1 Corinthians 7:16

7:16 There is always the hope that the believing spouse will win the unbelieving mate to faith in Christ. However, the Greek text is ambiguous and could also be interpreted as saying that there is no guarantee that the believing mate will ever win over the unbelieving spouse.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 7:16. Τί γὰρ, for what) Therefore thou oughtest not to distress thyself too anxiously; but to preserve the tranquillity of thy mind, exertions must be made according to the measure of hope.—ἄνδρα—γυναῖκα, husband, wife) averse from thee, and therefore from the faith.—σώσεις, thou shalt save) The one consort ought to lead, as far as possible, the other consort to salvation.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_7:16. Confirmation of the foregoing thought, that the Christian is not bound in such cases, but, on the contrary, ought, in accordance with his vocation, to live in peace; for neither does the (Christian) wife know whether she, by continuing to live with her (non-believing) husband, shall be the means of his conversion, nor does the (Christian) husband know, etc. This uncertainty cannot be the basis of any constraint to the hurt of their peace. Comp de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann. Most expositors, on the other hand, from Chrysostom downwards, take εἰ in the sense of εἰ μή (see also Tholuck, Bergpredig. p. 251 f.), and hold that 1Co_7:16 enunciates a new reason for not breaking up the marriage, namely, the possibility of the conversion of the non-believing husband. Ἀνάδεξαί φησιν ἐπὶ χρησταῖς ἐλπίσι τὸν πόνον· ἔχεις τὸν Θεὸν τῆς προθυμίας ἐπίκουρον, Theodoret. That is to say, they find in ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κ.τ.λ[1140] the thought: yet the Christian partner should do everything to maintain peace and bear with the heathen consort,and either link to this the new reason given in 1Co_7:16 (Flatt, Rückert, Olshausen, following Calvin and others), or else regard 1Co_7:15 as a parenthesis (Grotius, al[1141]). But the parenthetic setting aside of 1Co_7:15 is as arbitrary as the turn given to the idea of ἘΝ ΔῈ ΕἸΡΉΝῌ Κ.Τ.Λ[1142] is contrary to the context. With respect again to taking εἰ as equivalent to εἰ μή, it is perfectly true that εἰ, following upon the notion of uncertainty, may answer in meaning to εἰ μή) Thuc. ii. 53. 2; Krüger, § lxv. 1. 8; Est_4:14; 2Sa_12:22; Joe_2:14; Jon_3:9); but the thought which would thus emerge does not suit the connection here, because in it the point is the οὐ δεδούλωται, to which the proposed rendering of the εἰ would run counter.[1143] Moreover, this use of ΕἸ is foreign to the N. T., often though it occurs in the classics (see especially Kühner, a[1144] Xen. Mem. i. 1. 8, Anab. iii. 2. 22).

τί] precisely as the German: was weisst du, ob, etc., so that in sense it is the same as: how, in how far (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 823); it is not therefore the accusative of the, object. Comp ΤῚ ΟἼΕΙ, ΤῚ ΔΟΚΕῖς, Xen. Hier. i. 15. Regarding the future σώσεις, comp Stallbaum, a[1147] Gorg. p. 249; Klotz, a[1148] Devar. p. 508.

[1140] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1141] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1142] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1143] A limitation of the οὐ δεδούλωται, and that, too, of a quite general sort, comes in only with the εἰ μή κ.τ.λ. in ver. 17.

[1144] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1147] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1148] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 7:16 follows up the appeal to Christian principle, by a challenge addressed in turn to the wifely and the manly heart: “(Keep the peace, if you can, with the unconverted spouse), for how do you know, O wife, that you will not save your husband? or how do you know, O husband, that you will not save your wife? “That εἰ in this connexion (see parls.), after τί οἶδας implying a fear , may mean “that … not” in English idiom (as though it were: “How do you know? it may be you will save, etc.!”) is admitted by Hn [1056] and Ed [1057] , though they reject the above interpretation, which is that of the ancient commentt. from Cm [1058] down to Lyra, of Cv [1059] and Bz [1060] , and of Ev [1061] and Lt [1062] amongst moderns: see the convincing notes of the two last-named; “Confirmatio est superioris sententiæ: non cur discedente infideli liberetur fidelis; sed contra, cur ita sit utendum hac libertate, ut infidelem, si fieri potest, retineat fidelis ac Christo lucrificet” (Bz [1063] ). τί οἶδας ; connotes “not the manner in which the knowledge is to be obtained, but the extent of it” (Ed [1064] ) “what do you know as to the question whether, etc.?”

