Why does Paul insist that families in which one spouse is a Christian should, if possible, be preserved, even if the other party is far from faith? Of course, one could explain everything by the value of family as such and by the desire to preserve that very family, if there is even the slightest chance of doing so. One could also recall the prohibition of divorce spoken by the Savior himself. But that prohibition applies only to Christians themselves. Even the Torah, in principle, permits divorce, though only in special cases and without much enthusiasm. As for pagans, from the point of view of the Torah there is no problem here: although the Torah recognizes marriage between pagans as a fact, it naturally imposes no prohibitions or restrictions on divorce in that case.

Why, then, in spite of all this, does the apostle still insist that a marriage between a Christian and an unbelieving spouse, or the reverse, should be preserved if possible? Judging by his own words, the main task for the Christian in such a situation is to bring the other party in the marriage into participation in the life of the Kingdom.

Witness, of course, plays an enormous role here. But witness within the family turns out to be an extremely difficult task, and if, according to the Savior's word, it is especially hard for a prophet in his hometown and in his own house, then his words fully apply to Christian witness as well. Christianity, however, is not a religion into which someone must be converted, but a life into which someone must be brought.

The main thing here is not to change the worldview of one's husband or wife, but to let that person feel what the Kingdom is. It is that very Kingdom which, under normal circumstances, is always present in the life of a Christian, and which, again under normal circumstances, a Christian can always share with the one who is nearby. Then the result may be completely unexpected. And a family in which at first only one of the two was a Christian may become truly Christian.

Reflecting on the life of the Kingdom, Paul comes to the conclusion that everyone is fit for it, regardless of social status (v. 24). Such a conclusion is natural: if the Kingdom, according to the Savior's word, is "not of this world," then neither a Christian's material nor social position can in any way affect his life in this Kingdom. But it can affect the possibility of bearing witness to the Kingdom. If, for example, one spouse, after conversion, considers it possible to break off relations with his or her other half simply because relations with him or her have stopped being important, such a breakup will naturally become not witness but anti-witness: the rejected husband or rejected wife in that case may reasonably conclude that the new life of the converted spouse is not for them. That is why the apostle apparently considers it necessary for the convert to remain in the family, provided the other spouse does not object and does not demand divorce (vv. 12-16).

For one who has turned to Christ, the family should, as far as possible, be a place of witness and not anti-witness. In the same way, any other human position can become either witness or anti-witness. Thus, for example, the apostle urges both Jews ("the circumcised") and recent pagans converted to Christ to remain what they are, and to do so quite openly (vv. 18-20). The religious differences between Jews and recent pagans were often striking, but their spiritual unity within one community could become the best witness to the reality of the Kingdom, for which religious differences are secondary. The impossibility and absence of this unity, by contrast, would become anti-witness, only confirming that Christianity is not life in the Kingdom at all, but merely one more new religion, no better, though perhaps no worse, than any other.

Of course, there can also be situations in which it would be worth trying to change the position in which one finds oneself. Paul, for example, is firmly convinced that legal dependence is not the best option, and he suggests that slaves free themselves from the condition of slavery if possible (v. 21). The point is not that, being a slave, a person cannot be a resident of the Kingdom (vv. 22-23), but that a free person has more opportunities to bear witness to this Kingdom than a slave does. Of course, a slave can sometimes have more spiritual freedom than someone who is legally free, but formal legal freedom can nevertheless become an earthly image of the spiritual freedom of the residents of the Kingdom, and the apostle suggests not missing the chance to obtain this outward freedom if such a chance appears.

What does the apostle Paul want to tell us? What does it mean that “those who have wives should be as though they had none; those who mourn as though they were not mourning; those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing; those who buy as though they had no possessions; and those who use the world as though they were not using it”? What should this look like in practice? The first reaction is to simplify. One might say that because “the time is short,” Paul recommends leaving one’s wife, ceasing to mourn and rejoice, and rejecting everything we have in this world. Yet that would be far too simple and altogether wrong. No, Paul is speaking about something else. Rather, the question is what matters most to us. Very often, what seems most important at the moment becomes dominant: perhaps family, perhaps what this world gives us, or perhaps our own mood—our pain or our joy. The apostle Paul proposes that we change our point of view. Yes, I mourn—but this is not the main thing in my life. The Lord is the main thing. Yes, I rejoice in my good fortune—but the Lord is the main thing. In such a situation we are free from what we have in this world and free for eternity. Not because we reject what we have, but because we are no longer bound by it.