Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 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?
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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, Gods 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The apostle having before determined the lawfulness of a Christian husbands or wifes 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. What knowest thou but thatby staying with thy unbelieving partner thou mayest save him or her?Enforcing the precept to stay with the unbelieving consort (1Co7:12-14). So Ruth the Moabitess became a convert to her husband’sfaith: and Joseph and Moses probably gained over their wives. Soconversely the unbelieving husband may be won by the believing wife(1Pe 3:1) [CALVIN].Or else (1Co 7:15), if thyunbelieving consort wishes to depart, let him go, so that thou mayestlive “in peace”: for thou canst not be sure ofconverting him, so as to make it obligatory on thee at all coststo stay with him against his will [MENOCHIUSand ALFORD].
savebe the instrumentof salvation to (Jas 5:20).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For how knowest thou? ( ;). But what does Paul mean? Is he giving an argument against the believer accepting divorce or in favour of doing so? The syntax allows either interpretation with (if) after . Is the idea in (if) hope of saving the other or fear of not saving and hence peril in continuing the slavery of such a bondage? The latter idea probably suits the context best and is adopted by most commentators. And yet one hesitates to interpret Paul as advocating divorce unless strongly insisted on by the unbeliever. There is no problem at all unless the unbeliever makes it. If it is a hopeless case, acquiescence is the only wise solution. But surely the believer ought to be sure that there is no hope before he agrees to break the bond. Paul raises the problem of the wife first as in verse 10.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) For what knowest thou, 0 wife. (ti gar oidas, gunai) For what do you know, 0 believing wife. You know not what fruit your sowing of good seed faithfully may bear. Ecc 11:6.
2) Whether thou shalt save thy husband. (ei ton andra soseis); if thy unbelieving husband thou mayest save? Obedience of a Christian wife to an unsaved husband may be used of God to turn him to Christ, 1Pe 3:1-6.
3) Or how knowest thou, 0 man. (he ti aidas, aner) or what knowest thou 0 believing husband, (brother).
4) Whether thou shalt save thy wife? (ei ten gunaika soseis) If thy own unbelieving wife thou mayest save? 1Pe 3:7-8; Eph 5:25; Eph 5:28.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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 (1Co 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 (1Pe 3:1) bring back her husband into the way, (404) 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.
(404) “ Au bon chemin;” — “Into the good way.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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 unbelievers 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 convictionsabout which you cannot know anything, but only at most vaguely speculatecause 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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 7:16-17. For what knowest thou, &c. Continue with your infidel spouses who are willing to dwell with you; for how knowest thou, O Christian wife, whether thou shalt convert thy husband, (see 1Pe 3:1.) and how knowest thou, O Christian husband, whether thou shalt convert thy wife, if thou continue with her. But, though this should not be the case, yet as God hath distributed to every one his lot, and in the state wherein the Lord Christ hath called every one, so let him continue,fulfillingthedutiesthereof,unlesshecanchangehiscondition lawfully. And so in all the churches I ordain.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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 in the sense of (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. , Theodoret. That is to say, they find in . . [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, Rckert, 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 . . [1142] is contrary to the context. With respect again to taking as equivalent to , it is perfectly true that , following upon the notion of uncertainty, may answer in meaning to ) Thuc. ii. 53. 2; Krger, 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 , to which the proposed rendering of the would run counter. [1143] Moreover, this use of is foreign to the N. T., often though it occurs in the classics (see especially Khner, a [1144] Xen. Mem. i. 1. 8, Anab. iii. 2. 22).
] 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 , , Xen. Hier. i. 15. Regarding the future , comp Stallbaum, a [1147] Gorg. p. 249; Klotz, a [1148] Devar. p. 508.
[1140] . . . .
[1141] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1142] . . . .
[1143] A limitation of the , and that, too, of a quite general sort, comes in only with the . . . 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.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 1960
THE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY RELIGION
1Co 7:16. What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
WE, who live under laws generally known and acknowledged, have little conception what difficulties arose to the Church in the apostolic age, from the licentious habits of many upon their first conversion to Christianity. Those who had been brought up as heathens saw no evil in concubinage: and those who had been educated as Jews imagined that they were still at liberty to put away those with whom they had been united in the bonds of matrimony. In some respects, the very habits and ordinances of pious men amongst the Jews tended to confirm the Christian converts in their errors. They were not aware, that some things were tolerated among the Jews, and, on some particular occasions, even enjoined, which yet were positively forbidden by the Christian code. It will be remembered, that, after the Babylonish Captivity, many of the Jews who had returned to Canaan took wives of the people of the land, and thereby greatly provoked the Lord to anger. On that occasion, Ezra commanded all of them to put away their wives and children [Note: Ezr 9:2-4; Ezr 10:2; Ezr 10:10-11; Ezr 10:44.]. Hence, when persons had been converted to Christianity, a doubt arose in their minds, whether they were not bound, or at least authorised, to separate themselves from their unbelieving partners. This case had been stated to the Apostle, for his opinion respecting it: and he, by Gods special command, forbad any such measure. Even if a person, being a Christian, had so far forgot his duty to God as to connect himself in marriage with an unconverted person, he was not at liberty to divorce her from him; but he must exert himself to the uttermost to effect the conversion of his unbelieving partner. This was the line prescribed equally to all, whether men or women: and agreeably to that rule they were all bound to conduct themselves, whatever difficulties might lie in their way.
