This article is literally the heart and core of a proper understanding of God’s revelation on unequally yoked divorce.  Largely because the church almost universally understood this passage to say the opposite of what Paul actually taught here.  Consider, to really grasp the profundity of what is being said, if the previous statement is true, then the church has yet to rightly understand Paul’s true meaning, and to rightly understand God’s revelation here, after centuries of it being largely hidden, is as if a new revelation is being given.  But no new revelation can be given, yet one can be discovered hidden beneath the shroud of presumption and the doctrines of men-sometimes, even godly men.  Seeing 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 as Paul intended it to be understood works in perfect union with his more explicit command in 2 Corinthians 6:14 through 7:1.   

This article principally concerns itself with 1 Corinthians 7: 12-16, but first we want to have Paul’s subsequent clarification on this passage fresh in our thinking.  Thus, Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, chapter 6 verse 14 through chapter seven verse 1, the great apostle commands every believer to get out from under all unequally yoked relationships.  Many prefer to argue that Paul is instructing believers not to enter into such relationships, which is, of course, an implicit command, but the explicit command is to remove yourselves from all such relationships.  This is seen in the very context.  The final verse commands believers to “let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit…”  As every believer comes into Christ’s body defiled and polluted by sin, they must cleanse themselves from all defilement.  The whole process of sanctification is one of cooperating with the Holy Spirit as we “put to death the deeds of the flesh”.  We come into Christ yoked to every kind of defilement.  The remainder of our earthly lives is spent separating ourselves from every kind of evil and defilement as we grow in obedience and holiness.

The New Testament’s Explicit Command On the Subject of Being Unequally Yoked In Marriage

II Corinthians 6:14-7:1 says, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?  Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with and unbeliever?  Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?  For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, ‘I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.’  Therefore, ‘COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE  SEPARATE,’ says the Lord.  ‘AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN, and I will welcome you.  And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ says the Lord Almighty.  Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

How any believer can read, study and meditate upon this biblical mandate and still be uncertain about where God stands on His children being bound together with unbelievers in any relationship is incomprehensible.  Nevertheless, most Christians do seem to equivocate in their understanding and obedience to Paul’s command here.  With such strong and convincing language how is this possible?  Certainly for every relationship other than the marriage relationship the only answer can be that sin continues in the believer and they simply fail to fervently obey God’s command to their own shame and great loss.  Repentance is called for on a daily basis.

Being bound together with unbelievers is not the same as being loving and kind to unbelievers in one’s sphere of influence.  Christians are commanded to love even their enemies, so treating people with love and kindness is part and parcel to being a Christian.  However, being bound together means to be emotionally or mentally connected in such a way so as to confine and bind both parties via a legal contract, oath, covenant to act as one.  It literally carries the idea of not being free to operate independently of the other person.

Entering marriage, young couples are instructed in Scripture to “leave and cleave”, which means they must break away from being bound together with their parents and then become bound together with their new spouse.  The necessity of the “leaving” is that it is impossible to be bound to one’s parents and one’s spouse at the same time.  The moment the parents and the spouse disagree on a direction or action the person bound to both will have to decide which relationship is truly binding.  The failure to “leave” the parents is always detrimental to the marriage.  It undermines the headship of the husband as well as the submission to and respect the wife is to have for her husband, which will inevitably erode the love the husband is to have for his wife.

Obviously a Christian being bound to an unbeliever is a completely untenable relationship and must not continue.  Why?  Because Christians are bound to Christ Jesus, which means that in order to follow Christ and the wishes of their earthly spouse, the spouse must also follow Jesus.  Otherwise significant conflicts will arise and pull the believer away from Christ or away from the unbelieving spouse.

Paul’s straightforward command for unequally yoked marriages in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 has been negated because of the misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 that understood Paul to say that the believing spouse must submit to the unbelieving spouse.  As with most misinterpretations, this caused these two passages to contradict one another.  Unsurprisingly, those who caused the contradiction by misinterpreting Paul’s first passage solved the contradiction they created by misinterpreting the second passage forcing it to agree with their misinterpretation in Paul’s first letter.  Considering the claim that Paul’s words, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers” does not apply to marriage relationships is patently ridiculous, one would have hoped that the misinterpretation of I Corinthians 7:12-16 would have received more attention so as to determine Paul’s actual meaning.