[1056] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1057] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[1058] John Chrysostom’s Homiliœ († 407).

[1059] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .

[1060] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).

[1061] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .

[1062] J. B. Lightfoot’s (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul (1895).

[1063] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).

[1064] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

The above sentences are curiously ambiguous; taken by themselves, they may be read as reasons either against or for separation. The latter interpretation is adopted, as to 1Co 7:15 b by most, and as to 1Co 7:16 by nearly all execent exegetes (including Bg [1065] , Mr [1066] , Hf [1067] , Hn [1068] , Al [1069] , Bt [1070] , Ed [1071] , Gd [1072] , El [1073] ): “God has called us in peace (and peace is only possible through separation); for how do you know, wife or husband, that you will save the other?” As much as to say, “Why cling to him, or her, on so ill-founded a hope?” Grammatical considerations being fairly balanced, the tenor of the previous context determines the Apostle’s meaning. In the favourite modern exposition, the essential thought has to be read between the lines. It should also be observed that the Cor [1074] , with their lax moral notions, needed dissuasives from rather than encouragements to divorce; and on the other hand, that to discountenance the hope of a soul’s salvation is strangely unlike the Ap. ( cf. 1Co 10:33 ). On the construction here adopted, P. returns at the close of the Section to the thought with which it opened μὴ χωρισθῆναι .

[1065] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[1066] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[1067] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).

[1068] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1069] Alford’s Greek Testament .

[1070] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).

[1071] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[1072] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[1073] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

[1074] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_7:16

For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save (thy) husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save (thy) wife?

The meaning of this verse depends on the interpretation given to the preceding. If Paul there said, Your call to live in peace forbids the continuance of the marriage relation with an unwilling husband or wife; then this verse must give a further reason why (supposing one of the parties to be unwilling) such marriages should not be continued. That reason is, the utter uncertainty of any spiritual good flowing from them. Why persist in keeping up the connection, when, O wife, you know not whether you can save your husband? If, however, the common interpretation of 1Co_7:15 be adopted, then the meaning is, Live in peace if possible, for how knowest thou whether thou shalt not save my husband? etc. We have here, therefore, an additional reason for avoiding separation in the case supposed. Compare 2Sa_12:22; Joe_2:14; Jon_3:9 in the Septuagint, where the phrase τίϚ οἷδεν εἰ, who knows if, is used to express hope. So here the idea is, Who knows, O wife, but that thou shalt save thy husband?

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What knowest thou but that by staying with thy unbelieving partner thou mayest save him or her? Enforcing the precept to stay with the unbelieving consort (Co1 7:12-14). So Ruth the Moabitess became a convert to her husband's faith: and Joseph and Moses probably gained over their wives. So conversely the unbelieving husband may be won by the believing wife (Pe1 3:1) [CALVIN]. Or else (Co1 7:15), if thy unbelieving consort wishes to depart, let him go, so that thou mayest live "in peace": for thou canst not be sure of converting him, so as to make it obligatory on thee at all costs to stay with him against his will [MENOCHIUS and ALFORD].

save--be the instrument of salvation to (Jam 5:20).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 16. For what knowest thou, O wife] You that are Christians, and who have heathen partners, do not give them up because they are such, for you may become the means of saving them unto eternal life. Bear your cross, and look up to God, and he may give your unbelieving husband or wife to your prayers.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. For what knowest thou, O woman? Those who are of opinion that this observation is a confirmation of the second department of his statement, expound it thus. “An uncertain hope ought not to detain thee,” etc. But, in my opinion, the exhortation is taken from the advantage to be derived; for it is a great and distinguished blessing if a wife gain (1 Corinthians 9:19) her husband. Now, unbelievers are not in so hopeless a condition but that they may be brought to believe. They are dead, it is true, but God can even raise the dead. So long, therefore, as there remains any hope of doing good, and the pious wife knows not but that she may by her holy conversation (1 Peter 3:1) bring back her husband into the way, she ought to try every means before leaving him; for so long as a man’s salvation is doubtful, it becomes us to be prepared rather to hope the best.

