Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:13
And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
13. let her not leave him ] The word here is the same which in the last verse is translated ‘ put away.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Let her not leave him – A change of phraseology from the last verse, to suit the circumstances. The wife did not have power to put away the husband, and expel him from his own home; but she might think it her duty to be separated from him. The apostle counsels her not to do this; and this advice should still be followed. She should still love her husband and seek his welfare; she should be still a kind, affectionate, and faithful wife; and all the more so that she may show him the excellence of religion, and win him to love it. She should even bear much, and bear it long; nor should she leave him unless her life is rendered miserable, or in danger; or unless he wholly neglects to make provision for her, and leaves her to suffering, to want, and to tears. In such a case no precept of religion forbids her to return to her fathers house, or to seek a place of safety and of comfort. But even then it is not to be a separation on account of a difference of religious sentiment, but for brutal treatment. Even then the marriage tie is not dissolved, and neither party is at liberty to marry again.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 13. And the woman] Converted from heathenism to the Christian faith; which hath a husband, who still abides in heathenism; if he be pleased to dwell with her, notwithstanding she has become a Christian since their marriage; let her not leave him because he still continues a heathen.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Sanctifying, in holy writ, generally signifieth the separation or setting apart of a person or thing from a common, to and for a holy use, whether it be by some external rites and ceremonies, or by the infusing of some inward spiritual habits. In this place it seemeth to have a different sense from what it usually hath in holy writ; for it can neither signify the sanctification of the person by infused habits of grace; for neither is the unbelieving husband thus sanctified by the believing wife, neither is the unbelieving wife thus sanctified by the believing husband; nor are either of them thus set apart for the service of God by any legal rites: which hath made a great difference in the notions of interpreters, how the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, or the unbelieving wife, by the believing husband. Some think it signifies no more than prepared for God, as sanctified signifies, Isa 13:3. Others think they are sanctified by a moral denomination. I rather think it signifies, brought into such a state, that the believer, without offence to the law of God, may continue in a married estate with such a yoke-fellow; and the state of marriage is a holy state, notwithstanding the disparity with reference to religion.
Else were your children unclean; otherwise, he saith, the children begotten and born of such parents would be unclean, in the same state that the children of pagan parents are without the church, not within the covenant, not under the promise. In one sense all children are unclean, i.e. children of wrath, born in sin, and brought forth in iniquity; but all are not in this sense unclean, some are within the covenant of grace, within the church, capable of baptism.
But now are they holy; these are those that are called holy; not as inwardly renewed and sanctified, but relatively, in the same sense that all the Jewish nation are called a holy people: and possibly this may give us a further light to understand the term sanctifed, in the former part of the verse. The unbelieving husband is so far sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife so far sanctified by the believing husband, that as they may lawfully continue in their married relation, and live together as man and wife, so the issue coming from them both shall be by God counted in covenant with him, and have a right to baptism, which is one of the seals of that covenant, as well as those children both whose parents are believers.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. the womana believer.
let her not leave him“herhusband,” instead of “him,” is the reading of theoldest manuscripts The Greek for “leave” is the sameas in 1Co 7:12, “putaway”; translate, “Let her not put away [that is,part with] her husband.” The wife had the power of effecting adivorce by Greek and Roman law.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth,…. The apostle puts the case both ways, there being the same reason for one as for another; that if she that was a sister, who was partaker of the grace of God, and a member of the church, had a husband to whom she was married before her conversion; who was an unbeliever, had no faith in Christ, nor any notion of the Gospel, but an infidel to both:
and if he be pleased to dwell with her; loves her, and is willing to continue with her; neither puts her away from him, nor departs from her on account of her Christianity:
let her not leave him; but continue, and cohabit with him as man and wife; this is the advice the apostle gives, as agreeably to the light of nature and reason; as becoming the Gospel of Christ, and as what might serve to recommend it, and spread the knowledge of it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Which hath an unbelieving husband ( ). Relative clause here, while a conditional one in verse 12 ( , if any one). Paul is perfectly fair in stating both sides of the problem of mixed marriages.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) And the woman that hath a husband that believeth not. (kai gune hetis echei andra apiston)
also a wife (believing) who has an husband who is unbelieving or unsaved.
\
2) And if he be pleased to dwell with her. (kai (if) houtos suneudokei oikein met autes) and if this husband be willing, consents, or is pleased to dwell with her.
3) Let her not leave him. (me aphieto ton andra) Let her not leave, desert, or put him away. Christianity, in reaching homes of unsaved parents, does not design to divide social and domestic ties of husbands and wives, but to strengthen these ties, Eph 6:1-4.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(13) Let her not leave him.Better, let her not put him away; the Greek being the same as is applied to the husband in 1Co. 7:12. Under Roman lawand St. Paul was writing to those who were under such lawthe wife, as well as the husband, was permitted to obtain a divorce. It is therefore probable that St. Paul uses the stronger term here in reference to the womans action in the matter, instead of repeating the same word as in 1Co. 7:10. Some have suggested that the reason St. Paul applies this word to the action of the woman in the matter is that, in the case under consideration, the fact of the wife being a Christian inverts, in St. Pauls opinion, the natural order, and makes her the superior. This is wholly inadmissible, and quite contrary to St. Pauls view of the absolute superiority of the | husband. (See 1Co. 11:3; Eph. 5:22; 1Ti. 2:11.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1Co 7:13. Let her not leave him The Greek word being the same both in this and the 12th verse, though it be rendered put away in that, and leave in this, and being directed both to the man and woman, seems to intimate the same power and same act of dismissing in both; and consequently it should have been rendered put away in both places. See Locke and Doddridge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 7:13 . ] a common turn of expression (instead of . . [1114] ) in connection with . See on Luk 10:8 and Khner II. p. 526.