Once Paul’s new doctrine in his first letter to the Corinthian churches is understood, the unmistakable command in his second letter would be allowed to stand.  Therefore, we gave more attention to Paul’s first passage and realized his intended meaning, which aligns perfectly with the clear meaning in 2 Corinthians 6:14f.  We think that Paul’s intended meaning in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, once the bias against God’s permit for divorce is removed, is largely self-evident.  Removing the bias is critical.

The misinterpretation of Paul’s second passage argues that, “Paul’s instructions do not apply to married couples’.  D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones begs to differ as he taught that 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is directly applicable to marriage and only to marriage, so certainly he strongly disagreed with the commonly held view.  Why is Lloyd-Jones assumed to be correct while the multitudes are considered wrong?  The interpretation of the multitudes creates a contradiction in God’s Word, and Lloyd-Jones understood this and was willing to take a stand against the throngs so that he would not be guilty of this critical error.  Lloyd-Jones built the bridge half way by understanding Paul’s direct command in 2 Corinthians 6:14 was directly aimed at marriage relationships, but he never completed the other half of the bridge.  He never unraveled the quagmire that was the man-made doctrinal misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.

I remember the occasion during an adult Sunday School lesson when I quoted Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “Bad company corrupts good morals.”  The assistant pastor literally said the words, “but it doesn’t have to” as he was defending his unbiblical argument.  My dear friend forgot the four words preceding this biblical truth, “Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals.”  Whether it is the Biblical proclamation that “bad company corrupts good morals” or the Biblical command, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers” we must not contradict the Word of God by saying, “but not if you’re married”.  The Biblical text does not add that, so neither should we unless more clear texts in the Bible do so for us, which is not the case here.

Some have argued that since Paul does not mention marriage in 2 Corinthians 6:14f it cannot be applied to unequally yoked marriages.  Such logic would necessarily mean that the passage does not apply to any relationship since no specific type of relationship was mentioned.  Lloyd-Jones understood this passage to apply directly to marriages because it is marriage, above every other relationship, that binds one man and one woman together to become one complete person.

So then, the proper understanding of 2 Corinthians 6:14f, in the light of the ubiquitous presence of similar commands in the Old Testament, is the command that God prohibits his children from being unequally yoked in their marriages.  One cannot simply exclude marriages but should, as Lloyd-Jones has done, argue that the passage is directly intending our marriages.  Lloyd-Jones consistently refused to speculate upon any doctrine into territory that he believed God did not speak.  In the last two pages of his final chapter of Christian Marriage it is abundantly obvious to the reader that Lloyd-Jones could not imagine how an unequally yoked marriage could function like Christ and His church.  He came out and stated that it would be impossible for a marriage to reflect the relationship between Christ and the Church (His Bride) if even one spouse was unbelieving.  It would appear that Lloyd-Jones did not understand 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 as we now do.  We certainly can not blame him for this, as everyone assumed that the only solutions for the believer in an unequally yoked marriage was to either wait for God to save the unbelieving spouse, the unbelieving spouse chose to divorce the believer or the death of one of the two in this forbidden marriage.

I would have loved to have had the opportunity to show Lloyd-Jones 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 in it’s proper light as we have pulled back the man-made curtain that clocked it in darkness for these many centuries.  I think his logical mind would have grasped Paul’s true meaning.  I believe he only missed it due to understandable, but false presuppositions that have been very deep in the Christian psyche for many centuries.  Namely, the churches’ response to “Divorce for any cause” was to swing too far in the opposite extreme by making the dissolution of marriage virtually forbidden.  Lloyd-Jones frequently mentioned man’s tendency to respond to extremes by swinging too far in the opposite extreme.  Divorce “for any cause” is an extreme position that has been held frequently throughout human existence including by the Pharisees who tested Jesus with this concern (Matthew 19).  In response to this extreme position the Church swung hard to the opposing extreme by making the dissolution of a broken marriage virtually unavailable.  That became a huge problem as the heart of God is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

Since God’s ubiquitous commands against unequally yoked marriage in the Old Testament, which has been carried forward into the New Testament by Paul, cannot properly have any normative exceptions it is Paul’s teaching in First Corinthians 7:12-16 that must be understood in such a way so as not to contradict the unassailable command in the second letter.  Sooner or later the believer must fearfully obey God’s command and importune (Proverbs 6:1-5) the unbeliever for release.  As Christians they must do so in the most loving and kind way, but importune for release they must.