As to his saying, however, that a husband may be saved by his wife, the expression, it is true, is not strictly accurate, as he ascribes to man what belongs to God; but there is no absurdity in it. For as God acts efficaciously by his instruments which he makes use of, he does, in a manner, communicate his power to them, or, at least, he connects it with their service in such a manner, that what he does he speaks of as being done by them, and hence, too, he sometimes ascribes to them the honor which is due to himself alone. Let us, however, bear in mind, that we have nothing in our power, except in so far as we are directed by him as instruments.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(16) For what knowest thou, O wife . . .?—This verse has been very generally regarded as a kind of modification of the previous one, as if the Apostle suggested that it might be advisable not to let the unbelieving partner depart from the marriage union when he so desired, in any case where there was even a chance of the believing partner effecting his or her conversion. The true meaning of the passage is, however, precisely the opposite. The Apostle declares that the remote contingency of the unbeliever’s conversion is too vague a matter for which to risk the peace which is so essential an element in the Christian life. If the unbelieving partner will depart, do not let any thought as to the possible influence you may exercise over his religious convictions—about which you cannot know anything, but only at most vaguely speculate—cause you to insist upon his remaining.

Some historical results, arising from the view that this is a suggestion of the good which may result from such union being continued, are interestingly alluded to by Stanley in his note on this passage:—“This passage, thus interpreted, probably had a direct influence on the marriage of Clotilda with Clovis, and Bertha with Ethelbert, and consequently on the subsequent conversion of the two great kingdoms of France and England to the Christian faith.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?] Until the 14th century the meaning of this passage was supposed to be that the believing partner was not to leave the unbeliever, in hope of bringing about his conversion. See 1Pe_3:1. But Lyra then pointed out that the opposite view was more agreeable to the context. The preceding verse recommends departure, and the following verse, beginning with a qualifying particle ‘but’ or more literally except, only, seems to imply that the advice in 1Co_7:15-16 was to be looked upon as referring to a particular case and was not to be tortured into a general rule. For the insisting on marriage rights when the unbelieving party to the contract was desirous of severing it was an attempt at compulsion which was undesirable in itself, and might not, after all, be followed by the salvation of the unbeliever. Dean Stanley remarks on the influence of the earlier interpretation upon history in such marriages as that of Clotilda with Clovis and of Bertha with Ethelbert of Kent.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For what knowest thou, O wife,.... These words may be understood, as containing a reason either why the believing party should be easy at the departure of the unbeliever, after all proper methods have been used in vain to retain him or her; taken from the uncertainty and improbability of being of any use to them, to bring them to the knowledge of Christ, and salvation by him; "for what knowest thou, O wife"; thou dost not know, thou canst not know, thou canst not be sure,

whether thou shall save thy husband? be the means of bringing of him under the means of grace, and so of his conversion and salvation; there is no likelihood of it, since he is such an implacable enemy to Christ, and so bitterly averse to the Gospel, and the ordinances of it; and therefore since he is determined to separate, even let him go: or else, as rendering a reason why the believer should seek for peace and reconciliation, and by all means, if possible, continue to dwell with the unbeliever; taken from hopes of being serviceable under a divine influence and blessing, for their spiritual and eternal good, the wife for the good of the husband; by whose conversation he may be won over, and prevailed upon to entertain a better opinion of the Christian religion; to take a liking to the Gospel, and to attend upon the ministry of the word, which may be made the power of God unto salvation to him:

or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shall save thy wife; this may possibly be done, in the same manner as now suggested: persons in such a relation have often great influence upon one another, and are by divine Providence often great blessings to each other, in things spiritual as well as temporal. This puts me in mind of a case related by the Jewish doctors (a):

"it happened to a holy man that he married a holy woman, and they had no children; say they, we are of no manner of profit to the blessed God; they stood up and divorced one another; he went and married a wicked woman, and she made him wicked; she went and married a wicked man, "and she made him righteous";''

or, to use the apostle's phrase, "saved him".

(a) Bereshit Rabba, sect. 17. fol. 14. 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Ver. 16. Whether thou shalt save] And to have any hand in saving a soul is the highest honour.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For what knowest thou ... - The apostle here assigns a reason why the believing party should not separate from the other needlessly, or why he should not desire to be separated. The reason is, the possibility, or the probability, that the unbelieving party might be converted by the example and entreaties of the other.

Whether then ... - How do you know “but” this may be done? Is there not a possibility, nay a probability of it, and is not this a sufficient reason for continuing together?

Save thy husband - Gain him over to the Christian faith; be the means of his conversion and salvation. compare Rom 11:26. We learn from this verse:

(1) That there is a possibility that an unbelieving partner in life may be converted by the example of the other.

