek word (chōrizō) translated “separate” in 1 Corinthians 7:10 and the word translated “divorce” in verse 11 is sustained since it is the same Greek word translated “divorce” in verse 11 that is used in verses 12 and 13. This is because it is a wife that was addressed with the word translated “separate” in verse 10 and a wife is also addressed in verse 13 using the Greek word translated “divorce” implying that there is no perceptible difference in the two Greek words.
The instruction that a believing wife should not divorce her unbelieving husband, like the one given to a believing husband, is conditioned on the husband consenting to be married to the believing wife as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:13 and he is willing to live with her. The condition stipulated concerning the willingness of an unbelieving spouse wishing to continue in marriage with the believing spouse, may have been due to three possible factors that could lead a believing spouse to contemplate divorce. A first possible factor concerns lifestyle. A believing spouse might have noted he/she does not have much in common with the unbelieving spouse in terms of their way of life. In effect, the believer might have noted that there would be constant friction in the marriage because the believing spouse would be living in a way that may cause difficulty for the unbelieving spouse. Take for example, the simple matter of going to worship with other believers. The unbelieving spouse may feel left out or may feel insecure thinking that the believing spouse may meet another believer that may cause such a person to want to leave the present spouse. In terms of moral conduct, an unbelieving husband may see nothing wrong with sex outside marriage because of societal practice while the believing wife would, based on the teaching of the word of God. This sort of thing did in fact occur as illustrated by the case narrated by the second century Apologist, Justin Martyr, in his work Apology 2:2. The case involved a woman that she and the husband lived in sexual immorality in that both although married were involved in extra marital affairs. However, when the woman got converted, she walked away from such lifestyle and pleaded with the husband to do the same since there is eternal punishment for such conduct. The husband did not bulge, resulting in the woman being alienated from the husband. Because fellow believers advised the woman to remain married to him, she did until it became so unbearable that she divorced him. The husband retaliated by reporting her to the authorities that she was a Christian and in addition went after the man, Ptolemæus, who taught the wife Christian doctrines. There is also the problem of raising children. The believer may want to raise the children based on the principles of the newfound faith, but the unbeliever may refuse. In short, differing value system between a believer and unbeliever could make a believing spouse uncomfortable so that the believer may consider the solution of the problem as divorcing the unbeliever. A second possible factor is, as we have indicated previously, a misapplication of the apostle’s previous instruction regarding association between believers and unbelievers of certain moral fortitude. In a previous letter of the apostle, he had instructed believers in Corinth not to associate with unbelievers that some of them misunderstood the extent of its application that caused the apostle to make a correction or elaboration in 1 Corinthians 5:9–11:
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
It is likely that based on the first letter of the apostle where he instructed about not associating with sexually immoral persons that some could have interpreted it to include an unbelieving spouse that although may not have been sexually immoral but because of misapplication of the instruction of the apostle would extend the instruction to every unbeliever. Added to this, is probably a misapplication of what the apostle taught about the inappropriateness of joining oneself sexually to a prostitute in 1 Corinthians 6:16:
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”
This, coupled with the fact that the believer’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, could cause some to wonder if they remain married to an unbeliever so that they continue to have sexual relationship whether that would not pollute them. Hence, it is necessary to ensure that any misapplication of the apostle’s previous instruction does not lead to divorce and so the instruction we are considering. A third possible factor is Jewish influence. Remember that the congregation of the Corinthians consists of Jews and Gentiles. It is possible that some Jewish believers, based on their spiritual background, could have advocated that believers should get rid of their unbelieving spouses. Such believers may have based such advice on the action of the Jews who returned from exile that were commanded to get rid of their foreign wives, as we read in Ezra 10:2–3:
2 Then Shecaniah son of Jehiel, one of the descendants of Elam, said to Ezra, “We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us. But in spite of this, there is still hope for Israel. 3 Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law.