The Heart of the Matter

Now the time has come to take note of a sharp contrast between the biblically ubiquitous command of 2 Corinthians 6:14 and the entirely unique doctrine in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.  We understand that Paul’s teaching here is unique because he introduces these instructions with the phrase, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord…” (1 Corinthians 7:12).  Paul makes it clear that the instructions he is giving here are not from the Lord’s direct teaching during the time when Paul was taken up into the third heaven, nor did he find these instructions anywhere else in the scriptures.  Nevertheless, Paul’s instructions, introducing a new doctrine, are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which means that they are divine in origin.

To clarify the issue further, the immediately preceding sentence (v. 10, 11) finds Paul prohibiting divorce for two believers bound in Christian marriages when he says, “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband…” (v. 10).  So then, Paul clearly states that the Lord directly and/or through scripture revealed to him the Christian rule that two members of the body of Christ must not divorce one another (subject to Jesus’ pornia clause in Matthew 19), but whether or not an unequally yoked Christian should divorce their unbelieving spouse, as was the rule for the Israelites in the Old Testament (Ezra 10), was not divinely spelled out prior to Paul’s passage here to the Corinthians.  Paul’s inclusion of 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 indicate that this concern was becoming a very real issue for Christians whose spouses rejected the gospel of grace and held to their idolatrous religious beliefs.  The Old Testament made it clear that the Israelites were not to be unequally yoked and should divorce in order to get right with God, but Jesus never made it clear whether or not this rule crossed over for Christians.  Paul was equally forthright when he communicated that he was left to piece this issue together by himself using his knowledge of the Word, his wisdom and eminent logic to come to his conclusion, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord…”

So then, even with the great apostle’s candid, unguarded transparency much of the church seems to miss the elephant in the room.  Paul was teaching the Corinthians that the same rule does not apply to equally yoked and unequally yoked marriages.  If the same rule applied to both, then he would have had no need to separate the two distinct marriages as he so clearly does.  Though this distinction is unmistakable in the text it has been almost entirely obscured by two monumental man-made doctrines even as our Lord Jesus argued against, “Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.  Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:7-8).  The two precepts of men that obscure Paul’s clear teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 are: First, Roman Catholicism declaring marriage a sacrament.  Second, the misappropriation of the scriptural use of marriage as an analogy for the relationships between God and Israel and Christ and His church.  Sadly, time does not allow elaboration here, but the following poem elucidates the horrible outcome:

False Doctrines Bloom from the repeated sowing of false seeds.

Seed by seed,

Garden by garden,

Pasture by pasture,

The lie spreads until it is unimpeachable.

UNDERSTANDING PAUL’S DISTINCTION HERETOFORE LOST FOR CENTURIES

In First Corinthians chapter 7 verses 10 and 11 Paul declares, by divine decree, that an equally yoked Christian couple is prohibited from a marital divorce (assuming fidelity/Christ’s pornia clause).  If a separation occurs then reconciliation to one another is their only marital option.  Then in verses 12 and following Paul turns his attention to unequally yoked marriages.  A significant distinction is taking place between verses eleven and twelve.  Paul begins verse twelve saying that no such divine decree exists for unequally yoked married couples.  Paul makes himself clear at the beginning of verse twelve.  Since Christian instruction regarding unequally yoked believers is lacking elsewhere in scripture Paul provided it here for the Christian church.  Not only was Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit, but he himself was uniquely qualified for such a task.

Historians and philosophers throughout the past two millennium have marveled at Paul’s logical mind in writing.  He has been considered among the greatest intellects and communicators in the history of the world.  He was born a Roman citizen and raised in Tarsus.  Three cities were considered the centers of Greek culture and learning at that time.  Those were Alexandria in Egypt, Greece and Tarsus.  He grew up studying the Greek poets and could quote them.  He was educated in Greek Philosophy and could quote the great philosophers and excelled in Philosophical discussions.  Paul was a Jew of Jews, born of the tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee of Pharisees, a teacher of Jewish Law, trained by the greatest teacher of the day, Gamaliel.  He became a slave of Christ Jesus who personally trained him (1 Corinthians 11:23, 15:3), was the last to see the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:8), was commissioned by Christ to be an apostle to the Gentiles for which his citizenship, and great learning in the cultural center of Tarsus was of tremendous value in understanding Gentiles.  All of these were given him by God who set Paul apart even from his mother’s womb (Galatians 1:15).  He was ideally suited for two tasks: First, the defense of the faith against the attacks of the Jews.  Paul understood how to reconcile Judaism and Christianity when nobody else did at the time.  Second, to spread the gospel to the Gentiles to whom he fully understood through his early years in Tarsus.