. ] let her not put away her husband , not send him from her. To translate otherwise (let her not leave him) is, in view of 1Co 7:12 , altogether arbitrary. The Vulgate renders correctly: “non dimittat virum.” The apparent unsuitableness of the expression is happily explained by Bengel (on 1Co 7:10 ): “ Separatur pars ignobilior, mulier; dimittit nobilior, vir; inde conversa ratione etiam mulier fidelis dicitur dimittere , et vir infidelis separari , 1Co 7:13 ; 1Co 7:15 .” In the mixed marriage Paul regards the Christian partner, even when it is the wife, as the one who, for the sake of Christianity, would have to send away the non-believer, were this in accordance with Christian principles. But these do not permit of it, and so the Christian wife is not to send away the non-believing husband, if he is willing to dwell with her; that would be on her part a presumptuous violation of duty. Comp Harless, Ehescheidungsfr . p. 85. This view of the apostle’s has no connection with the right conceded even to wives among the Greeks and Romans of divorcing themselves from their husbands (loose principles on this subject were held also among the Rabbins; see Lightfoot, Hor. p. 191). But certainly Paul did not regard the Christian partner in a mixed marriage as the one who was to rule in general (in opposition to Olshausen); the head in every marriage, if it was to continue at all, was, in his view, according to Gen 3:16 , the husband . 1Co 11:3 ; 1Co 14:34 ; Eph 5:22 ; Col 3:18 ; 1Ti 2:11 f.
[1114] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
Ver. 13. If he be pleased, &c. ] If he blaspheme not Christ, force her not to deny the faith, &c., as that king of Denmark that would have compelled his wife to go to mass, who was therefore forced to flee for her life to her brother the elector of Brandenburg (as Luther relateth,) where she died Christianly.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
13 .] The change of construction , is found frequently with : so Il. . 78, , | . See reff., and Khner, ii. 526 ( 799).
Meyer remarks, that the Apostle uses the vox media here, of both parties , the husband and wife, not (as Mat 5:31 , &c.), which would apply only to the husband. In the E. V. this identity of terms is unfortunately neglected. The same word, part from , would well have expressed in both cases.
By the Greek as well as Roman customs the wife had the power of effecting a divorce . At Athens, when the divorce originated with the wife, she was said the house of her husband: when with the husband, . At Rome, the only exception to the wife’s liberty of effecting a divorce appears to have been in the case of a freedwoman who had married her patronus. See Smith’s Dict, of Gr. and Rom. Antt. artt. Divortium, and . Olsh. thinks that Paul puts both alternatives, because he regards the Christian party as the superior one in the marriage. But, as Meyer remarks, this would be inconsistent with the fundamental law of marriage, Gen 3:16 , and with the Apostle’s own view of it, ch. 1Co 11:3 , 1Co 14:34 ; Eph 5:22-23 ; 1Ti 2:11-12 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
an husband, &c. = an unbelieving (as in 1Co 7:12) husband.
if. Omit.
leave. Greek. aphiemi, as in 1Co 7:11. The same tense and voice, and should therefore be rendered “send away”. The absolutely equal rights of husband and wife are insisted on throughout the chapter. See verses: 1Co 7:3, 1Co 7:5, &c.
him. All the texts read “her husband”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
13.] The change of construction , is found frequently with : so Il. . 78, , | . See reff., and Khner, ii. 526 ( 799).
Meyer remarks, that the Apostle uses the vox media here, of both parties, the husband and wife, not (as Mat 5:31, &c.), which would apply only to the husband. In the E. V. this identity of terms is unfortunately neglected. The same word, part from, would well have expressed in both cases.
By the Greek as well as Roman customs the wife had the power of effecting a divorce. At Athens,-when the divorce originated with the wife, she was said the house of her husband: when with the husband, . At Rome, the only exception to the wifes liberty of effecting a divorce appears to have been in the case of a freedwoman who had married her patronus. See Smiths Dict, of Gr. and Rom. Antt. artt. Divortium, and . Olsh. thinks that Paul puts both alternatives, because he regards the Christian party as the superior one in the marriage. But, as Meyer remarks, this would be inconsistent with the fundamental law of marriage, Gen 3:16, and with the Apostles own view of it, ch. 1Co 11:3, 1Co 14:34; Eph 5:22-23; 1Ti 2:11-12.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 7:13. , the woman) a sister.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 7:13
1Co 7:13
And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.-The same law applies to husband and wife alike; but it seems to me if it had been anticipated that believers would marry unbelievers such provisions would not have been made for separation when one becomes a believer after marriage.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Reciprocal: Ezr 10:3 – let it
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 7:13. This takes the same comments as the preceding verse.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.