(2) That this should be an object of intense interest to the Christian husband or wife, because:

It will promote the happiness of the other; It will promote their usefulness; It will be the means of blessing their family, for parents should be united on the subject of religion, and in their example and influence in training up their sons and daughters; and, Because the salvation of a beloved husband or wife should be an object of intense interest,

(3) This object is of so much importance that the Christian should be willing to submit to much, to bear much, and to bear long, in order that it may be accomplished. Paul said that it was desirable even to live with a pagan partner to do it; and so also it is desirable to bear much, very much, with even an unkind and fretful temper, with an unfaithful and even an intemperate husband, or with a perverse and peevish wife, if there is a prospect that they may be converted.

(4) This same direction is elsewhere given; 1Pe 3:1-2.

(5) It is often done. It is not hopeless. Many a wife has thus been the means of saving a husband; many a husband has been the means of the salvation of the wife - In regard to the means by which this is to be hoped for, we may observe that it is not by a harsh, fretful, complaining temper; it is to be by kindness, and tenderness, and love. It is to be by an exemplification of the excellency of religion by example; by patience when provoked, meekness when injured, love when despised, forbearance when words of harshness and irritation are used, and by showing how a Christian can live, and what is the true nature of religion; by kind and affectionate conversation when alone, when the heart is tender, when calamities visit the family, and when the thoughts are drawn along by the events of Providence toward death. Not by harshness or severity of manner, is the result to be hoped for, but by tender entreaty, and mildness of life, and by prayer. Pre eminently this is to be used. When a husband will not hear, God can hear; when he is angry, morose, or unkind, God is gentle, tender, and kind; and when a husband or a wife turn away from the voice of gentle entreaty, God’s ear is open, and God is ready to hear and to bless. Let one thing guide the life. We are never to cease to set a Christian example; never to cease to live as a Christian should live; never to cease to pray fervently to the God of grace, that the partner of our lives may be brought under the full influence of Christian truth, and meet us in the enjoyments of heaven.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The apostle having before determined the lawfulness of a Christian husband’s or wife’s abiding in a state of marriage with a wife or husband that was an infidel, if she or he were willing to abide with the believer, now argues the great advantage which might be from it, for the glory of God, and the good of the soul of such husband or wife.

What knowest thou, O wife? saith he; it is not certain that God will so far bless thy converse with thy husband or wife, as that thou shalt, by thy instruction, admonition, or example, be an occasion or instrument to bring them to Christ; but it is neither impossible nor improbable, and their willingness (notwithstanding their difference from thee in religion) yet to abide with thee, may give thee some hopes that they will hearken to thee. They are often (in the language of holy writ) said to save others, who are instrumental to bring them to Christ, 1Co 9:22; 1Ti 4:16; Jam 5:20. We ought to bear with many inconveniences to ourselves, where our bearing with them may any way promote the glory of God or the good of souls.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. For—Assigning as a reason for peace.

Whether—The Greek word usually means simply if. And as there is no negative so as to make if not, so Stanley, Alford, and others make the apostle ask, How knowest thou that thou wilt convert the infidel party? And then the question gives a reason to let the party go without interposing any legal obstacle. Let him go, for you know not that you shall convert him. We reject this view. For, 1. The not is not necessary in order to indicate that a question implies an affirmative hope. Dr. Hodge rightly quotes 2Sa_12:22; Joe_2:14; Jon_3:9. Take the first passage. David fasted and prayed in the hope of his child’s life being spared, asking, “Who can tell if the Lord will be gracious, that the child may live?” Thus David conducts, as Paul would have the married Christian conduct, in the hope expressed by the interrogative if, that a favourable issue might result. 2. The meaning given by Alford is very un-Pauline. It makes Paul, by emphatic repetition, very earnest to expel the hope of saving a soul, and very earnest to prevent action for that purpose! The Christian could not, indeed, know that the opposite party would be converted, and it would be very superfluous for Paul to so inform him. But there often might be a hope; and it would be very unlike Paul to deny that such a hope should be a ground of action to save a wife or husband from infidelity, sin, and death. To act from such hopes, where he did not know a favourable result, was one of the fundamental purposes of Paul’s life.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For what knowest thou, O wife, etc.? The meaning is as follows: You may, perhaps, plead that, by refusing to sever the union, the believing partner may convert the unbelieving; but that possibility is too distant and uncertain on which to act. St. Peter does indeed show that so blessed a result is possible. ("That, if any obey not the Word, they also maybe won by the conversation of the wives,"; 1Pe_3:1) but he is only speaking of cases in which the unbelieving husband did not wish the union to be dissolved. The ancient misinterpretation of the passage (due to neglect of the context and of the argument as a whole) viewed it as an argument for mixed marriages, founded on the chance of thereby winning souls. Most misinterpretations of Scripture have done deadly harm; this one, however, has been overruled for good, and led, as Dean Stanley points out, to such happy marriages as that of Clotilde with Clovis, and Bertha with Ethelbert of Kent.