So then, in his instructions to all in Christ who are bound in marriage to unbelievers, the uniquely qualified Apostle Paul makes use of a necessary conditional clause.  If the condition was not met by the unbelieving spouse, then the believer must divorce their unbelieving spouse.  If the condition is met, the unequally yoked believer should remain in their marriage.  It has been tragic that the church, due to the traditions of men, has misunderstood Paul’s condition.  The result has been that the church has historically forbidden what God permitted, even commanded, when the condition was unmet.

So then, having the letter-perfect understanding of Paul’s conditional clause is the key to knowing the heart and mind of God on this issue.  Getting this right also aligns both texts from 1st and 2nd Corinthians into perfect agreement, unlike the heretical method that excludes existing marriages from God’s prohibition against being unequally yoked, which is entirely illogical and has been severely detrimental to untold hundreds of thousands of God’s children over the centuries.  Nevertheless, it has been the pusillanimous position of a majority of theologians on this doctrine.

THE CONDITION FULLY EXPLAINED

Paul’s condition, properly understood, must pacify God’s displeasure with the child who remains bound in marriage to an unbeliever.   Without the unbelieving spouse’s consent to Paul’s condition, the believing spouse who remains in an unequally yoked marriage, transgresses God’s prohibition in 2 Corinthians 6:14 that states, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers”.  What we have said in this paragraph thus far is foundational.  Second, Paul’s necessary condition must be comprehended and understood by the teachers of God’s Scriptures before they can faithfully and accurately apply it to the thousands of believers who must navigate these dangerous waters and who desire to land safely in the perfect will of their heavenly Father.

According to Paul, the believer must not divorce their unbelieving spouse as long as the following condition is met:

I Corinthians 7:12-13 “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.  And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.”

So then, here is Paul’s condition: If the unbeliever “consents to live with” the believer, then the believer must not divorce the unbeliever.  The failure to seek the intended meaning by asking the right question(s) in order to actually know the heart and mind of God regarding any biblical text will result in a failure to understand what scripture actually instructs.  Indubitably, knowing the intended meaning of the verb “consents to live with” is absolutely necessary to understanding Paul’s prohibition to divorce ones unbelieving spouse.

Allow a brief example: John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”  Yet the very same Son of God said at the end of His Sermon on the Mount, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven…”for “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’” (Matthew 7:21-23).  So then, the reader must ask a question of the biblical text in order to be certain that the meaning God intended is the meaning the reader understands.  Here is the question that would need to be asked of John 3:16: “What does ‘whoever believes in Him’ actually mean?”  Until this question is accurately and biblically (consistent with the rest of Scripture) understood the otherwise simple phrase, “shall not parish, but have eternal life”, cannot bear the full force of the meaning intended by God, and a person may go throughout an entire lifetime taking their salvation for granted only to hear Jesus say at the great judgment, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”  What an eternally tragic day that will be for perhaps millions of careless people.

In like manner, a very important question must be asked of the biblical text in which Paul provides a condition that, if met, means that a Christian is prohibited from divorcing their unbelieving spouse, but if the condition is unmet, means that the Christian should divorce their unbelieving spouse because failure to do so would be disobeying God’s command against being in an unequally yoked marriage.  In other words, without the condition being met the believing spouse is free to, even commanded to, divorce their unbelieving spouse.  So then, here is the question that must be asked and answered fully to be sure God’s meaning is perfectly understood: “What does ‘consents to live with’ actually mean?”  Since verse 15 says, “if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases”, many have made the mistake of thinking that since the word “leaving” marks the failure to keep the condition set forth, then “not leaving” must be the meaning of the condition.  To arrive at this conclusion would be a tragic mistake.

Paul’s use of the phrase “consents to live with” is pregnant with meaning.   Jumping to the conclusion that “not leaving” is all that Paul had in mind is a catastrophic blunder.   To do so is also entirely unnecessary as Paul lays out in the immediate context just what this condition does actually mean.  So then, what does the condition “consents to live with” mean?  First, let us look at what this condition does not mean.  The great Apostle does not mandate a negative condition but a positive condition, which is to say that the unbeliever cannot meet the condition simply by failing to do something (e.g. fail to leave) but he/she actually has to successfully fulfill a divine requirement.  Merely staying does not satisfy meeting a positive condition because it cannot be distinguished from the failure to act at all.  Thus the condition does not read: ‘If the unbelieving spouse refuses to leave or refuses divorce, then the believing spouse cannot do so either.’ No, no the unbelieving spouse must not merely be stubborn, unyielding or even virtually comatose in order to meet this condition, but rather he/she must do something.  How absurd it is to think the unbeliever can meet God’s condition by doing nothing.