The words thus explained will lead me to shew you,
I.
The duty of persons in wedded life
Persons once brought into a marriage union should from thenceforth live, as it were, altogether for each other, even as the Lord Jesus Christ is incessantly occupied in promoting the welfare of his Church: and, as the Church is ever seeking to advance the honour of her divine Head, each should seek continually the others salvation
[If there be a oneness of sentiment between the parties, this will be easy. But whatever diversity of sentiment there may be between them, the duty is still the same; and it should be performed with unremitting diligence. It is not to be supposed that such unions will often be found, as existed frequently in the primitive Church, when, through the conversion of one party to the Christian faith, light and darkness, Christ and Belial, a believer and an infidel, were joined together. But between Christians, as converted to Christ or yet in a state of unregeneracy, there is scarcely a less difference than between persons of different religions. And this difference exists to a great extent wherever the Gospel is preached in sincerity and truth; and the duty of each party is then precisely the same as that which bound the converts from Judaism or idolatry to their unconverted partners. The utmost possible forbearance was to be exercised towards the person who was yet under the power of heathen darkness or Jewish superstition: and so should it be towards one who is yet in bondage to the world; and who, perhaps, is irritated and enraged at the change that has been wrought in the mind of his dearest companion. Great allowance should be made for him. We must not expect him to see with our eyes: and, if he express grief or vexation at our conduct, we must consider how we should have felt, if the change had been wrought in him, and we had yet continued under our former blindness. Grateful to God for the mercy vouchsafed to us, we should implore the same in his behalf: yea, we should labour earnestly in prayer for him night and day, that God may open his eyes, and impart to him the salvation which we have experienced. We should remember, that the change has been wrought in us; and that therefore there is, so to speak, a ground for complaint on his side, who still retains his former sentiments and habits: and we must be prepared to endure unkindness from him, on whom we have inflicted so deep a wound. We must possess our souls in patience; and labour, by meekness and by love, to win him, whose heart has never submitted to the preached word [Note: 1Pe 3:1.].]
To this the most distant prospect of success should be a sufficient inducement
[Whatever the state of our partner may be, God is able to effect a change: there is nothing impossible with him: he can quicken the dead, and call forth into existence that which had no being. And great beyond conception is the power of prayer. The person that continues instant in prayer is almost sure to succeed at last. And what if success should be granted, even though it were after years of suffering and of supplication? would not that be a very abundant recompence for all? Yes: years of labour would be well repaid by such an issue. And how knowest thou, O husband, or O wife, whether this shall not be the issue of thy prayers? How knowest thou, whether thou shalt not be the happy instrument of saving thine unbelieving partner? Surely a mere possibility of such an event should be sufficient to call forth our utmost endeavours; and we should with patient perseverance hold on to the end, instructing in meekness him that opposes us, if God peradventure may give him repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and he may at last recover himself out of the snare of the devil, by whom he has been led captive at his will [Note: 2Ti 2:25-26.].]
But the questions need not be restricted to those in wedded life: they shew us equally,
II.
The duty of persons, in whatever relation they may stand to each other
Manifold are the relations of civil and social life; and in all of them, the same concern for the salvation of others becomes us. Such is our duty,
1.
In our own families
[A person at the head of a family should consider all under his roof as committed to his care, to be brought up for God. It was said by God himself, with special approbation, respecting Abraham, I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, that they shall keep the way of the Lord [Note: Gen 18:19.]. The same attention will he approve in us also: and the more we know of the evil of the heart, and of the danger of dying in an unconverted state, the more earnest should we be in the performance of this duty. And what if we be successful in one single instance; will it not richly repay all the labour we can bestow on this good work? Even as it respects this present life, what a bond of union exists between a man and his spiritual offspring! What sweet counsel they take with each other, when going to the house of God as friends, or in the more retired intercourse of domestic life! But, if we take eternity into the account, what shall we then say? Think of saving an immortal soul! What an honour! what a joy! O cease not, any of you, from this good work; but go on steadily, with much patience, much forbearance, much earnestness, if by any means you may be honoured with turning one soul from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan unto God.]
2.