Earthly relationships sanctified to heavenly uses.

There were several obvious and powerful reasons why a Christian husband or wife should not leave a partner who was married in days when both were unbelievers, and who had not experienced conversion from heathenism or Judaism to Christianity. And to some extent the same reasons hold good when one has passed from merely nominal to real and spiritual Christianity.

1. An obligation has been undertaken from which only flagrant immorality can liberate either party.

2. Children may have been born during the union, whose welfare depends upon its continuance.

3. Affection may have sprung up which it would be a cruel outrage to suspend or check. And then, in addition, there is the reason given in the text.

4. The continuance of the union may make the Christian husband or wife the minister of spiritual blessing to the "unconverted" consort.

I AN ATTRACTIVE REPRESENTATION MAY RE FURNISHED OF THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. The standard of moral excellence presented in the Word of God is indeed singularly high and admirable. But morality in a book is one thing, morality embodied in the life is quite another thing, Morality proclaimed from a pulpit is far less impressive than morality speaking from the domestic hearth. There are such virtues as truth, meekness, pity, patience, and charity, which are peculiarly Christian; and the exhibition of these is likely to lead to the inquiry Whence come these traits of character? What is the secret of a life so different from the life of the selfish and the ungoverned? How many a husband has been won to Christ, beholding in his Christian wife a "a chaste conversation coupled with fear"!

II AN UNCONSCIOUS INFLUENCE IN FAVOUR OF TRUE RELIGION MAY BE EXERCISED BY ONE PRAYERFULLY SOLICITOUS FOR THE SALVATION OF A SPOUSE. Who can know, unmoved, that a dear consort is seeking his spiritual welfare? There is a tone imparted to the intercourse of daily life by the habit of intercessory prayer. And there is a dignity, a gentleness, a spirituality, of manner and of language, which cannot escape the observation of such as are associated in the tenderest intimacies of life. There is no desire and prayer so all penetrating and all influential, as the desire and prayer for the spiritual and eternal welfare of those who are nearest and dearest, united by the most sacred and endearing of earthly ties.

III AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS FOR EXPRESS INSTRUCTION AND PERSUASION WHICH MAY ISSUE IN SPIRITUAL GOOD. In many instances it may be unwise to make a special and formal effort to convince and to persuade; it may be better to leave religion to tell its own tale and do its own work. But cases do occur in which Providence makes an opening for an effort. Stanley"s remark upon this verse is well worth quoting: "The verse so understood has probably conduced to the frequent instances of the conversion of unbelieving husbands by believing wives. Even the stern severity of Chrysostom relaxes in its presence into the declaration, "that no teacher has such an effect in conversion as a wife," and this passage, thus interpreted, probably had a direct influence on the marriage of Clotilde with Clovis, and Bertha with Ethelbert, and consequently on the subsequent conversion of the two great kingdoms of France and England to the Christian faith." There are few Christian ministers who from their own observation could not tell of similar instances in lowlier life, where God has blessed the influence of wife to husband, or of husband to wife, so that they have become heirs together of the grace of life. Whilst, on the one hand, the mere hope of exercising such influence should never lead a man or a woman to marry an unbeliever, on the other hand, when unequal unions have been formed, the possibility opened up in this verse should lead to wise and affectionate effort, and to earnest and unwearying prayer. T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

save

(See Scofield "Rom 1:16").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. How knowest thou, O wife, etc. Let the Christian be gentle, forbearing, unselfish, though true to Christ, and perhaps the result will be that they will be God's means to save their partner. This has occurred in thousands of instances.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