Hence, it is possible that some Jewish believers advocated that those in mixed marriages should get rid of their spouses who are unbelievers and even their children. If this was the case, then those who advocated this did not fully understand the nature of God’s covenant with Israel and the new covenant. Israel was in a unique relationship with God that as a nation was not supposed to intermarry with other nations that would cause them to be involved in idolatry as that is the reason for the instruction against intermarriage of the Israelites with their pagan neighbor, as stated in Deuteronomy 7:3–4:
3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
The new covenant that involves Gentiles requires that effort should be made to reach the unbelievers with the gospel unlike what Israel did. This would mean that pushing away unbelievers from the possibility of hearing the gospel was not appropriate since God is merciful and overlooks past failures in order to offer the hope of eternal life to all. Anyway, it is likely because of these possible factors we have mentioned that the Holy Spirit directed the apostle to communicate to the Corinthians not to divorce their unbelieving spouses who want to remain married to them.
We have stated several times in the past that quite often when God the Holy Spirit commands an action from believers, it is followed with explanation regarding the reason for such commands. This fact is demonstrated in the passage we are studying. The Holy Spirit instructed believers in mixed marriage not to divorce their spouses if they are willing to be married to them. Therefore, He, through the apostle, gives the Corinthians and so all believers the justifications for such command. We say that we are provided justification because of the first word of 1 Corinthians 7:14 For that is translated from a Greek conjunction (gar) that has several usages. For example, it can be used as a marker of explanation of a preceding clause so that it may be translated “you see, for” or it can be used as a marker of inference with the meaning “so, then, by all means.” But in our context, it is used as a marker of reason. In other words, it is used to supply reasons for the instruction regarding believing spouses not divorcing their unbelieving spouses that are willing to remain married to them. There are three reasons the Holy Spirit supplied in our passage that are the justification for the instruction of a believing spouse not to divorce an unbelieving spouse that is willing to remain married to the believer.
A first reason a believing spouse should not divorce an unbelieving spouse that is willing to remain married to the believer is that the unbelieving spouse has been separated from the rest of unbelievers and placed in a position of association with a believer and subsequently with the community of believers thus exposing self to the teaching of the word of God because of marriage to the believing spouse. It is this reason that is given in the first compound clause of 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. On a surface reading, this compound clause does not seem to support the first reason we have given, especially since the reason given here has to do with being sanctified. Furthermore, our English versions have given different translations of this compound clause. For example, the REB reads For the husband now belongs to God through his Christian wife, and the wife through her Christian husband. The TEV reads For the unbelieving husband is made acceptable to God by being united to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made acceptable to God by being united to her Christian husband. These other translations we have cited reveal that the main problem of the clause is with the word “sanctified.” Some scholars think that the apostle used the word in a later Jewish sense where the word was used for betrothal and marriage to suggest that bride and groom “sanctified themselves” for each other instead of the original sense of betrothal that suggests that a man acquired the wife. That notwithstanding, the problem remains of how to understand the word “sanctified” that is used in the clause we are considering. Therefore, it will be necessary to consider two key Greek words in the clause of our focus to justify the first reason we stated that the Holy Spirit provided through Apostle Paul about believing spouses not divorcing unbelieving spouses that are willing to remain married to them.
A first key word is “sanctified” that is translated from a Greek word (hagiazō) that, no doubt, means literally “to make holy” or “to sanctify.” Both meanings could be misleading in that many people when they use such meanings would be thinking mostly in terms of moral purity achieved by a person, which is not often the case, especially, with the Corinthians since despite their moral failure the apostle described them as those sanctified in Christ in verse 2 of the first chapter of this epistle. In effect, we are saying that “to sanctify” while it may mean to make someone free of sin does not always mean that. To demonstrate this statement, consider the fact that it is our Greek word that is used in the priestly prayer of the Lord Jesus in John 17:19:
For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
It is difficult to understand what it means that Jesus sanctified Himself in a moral sense since it could not possibly mean that He made Himself holier or free of sin becaue as God man He is without sin as the Scripture testifies severally. The Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul states this in 2 Corinthians 5:21:
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
The Holy Spirit states similar truth through the human author of Hebrews in Hebrews 4:15:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.