A brief aside before returning to the meaning of Paul’s verb “consent”.  Many verbs can have both an active and a passive fulfillment.  In Christ’s redemptive obedience to the Father Jesus actively fulfilled God’s positive commandments on our behalf by serving God and not sinning against God’s commandments.  Jesus also passively fulfilled redemptive obedience to the Father by permitting or allowing himself to be put to death in our stead.  It cannot be said that Christ’s passive obedience to the Father was one of inactivity, detachment and apathy.  Paul’s choice of words in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 indicate both active and passive consent to live with as well.

So then, what does Paul’s condition mean?  Merriam Webster defines consent as being in concord in opinion or sentiment.  And concord is defined as ‘a state of agreement or harmony.  It is an agreement by stipulation, compact or covenant.’  Therefore, what Paul is saying is that the old marriage covenant of two unrepentant sinners has been ended by one becoming regenerate (died and resurrected with Christ), and a new covenant, being laid out here by Paul, must be consented to…agreed upon by the unbelieving spouse.  Death ends the marriage covenant…the believing spouse has died in Christ.  It is no longer he/she who lives but Christ who lives in them.  All of this is an evolving process that begins on the day one spouse becomes a new creation in Christ Jesus.  Soon, if the unequally yoked marriage is to continue, then it must do so under a new marriage covenant set out here by Paul.  This does not take place the day one spouse joins the family of God.  A process has begun that will eventually force the unbelieving spouse to cooperate or rebel against the life of Christ in their spouse.

Hopefully the reader is beginning to understand why Paul begins his instructions on this entirely new doctrine for unequally yoked marriages with his phrase in verse 12, “But to the rest, I say, not the Lord…”  He did not find this solution in existing Scripture passages.  He did not get this from a revelation of the Lord Jesus.  Also, if any Biblical passage strictly prohibited marital divorce, including Christ’s teachings, with which Paul was entirely familiar, Paul certainly would have simply quoted the appropriate prohibition(s) and moved on to the rest of his letter.  But no such quote is provided or alluded to for the readers because they do not exist in Scripture.  Many try to make Paul’s passage here and our Lord’s passages in Matthew 5 and 19 prohibitive of divorce, but read in their context these passages do not forbid divorce, but rather in Matthew our Lord spoke against the improper use of divorce to commit adultery.  And Paul calls for divorce here and in 2 Corinthians 6:14f when the unbelieving spouse refuses consent to live with the believer as we will see Paul’s solution in its entirety.

So then, the unbelieving spouse may consent to the new covenant, but is by no means required to do so, which is why Paul says in verse 15, “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.  But God has called us to peace.”  Think about this scenario: A presumably happily married couple sees one become translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Light.  Immediately the unbeliever departs…Why?  That would make no sense whatsoever.  It is true, that a house divided against itself cannot stand, but it takes some time for the believer’s behavioral transformation to fully develop and the division in the home to become apparent and intolerable for the unbelieving spouse.

Right minded people do not consent to covenants or agreements without first inquiring into the conditions of consent.  The reader will see that Paul provides the conditions that the unbelieving spouse must consent to in the immediate context.  Note: we call them conditions, but Paul actually lays them out as outcomes that the believing spouse can expect once the unbelieving spouse consents to live with the believing spouse as Paul instructs.  As for the believing spouse, Paul requires them to abide by the decision of the unbelieving spouse.  If the unbelieving spouse consents to Paul’s conditions, then the believing spouse will have neither need nor divine permission to divorce the unbelieving spouse.  It must be the believer who determines whether or not the unbelieving spouse has truly consented to Paul’s conditions.  It will become obvious why shortly.  What if the unbelieving spouse refuses or fails to “consent to live with the believing spouse” through the keeping of Paul’s conditions causing Paul’s expected outcomes?   In such cases, the believing spouse has divine sanction and should divorce the unbelieving spouse in obedience to God’s command against unequally yoked marriage, and as Paul says here, “The brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15).

Paul has laid out the conditions (outcomes) of this consent and they are about to be reviewed; nevertheless, Paul’s new doctrine on divorce for the unequally yoked believer in the Christian era should be coming into view for the reader.  If the unbelieving spouse will not positively consent to this harmonious, distinctly Christian union, then the believer “is not under bondage in such cases.”  What kind of bondage could Paul possibly be referring to if not this unequally yoked marriage?  And if the believer is not under bondage to their unequally yoked marriage, then divorce is the correct action.  Remaining single or remarriage, in the Lord, is then allowed.