16. τί γὰρ οἶδας. Until the 14th century the meaning of this passage was supposed to be that the believing partner was to remain with the unbeliever, in hope of bringing about his conversion. See 1Pe 3:1. But Lyra then pointed out that the opposite view was more agreeable to the context. The preceding verse recommends departure, and the following verse, beginning with a qualifying particle ‘but’ or more literally except, only, seems to imply that the advice in 1Co 7:15-16 was to be looked upon as referring to a particular case and was not to be tortured into a general rule. For the insisting on marriage rights when the unbelieving party to the contract was desirous of dissolving it was an attempt at compulsion which was undesirable in itself, and might not, after all, be followed by the salvation of the unbeliever. Dean Stanley remarks on the influence of the earlier interpretation upon history in such marriages as that of Clotilda with Clovis and of Bertha with Ethelbert of Kent.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16.] This verse is generally understood as a ground for remaining united, as ver. 13, in hope that conversion of the unbelieving party may follow. Thus ver. 15 is regarded as altogether parenthetical. But (1) this interpretation is harsh as regards the context, for ver. 15 is evidently not parenthetical,—and (2) it is hardly grammatically admissible (see below, for it makes εἰ = εἰ μή,—‘What knowest thou … whether thou shalt not save.…?’ Lyra seems first to have proposed the true rendering, which was afterwards adopted hesitatingly by Estius, and of late decidedly by Meyer, De Wette, and Bisping: viz. that the verse is not a ground for remaining united, in hope, &c.,—but a ground for consummating a separation, and not marring the Christian’s peace for so uncertain a prospect as that of converting the unbelieving party. τί οἶδας εἰ thus preserves its strict sense, What knowest thou (about the question) whether.…? and the verse coheres with the words immediately preceding, ἐν εἰρήνῃ κέκλ. ἡμᾶς ὁ θ.

I may observe, in addition to Meyer and De W.’s remarks, that the position of the words further establishes this rendering. If the point of the argument had been the importance, or the prospect, of saving (= converting) the unbelieving party, the arrangement would probably have been εἰ σώσεις τὸν ἄνδρα, and εἰ σώσεις τὴν γυναῖκα, whereas now the verb holds in both clauses a subordinate place, rather subjective to the person addressed, than the main object in the mind of the writer.

Those who take εἰ for εἰ μή, attempt to justify it by reff. 2 Kings, Joel, Jonah, where the LXX have for the Heb. מִי יוֹדַעֵ, τίς οἶδεν εἰ, to express hope: but (1) in every one of those passages the verb stands in the emphatic position, and (2) the LXX use this very expression to signify uncertainty, e.g. ref. Eccles., τίς εἶδε(οἶδεν : add τό Aא3) πνεῦμα υἱῶν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, εἰ ἀναβαίνει αὐτὸ (add εἰς א) ἄνω;

The rendering then of the verse will be as follows: (Let the unbeliever depart: hazard not for an uncertainty the peace in which you ought to be living as Christians): for what assurance hast thou, O wife, whether thou shalt be the means of thy husband’s conversion? Or what assurance hast thou, O husband, whether thou shalt be the means of thy wife’s conversion? “This interpretation is the only one compatible with the obvious sense of ver. 15, and of the expression (not τί οἶδας εἰ μή, but) τί οἶδας εἰ σώσεις; and is also in exact harmony with the general tenor of the Apostle’s argument, which is not to urge a union, but to tolerate a separation.” Stanley; the rest of whose note is deeply interesting as to the historical influence of the verse as commonly misunderstood.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. τί γὰρ οἶδας, γύναι. As in v. 15, the case of the heathen husband desiring to divorce his Christian wife is uppermost, although the other case is also considered. And this verse is as ambiguous as the concluding part of v. 15. Either, ‘Do not contend against divorce on the ground that, if you remain, you may convert your heathen partner; for how do you know that you will do that?’ Or (going back to μὴ ἀφιέτω in 13, 14, and treating 15 as a rare exception to the almost universal rule), ‘Avoid divorce, for it is possible—you never know—that you will convert your heathen partner.’ This latter interpretation involves the rendering, ‘How knowest thou whether thou wilt not save?’ See the LXX of Est 4:14; Joe 2:14; Jon 3:9; 2Sa 12:22. On the ground that these four passages express a hope rather than a doubt, Lightfoot prefers the interpretation that the chance of saving the unbelieving partner is “worth any temporal inconvenience.” So also Findlay. But the other interpretation is probably right. The sequence of thought is then quite clear. ‘If the unbeliever demands divorce, grant it: you are not bound to refuse. If you refuse, you will have no peace. The chance of converting your heathen spouse is too small a compensation for a strained and disturbed life, in which Christian serenity will be impossible.’ To call the latter “temporal inconvenience” is a serious understatement. See Stanley. For σώζειν see Rom 11:14; 1Ti 4:16; and for the history of the idea, Hastings, DB. IV. pp. 360 f.; DCG. II. P. 556. The εἰ μή (v. 17) is almost decisive for this view.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.