The fact that Jesus is without sin but in His priestly prayer He indicated that He sanctified Himself so we may be sanctified, supports our assertion that the word “sanctify” does not always mean to make free from sin. Thus, we should examine the range of meaning of the Greek word to determine which is suitable to our context where it is used to assert that an unbeliever is sanctified.
The Greek word may mean “to consecrate.” On the one hand, “to consecrate” may mean to include a person in the inner circle of what is holy, in both cultic and moral associations of the word and so has the additional meaning “to dedicate” or “to set apart.” It is in sense of being dedicated or set apart that our word is used in the Lord Jesus’ claim of having been set aside by the Father for God’s service in John 10:36:
what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
The expression “set apart” may also be translated “dedicated” or even “consecrated.” By the way, it is in the sense of being dedicated or set apart for specific service or purpose that our word is used in the priestly prayer of Jesus Christ in the passage we cited previously in John 17:19 in that the Lord Jesus Christ meant He dedicated Himself to the Father as His own to carry out His mission as He wanted the Father to dedicate the disciples to Himself as belonging to Him. On the other hand, “to consecrate” may mean to set something aside or to make it clean for ritual purposes or simply to make it acceptable with respect to God and so the word is used for consecrating of food through prayer before eating it in 1 Timothy 4:5:
because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Another meaning of the Greek word under consideration is “to reverence”, that is, to treat as holy as the word is used in the pattern prayer the Lord taught to His disciples in the Sermon on the Mount, as recorded in Matthew 6:9:
“This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
The word “hallowed” is an archaic English word used to translate the Greek word we are considering that in this passage in Matthew means “to honor as holy, to treat as holy, to reverence.” Hence, the NJB translates the expression hallowed be your name as “may your name be held holy” while the TEV translated it as “May your holy name be honored.” Still another meaning of the Greek word is “to purify” in the sense of to eliminate that which is incompatible with holiness. It is this meaning that is implied in 1 Thessalonians 5:23:
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is true that most of our English versions used the word “sanctify” in this passage of 1 Thessalonians 5:23 but the standard Greek English lexicon of BDAG indicates that the meaning “purify” may apply here. This is probably the reason the translators of the NCV rendered the expression sanctify you as “make you pure.” It is in the sense of being included in the circle of what is holy that the word is used in our passage of 1 Corinthians 7:14, implying, of course, that of being set apart or separated from others.
It is interesting to note that the Greek used a perfect tense as reflected in the verbal phrase has been sanctified. The implication is that the apostle emphasized a present reality that resulted from something that happened in the past with result that what happened in the past is continuing. The thing that happened in the past is the inclusion of the unbelieving spouse in the circle of those who are dedicated to God. It is a truth that should not be doubted that the unbeliever spouse is part of those who are dedicated to God not in the sense that such a person occupies the same spiritual status with the believing spouse, that is, is saved but that the unbelieving spouse is physically included in the community of those who are set apart in Christ.
The second key word in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is the preposition “through” in the NIV that is translated from a Greek preposition (en) with several meanings. However, in our passage there are three possible interpretations. A first interpretation is to take the word to mean “in union with” or “in connection with,” implying that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified in connection with the believing spouse. A second interpretation takes the meaning as “through” as a marker of means by which something happens. In the context, this means that the believing spouse is the means that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified. A third interpretation is to take the preposition to mean “because” so serves as a marker of reason. The implication of this interpretation is that the believing spouse is the reason the unbelieving spouse is sanctified. Each of these interpretations makes sense in the passage but it is probably that the third meaning of “because” that the apostle meant since the other two interpretations can be subsumed in it.
Be that as it may, considering the meanings of the key words used in the first compound clause of 1 Corinthians 7:14, to say that an unbelieving has been sanctified could not possibly mean that the person is saved or has become holy or morally acceptable to God. True holiness is not transferable from person to person although in the OT Scripture, it is indicated that ritual uncleanness is transferrable, as we read in Haggai 2:11–14:
11 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Ask the priests what the law says: 12 If a person carries consecrated meat in the fold of his garment, and that fold touches some bread or stew, some wine, oil or other food, does it become consecrated?’ ” The priests answered, “No.” 13 Then Haggai said, “If a person defiled by contact with a dead body touches one of these things, does it become defiled?” “Yes,” the priests replied, “it becomes defiled.” 14 Then Haggai said, “‘So it is with this people and this nation in my sight,’ declares the LORD. ‘Whatever they do and whatever they offer there is defiled.