In the Church of God
[The Church is one great family; amongst whom there is yet very ample occasion for mutual forbearance, and for mutual aid. All who believe in Christ are, in fact, one body; and every member should take a deep interest in the welfare of the whole. It is to be lamented, that, even in the apostolic age, there were divisions and bitter animosities amongst those who ought to have been united in the bonds of brotherly affection: and so it is at this time. Many, because of a diversity of sentiment on some points, and frequently on points of inferior importance, are really separated from one another more widely than from the unconverted world. But such a disposition ill becomes the family of which Christ is the Head. We should all have but one object in view; and labour with incessant care so to watch over each other: and we should become all things to all men, if by any means we may save some [Note: 1Co 9:20-22.] ]
3.
In the world at large
[Wherever there is an immortal soul, there should be an object of our care and love. We should not ask, in reference to any human being, Am I my brothers keeper? We all have a debt of love, which we should be paying to every child of man. Especially should we be concerned for the salvation of their souls, and be using all the means in our power to advance it. The unconverted heathen, the unbelieving Jew, and the scoffing infidel, should be objects of our tenderest compassion, as should also be the careless and ungodly all around us; and, both by secret prayer and benevolent efforts, of whatever kind, we should seek their salvation. And what if we be the means of saving one single soul? Verily I say to you, that we shall cause all heaven to rejoice: for there is joy among the angels in the presence of God over one sinner that repenteth. Know ye this, brethren; know, that whoso converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins [Note: Jam 5:19-20.]. Shall not such a prospect stimulate us to exertion? You will say, you are not sure to succeed in your efforts. True: but are you sure that you shall not succeed? How knowest thou, O man, what God shall be pleased to effect by thy means? Thou mayest be among the weakest of the people; yet that should not discourage thee: for God delights to honour those who honour him; and he will perfect his own strength in thy weakness. But, at all events, if we should fail in doing good to others, shall none accrue to ourselves? This cannot be: for God will reward every man according to his own labour [Note: 1Co 3:8.]; and he who watered others, shall be watered also himself.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16 .] This verse is generally understood as a ground for remaining united , as 1Co 7:13 , in hope that conversion of the unbelieving party may follow. Thus 1Co 7:15 is regarded as altogether parenthetical. But (1) this interpretation is harsh as regards the context, for 1Co 7:15 is evidently not parenthetical , and (2) it is hardly grammatically admissible (see below, for it makes = , ‘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. thus preserves its strict sense, What knowest thou (about the question) whether .? and the verse coheres with the words immediately preceding, . .
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 , and , 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 for , attempt to justify it by reff. 2 Kings, Joel, Jonah, where the LXX have for the Heb. , , 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., ( [19] [20] [21] : add [22] [23] 3 ) , (add [24] [25] [26] [27] ) ;
[19] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 : as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50 , to , Joh 8:52 . It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria; it does not, however, in the Gospels , represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century .
[20] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle; it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon; nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as ‘Verc’): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are (1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as ‘Blc’); (2) that of Birch (‘Bch’), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798, Apocalypse, 1800, Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (‘Btly’), by the Abbate Mico, published in Ford’s Appendix to Woide’s edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus’ Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentley’s books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (‘Rl’), and are preserved amongst Bentley’s papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20) 1 . The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgon’s “Letters from Rome,” London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).
[21] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .
[22] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 : as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50 , to , Joh 8:52 . It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria; it does not, however, in the Gospels , represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century .
[23] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .
[24] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 : as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50 , to , Joh 8:52 . It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria; it does not, however, in the Gospels , represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century .
[25] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle; it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon; nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as ‘Verc’): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are (1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as ‘Blc’); (2) that of Birch (‘Bch’), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798, Apocalypse, 1800, Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (‘Btly’), by the Abbate Mico, published in Ford’s Appendix to Woide’s edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus’ Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentley’s books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (‘Rl’), and are preserved amongst Bentley’s papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20) 1 . The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgon’s “Letters from Rome,” London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).
[26] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments 2 . It seems to have come to France with Catherine de’ Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de’ Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C 3 ) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople 3 . But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text, holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century . Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C 2 , C 3 .
[27] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century . The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr 1 ; B (cited as 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1 , it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that C a altered it to that which is found in our text; C b (cited as 3b ) lived about the same time as C a , i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here 6 .
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 1Co 7:15 , and of the expression (not , but) ; 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.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
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 in this connexion (see parls.), after 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 sententi: 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] ). ; 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 Erklrung 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 Homili ( 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 .
[1065] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[1066]
[1067] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[1068] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung 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. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[1073] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1074] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
knowest. App-132.
whether = if. App-118.
man = husband, as above. Here are the Figures of speech Antimetathesis and Apostrophe. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] This verse is generally understood as a ground for remaining united, as 1Co 7:13, in hope that conversion of the unbelieving party may follow. Thus 1Co 7:15 is regarded as altogether parenthetical. But (1) this interpretation is harsh as regards the context, for 1Co 7:15 is evidently not parenthetical,-and (2) it is hardly grammatically admissible (see below, for it makes = ,-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 Christians peace for so uncertain a prospect as that of converting the unbelieving party. thus preserves its strict sense, What knowest thou (about the question) whether.? and the verse coheres with the words immediately preceding, . .