Can a Christian divorce their unbelieving spouse?  Yes, if he/she fails to give his/her consent as Paul lays it out so incontrovertibly in this text.  Note: It is the believing spouse who is not under bondage to the old marriage covenant if consent to God’s conditions are unacceptable to the unbelieving spouse.  In other words, God provides no option for either married partner to stay in the relationship if the unbelieving spouse refuses consent to God’s conditions, which are found in the immediate context and will be shown shortly.  The unbelieving partner can consent to God’s condition(s) or he/she can fail to consent and become divorced from the believer.

The believing partner can expect a harmonious Christian marriage partner because the unbelieving spouse has successfully consented to Paul’s condition, or they must separate themselves from the marriage all together because the unbeliever has refused consent.  The believing spouse must follow and obey God’s Word here and actively pursue divorce if the unbelieving spouse fails to consent because the unbeliever is unlikely to obey God by leaving when their own failure to consent takes place.  They, essentially, become a squatter that does not belong–expecting them to vacate their position is foolish as they are a slave to sin.  They often relish disrupting the life of the believing spouse, or they too are miserable in the unequally yoked marriage and will be better off divorced and free to marry a fellow unbeliever.  In obedience to God’s command, as written by the apostle Paul, the believing spouse must divorce the unbelieving spouse for failure to consent to live with.

The Greek word σᴜνεᴜɗoҡεῑ is translated into English as ‘consents’.  The prefix σᴜν is a marker of accompaniment and association.  The word σᴜνεᴜɗoҡεῑ means to join in approval or agreement with consent to or in harmony with the person to whom one is joining.  What has taken place in an unequally yoked marriage is that God has taken a married couple and removed one of the two people from death to life, from darkness to light, and the unbelieving partner must then consent to God’s terms (as Paul lays them out for the first and only time) by approving and agreeing with the new life of their believing spouse bringing harmony and peace into the marriage.

Paul Lays Out God’s Conditions of Consent For the Unbelieving Spouse

Now, as stated earlier, the immediate context (Verses 14-16) shows how Paul lays out God’s conditions to which the unbelieving spouse must give consent in order to maintain the marriage relationship to a child of God.  God’s first condition to which the unbeliever must consent is to become set apart from the world and toward conformity to the believing spouse even as the believing spouse has been set apart from the world and toward the holiness of God.  Verse 14 says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband…”

A Sanctification Similar to Cornelius In Acts 10: Fearing God While Yet Unsaved

Sanctification is, by nature, a cooperative behavior or activity.  The unbelieving spouse does not receive a superstitious blessing of sorts for merely squatting in the home of a child of God or for merely having their name on a marriage license.  In order to remain married to the believer the unbeliever must actively cooperate with their believing spouse in this sanctification.  This mindset, which is short of salvation, is very much like the God-fearers: Gentiles who attended the synagogue and followed the teachings of Judaism but who were not full-fledged Jews because they were not circumcised (Acts 10:2, 11:14).  So then, a failure on the part of the unbelieving spouse to consent here does not equate to leaving and divorcing, which would actually be the outcome of a failure to consent.  Failure to “consent to live with” means that the unbelieving spouse refuses cooperation with the believing spouse to become a God fearing couple–he or she refuses to live like the God-fearers lived (Acts 10:2-4).

By conforming to the holiness that the Holy Spirit is bringing into the believers life the unbeliever is admitting that God’s ways are greater than man’s ways and will to the best of their ability not impede but rather reflect the changes brought about by the Holy Spirit in the believing spouse.  The vast majority of Evangelicals who very regrettably hold a Semi-Pelagian or Arminian synergistic view of the gospel (though repudiated twice as heresy by the church fathers) will misdiagnose the spiritual condition of the unbelieving spouse thinking them to be in Christ.  But that simply is not the case because they have not “received a faith of the same kind as ours” (2 Peter 1:1).  The faculty of their will must be favorable to the Christian religion and they desire the blessings of heaven, yet they lack repentance and saving faith and the changes that accompany regeneration.  So then, consent here means that the unbelieving spouse will work at conforming to the godliness their believing spouse is exhibiting rather than being bad company that corrupts the good morals of their believing spouse.  They desire the grace of God necessary to follow the ways of the Lord, which makes them Christian moralists, but proud, stubborn unbelief prevents them from crying out for God’s grace of forgiveness and the righteousness of Christ for they love their sin more; having no desire to repent.