Anyway, the point is that an unbelieving spouse being sanctified because of the believing spouse does not mean that such a person is saved or morally pure before God. Instead, it means that because of the believing spouse to whom the unbelieving spouse is related to through marriage, the unbelieving spouse has become a member of the physical community of believers although not yet a member of that community in a spiritual sense. Because of the marriage of the unbelieving spouse, there is the sense that the unbelieving spouse has become a member of the physical community of believers. Such a person has been included as member of the community of believers where the person is separated from unbelievers in a special way and is part of the physical community of believers. This situation is true today. There are some unbelieving spouses that are included as members of a local church because they are there with their believing spouses. This makes them to be separate from the other unbelievers that are not physical members of the local church, with the advantage that they are exposed to the preaching of God’s word unlike their contemporary unbelievers. In any event, a first reason a believing spouse should not divorce an unbelieving spouse that is willing to remain married to the believer is that the unbelieving spouse has been separated from the rest of unbelievers and placed in a position of association with the community of believers because of the spouse, thus exposing self to the teaching of the word of God because of marriage to the believing spouse.
A second reason a believing spouse should not divorce an unbelieving spouse that is willing to remain married to the believer is related to children. Before I state the reason, let me state that parents with children when they divorce each other are selfish in that they do not think of the impact of their action on their children. That aside, the reason believing spouse should not divorce an unbelieving spouse that is willing to continue in marriage is because their children would then lose Christian influence first from the believing parent and the influence of the Christian community. It is this that is implied in the clause of 1 Corinthians 7:14 Otherwise your children would be unclean. The word “unclean” is translated from a Greek word (akathartos) that is used predominantly with moral impurity and so means “impure” or “unclean” thus, it is used overwhelmingly in the gospels to describe fallen spirits or demons. The 1984 edition of the NIV consistently used the meaning “evil” to translate it in connection with demons, as for example, in Luke 9:42:
Even while the boy was coming, the demon threw him to the ground in a convulsion. But Jesus rebuked the evil spirit, healed the boy and gave him back to his father.
The phrase evil spirit is translated impure spirit in the 2011 edition of the NIV. In Acts, the word is used twice to describe fallen spirits, as for example, in Acts 5:16:
Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed.
It is used twice in Revelation to describe fallen spirits as in Revelation 16:13:
Then I saw three evil spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
In fact, in the 1984 edition of the NIV the word is used 23 out of the 31 occurrences to describe fallen spirits. Although the word is predominantly used in a sense of moral impurity to describe fallen spirits, but it is used once in that sense to describe those who would not have inheritance with God in Ephesians 5:5:
For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
The word may mean “unclean, impure” in a ritual sense as the word is used by Apostle Peter to protest to the Lord of never haven eaten anything unclean when in a vision, he was offered the kinds of meat the Law forbade a Jew from eating, as we read in Acts 10:14:
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
It is in the sense of an animal being unclean that the word is also used to describe a bird mentioned in the lament of Babylon the Great in Revelation 18:2:
With a mighty voice he shouted: “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird.
Since the word is used to describe children in our passage, it could not have been used in a moral sense hence in our passage of 1 Corinthians 7:14, it is used in the sense of being “unclean” in a ritual sense. If we take this meaning, then we should understand that the apostle would have meant that the children would lose being under the influence of a believing parent and that of the church in that they would not be grouped together with the local church in a physical sense. When children are physically joined to a local church, they come under the influence of the Christian community instead of being under the influence of the world that is morally bankrupt. Thus, although the apostle used a ritual uncleanness to describe what would become of the children of mixed marriage if divorce were to occur, he was thinking of the fact they would physically lose being under the influence of the church. Of course, in our modern day, we should think of the confusing standards children face in case of shared custody. We will continue with our consideration of the second sentence of 1 Corinthians 7:14 your children would be unclean in our next study.