1Cor 7:12-14 - Estate Keeping - Part 2

The Duty of the Unequally Yoked Couple

12-14 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.


What does Paul mean by the phrase "to the rest...?" There must be some distinction being made between those to whom the previous admonition and this latest is made. To this group I say thus, and to that group I say this other thing. Since all truth applies to all people he is not making something true for one group and not for another. But he is distinguishing them by their circumstances.

The unique circumstances of this latest group is their unequally yoked position. It is not that they unequally yoked themselves - quite the contrary! When they were pagan they had married pagans. But now some had become Christians, while their spouses had not. It was an unequal yoke. Jesus had nothing we know of to say about this sort of situation, unlike that of the divorce of professing believers.

Thus, Paul says, "I, not the Lord" when giving direction on the topic. I don’t think this means that this direction carries a lesser authority than the admonitions of the Lord Himself. This is still inspired scripture, and Paul is still an Apostle appointed by God. He may simply be distinguishing the fact that Jesus never spoke directly on the subject. There are lots of things like this that Christ left for the church to work out under the guidance of the Holy Spirit - that is to say, under the guidance of God, the Holy Spirit who is of the same substance as God the Son.

Simply put here, it is best to stay in the estate you were when you became a Christian unless the unbelieving partner actually wants to split. In Paul’s age, and in Corinth’s milieu, there would be any number of reasons why a person married to someone who became a Christian would want to bail out. Change in lifestyle, possibility of persecution, loss of friends - the list is similar to what many face in various societies today. It is still relevant teaching today. If they want to go and they cannot be persuaded to stay then let them go and no guilt will attach to the believer.

Now, as to the supposed sacerdotal, sacramental, Lutheran, Catholic elements of this teaching... How can an unbelieving partner be made holy simply by being married to a Christian? Does this mean that these people, unbelievers and destined for the abyss unless they repent, are actually in a different class from the rest of lost mankind? Similar questions arise regarding children born into a Christian home. Are they made regenerate or somehow put into a different class from pagans simply by their familial circumstances?

Well, it’s not a easy as it looks. Good people have different views on what these things mean. Historical Lutherans and Reformers have always had a more corporate view of family and church than the Johnny-Come-Lately Baptists, where individualism carries a stronger influence. Both sides can quote scriptures to support their viewpoints but both cannot be right. On the other hand, is the opposing viewpoint a hanging offence to either party?

One thing both sides would agree on is that salvation itself is personal. Each individual must come to saving faith in Christ. We cannot be saved by association. So the concept of an unbeliever being made holy, and of children born to converts (or household where one partner becomes a convert) cannot possibly mean that they are saved simply by being in the family. This would contradict so many other scriptures calling all individuals to repentance, making all responsible for their own sin and, indeed, speaking to their very conception and birth as the source of their inner corruption.

No - the idea here is not that this holiness or sanctification is an actual inward renewal, but that these people are declared separated by God on account of their union with the believer. Their parenting, supporting, providing, caring - willingly given - is like the foods on the cloth in Peter’s dream - declared holy by God Himself. As Charles Hodge put it...

"A lamb consecrated as a sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of God, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were none the less conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

So - there is no soteriological effect to this holiness. It is a holiness declared by God for the sake of the believer - so that he/she may live with peace of mind and a clear conscience - and so that they may have their very real needs and duties met in intensely practical ways without wrecking their faith.

But there is more. In addition to the benefits for the believer there may also be great blessings for the unbeliever for which, see the next verses.