God’s second condition to which the unbeliever must consent is to help bring up the children in the fear and admonition of the Lord “for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy” (Vs. 14).  So then “consents to live with” means that the unbelieving spouse will not interfere or steer the children in any direction other than being raised in the fear of the Lord.  The unbelievers words and deeds must be consistent with Christian virtues, again following the pattern set out by God fearing Gentiles.  Perfection cannot be obtained by the believer or the unbeliever, but both must be working toward the goal of seeing the children all submit themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and the glory of God in their salvation.  Often the unbelieving spouse is in a dead religion such as Catholicism or is an atheist and their desire is to raise their children in their own belief system or with no guidance whatsoever.  Paul is teaching believers that such behavior does not meet the condition “consents to live with”.  Thus, divorce and remarriage in the Lord or remaining single are the only obedient options for the believing spouse.

In fact, once an unequally yoked marriage exists the only way for the children to be holy is for the unbelieving spouse to meet all the conditions of consenting to stay.  If the unbelieving spouse leaves (a bad outcome to be sure), then sadly the children may be raised in both homes or they could be raised only in the home of the unbelieving spouse.  If the unbelieving spouse refuses to consent but also is allowed to stay in the marriage (an even worse outcome), then according to Matthew Henry the unbelieving spouse will have an undue influence upon the children as both have unrepentant hearts.  In addition, the children will live in a house divided.  Either way the children will be unclean.  So then, the only “sanctification” in the life of an unbeliever that can make their children “holy” is if they consent to conform to the sanctification they see in their believing spouse.

God’s third condition laid out in the immediate context is that the unbelieving spouse is consenting to a peaceful and harmonious Christian marriage.  Paul says in verse 15, “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”  Clearly if the unbelieving spouse cannot consent to living in peace with the believing spouse, then the believing spouse is to live in peace after divorcing the unbelieving spouse.  Either way peace in the life of the believer is God’s expectation.

Paul traditionally opens his letters with a greeting of Grace and Peace.  He certainly did so in both of his letters to the Corinthian believers.  Paul does this because grace is the source of the Christians’ faith, and peace is the end or purpose of the Christians’ faith.  Peace is so much more than the interval between two wars or between fights.  Peace is the union after a separation or reconciliation after a conquest or quarrel.  Peace is the wall coming down because a separation is no longer necessary—the two have become one.  Once peace becomes a priority the need for the grace of God becomes evident.  When the unbelieving spouse consents to strive to be one with the believing spouse he/she will feel their overwhelming need to cry out to God for grace.  Man cannot have peace with others and he will not even be at peace within himself if he has not first been reconciled to and at peace with God, which necessitates the need for God’s grace.  The unbeliever must consent to a peaceful and harmonious Christian marriage.

God’s final condition provided in the immediate context is that the unbelieving spouse will consent to the gospel of repentance and faith in Christ Jesus.  “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband?  Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife” (Vs. 16)?  Consent here refers to something short of salvation.  This final aspect of the condition does not mean that the unbelieving spouse must be saved (the marriage would no longer be unequally yoked), but it does mean that they must not reject the gospel as the only way to come out from under the wrath of God.  They fail in their “consent to live with” if they become an enemy of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So then, once the unbelieving spouse consents to live with the believing spouse in the four ways laid out by Paul, then the believing spouse is free from the guilt of being bound together with an unbeliever as God prohibits with such strong language in II Corinthians 6:14-7:1.  We certainly have hope that the unbeliever who consents to these four conditions will soon see their sin for what it is and cry out to God for forgiveness at which time they would join their spouse as a recipient of the grace of God–two saints joined together in marriage is indeed a beautiful relationship.

The believing spouse has the responsibility to be patient and assist their unbelieving partner as they are called to consent to the demands Paul lays out.  They must place their trust in the plans that God has made for them and for their spouse.  And if at any time the unbelieving partner refuses and rebuffs God’s prescribed plan of consent to live with the believing spouse, then the believer needs to recognize the failure to consent to live with them for what it is and they must begin asking the Lord for the wisdom and timing to pursue an honorable divorce so that they will not be guilty of being bound together with an unbeliever.  Once this failure to provide consent becomes pronounced the believer will begin to feel the sword of Christ dividing the marital couple.  The pain of a broken relationship will not be any less felt, but the growing animosity (especially from the unbeliever toward the believer) will help show the necessity for the dissolution of the marriage bond.  It is for this very circumstance that Paul said, “the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases” (Vs. 15).  So then, the answer to the question, “Can a Christian divorce an unbeliever” is a very solid yes.

Paul anticipates the very real possibility that the unbelieving spouse may just want no part in this new covenant.  They may simply leave or sue for divorce.  “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (V. 15).  We would consider this to be an extremely hard “No, I’m not going to abide by these four conditions and therefore I’m out of this marriage.”  However, this “leaving” by the unbeliever has for centuries been understood as Paul’s only meaning in terms of “the believer is not bound”.  However, we argue that this view is entirely wrong.  Any refusal on the part of the unbelieving spouse to abide by Paul’s “consent to live with the believer” as believers must live would force the believer to live in an un-Christian home enduring the very idols and the worship of said idols by the unbeliever.  All of Adam’s descendants worship idols.  Only those regenerate in Christ Jesus worship the living God.  This is precisely what God cannot abide, nor does He want His children abiding in such depravity.  Often the unbeliever has no problem remaining in the marriage with these grossly diverse beliefs, but Christ knew that a house divided could not stand.  The unbeliever enjoys wallowing in the mud.  It is the believer that must not throw their pearls before swine.

As stated earlier, the careful reader may note that Paul does not use a language suggesting that these four clauses are conditions of the unbelievers’ consent to stay, and we would agree.  Paul is providing the four clauses to show Christians what the effects or outcome of the unbeliever’s consent will look like for the believer.  The only way to arrive at the outcomes Paul describes in verses 14-16 is for the unbelieving spouse to consent as we have demonstrated in this article.  These holy effects as seen in the marriage and the family define and explain the conditions of consent without which such outcomes would not be realized.  By electing to pen the expected outcomes of consent instead of the conditions of consent, Paul has actually provided greater weight to his instruction.  Had he laid these four outcomes down as conditions, then unbelieving spouses could more easily follow the letter of Paul’s instructions without actually meeting the spirit intended.  The only way for the believing spouse married to an unbeliever to have peace, harmony and holiness in their marriage and family is for Paul’s four outcomes to be mandates in the conditional clause “consents to live with”.

A final clarification is necessary here.  Paul does not provide a statute of limitation upon the believer.  Ideally, the new believer would know about this text and the appropriate understanding of this text in conjunction with 2 Corinthians  6:14f so that they could seek the consent of their unbelieving spouse in the early weeks and months of their own new life in Christ.  However, in reality most will live with their unbelieving spouse for years without the knowledge of Paul’s instructions here to the Corinthian church and subsequently to us.  Therefore, it is only once a proper understanding of 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 is obtained that the believer suffering under and unequally yoked marriage needs to seek the consent of their unbelieving spouse to live with them as Paul requires or seek divorce if consent is denied.  Additionally, many unregenerate people think they are Christians and their spouses think they are as well.  Therefore, whenever a child of God discovers that their spouse may indeed be a “formal Christian” but they show no signs of the regeneration performed only by the Holy Spirit, only then do they realize they are unequally yoked.  It is at that time that these Christians need to petition their unbelieving spouse to live with them in accordance to the conditions Paul has written here in this text or petition their spouse for divorce.

We do not think being unequally yoked in marriage is a ground for divorce…we think that God’s word strongly argues that being unequally yoked is the supreme or principle ground for divorce.  All other grounds for divorce (adultery, abandonment, physical abuse, attempted murder, etc.) stem from the “heart of stone” in an unbeliever.  We are not saying that Christians never commit adultery or other awful sins, but for believers these sins are something we fall into and we can fully repent and return to obedience.  The unregenerate cannot repent (reform, grow, sure, but repentance is a gift of God) and cannot return to obedience, which is why God does not want His children in unequally yoked marriages.

In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 Paul demonstrably portrays God’s intent to protect His children from unequally yoked marriages.  And 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is the exclamation point showing God’s children the magnitude of this doctrine: “Do not be unequally yoked to unbelievers.”  Ironically, the historical understanding on these two Biblical texts forces the passages themselves to be unequally yoked to one another.  Now, rather than contradicting one another these two biblical texts, originally intended for the Corinthian churches, can be understood as being in complete harmony with one another as well as with the rest of God’s Word.

Heavenly Father, I ask that you will open the eyes of those who cannot see and revive your church in our day.