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 , and , 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 for , attempt to justify it by reff. 2 Kings, Joel, Jonah, where the LXX have for the Heb. , , 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., ( [19] [20] [21]: add [22] [23]3) , (add [24] [25] [26] [27]) ;
[19] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 :-as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50,-to , Joh 8:52. It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria;-it does not, however, in the Gospels, represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century.
[20] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle;-it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon;-nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as Verc): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are-(1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as Blc); (2) that of Birch (Bch), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798,-Apocalypse, 1800,-Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (Btly), by the Abbate Mico,-published in Fords Appendix to Woides edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentleys books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (Rl), and are preserved amongst Bentleys papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20)1. The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgons Letters from Rome, London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).
[21] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.
[22] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 :-as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50,-to , Joh 8:52. It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria;-it does not, however, in the Gospels, represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century.
[23] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.
[24] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628 presented it to our King Charles I. It is now in the British Museum. It is on parchment in four volumes, of which three contain the Old, and one the New Testament, with the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. This fourth volume is exhibited open in a glass case. It will be seen by the letters in the inner margin of this edition, that the first 24 chapters of Matthew are wanting in it, its first leaf commencing , ch. Mat 25:6 :-as also the leaves containing , Joh 6:50,-to , Joh 8:52. It is generally agreed that it was written at Alexandria;-it does not, however, in the Gospels, represent that commonly known as the Alexandrine text, but approaches much more nearly to the Constantinopolitan, or generally received text. The New Testament, according to its text, was edited, in uncial types cast to imitate those of the MS., by Woide, London, 1786, the Old Testament by Baber, London, 1819: and its N.T. text has now been edited in common type by Mr. B. H. Cowper, London, 1861. The date of this MS. has been variously assigned, but it is now pretty generally agreed to be the fifth century.
[25] The CODEX VATICANUS, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library at Rome; and proved, by the old catalogues, to have been there from the foundation of the library in the 16th century. It was apparently, from internal evidence, copied in Egypt. It is on vellum, and contains the Old and New Testaments. In the latter, it is deficient from Heb 9:14 to the end of the Epistle;-it does not contain the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon;-nor the Apocalypse. An edition of this celebrated codex, undertaken as long ago as 1828 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, has since his death been published at Rome. The defects of this edition are such, that it can hardly be ranked higher in usefulness than a tolerably complete collation, entirely untrustworthy in those places where it differs from former collations in representing the MS. as agreeing with the received text. An 8vo edition of the N.T. portion, newly revised by Vercellone, was published at Rome in 1859 (referred to as Verc): and of course superseded the English reprint of the 1st edition. Even in this 2nd edition there were imperfections which rendered it necessary to have recourse to the MS. itself, and to the partial collations made in former times. These are-(1) that of Bartolocci (under the name of Giulio de St. Anastasia), once librarian at the Vatican, made in 1669, and preserved in manuscript in the Imperial Library (MSS. Gr. Suppl. 53) at Paris (referred to as Blc); (2) that of Birch (Bch), published in various readings to the Acts and Epistles, Copenhagen, 1798,-Apocalypse, 1800,-Gospels, 1801; (3) that made for the great Bentley (Btly), by the Abbate Mico,-published in Fords Appendix to Woides edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, 1799 (it was made on the margin of a copy of Cephalus Greek Testament, Argentorati, 1524, still amongst Bentleys books in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge); (4) notes of alterations by the original scribe and other correctors. These notes were procured for Bentley by the Abb de Stosch, and were till lately supposed to be lost. They were made by the Abbate Rulotta (Rl), and are preserved amongst Bentleys papers in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (B. 17. 20)1. The Codex has been occasionally consulted for the verification of certain readings by Tregelles, Tischendorf, and others. A list of readings examined at Rome by the present editor (Feb. 1861), and by the Rev. E. C. Cure, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford (April 1862), will be found at the end of these prolegomena. A description, with an engraving from a photograph of a portion of a page, is given in Burgons Letters from Rome, London 1861. This most important MS. was probably written in the fourth century (Hug, Tischendorf, al.).
[26] The CODEX EPHRAEMI, preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris, MS. Gr. No. 9. It is a Codex rescriptus or palimpsest, consisting of the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over the MS. of extensive fragments of the Old and New Testaments2. It seems to have come to France with Catherine de Medici, and to her from Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi. Tischendorf thinks it probable that he got it from Andrew John Lascaris, who at the fall of the Eastern Empire was sent to the East by Lorenzo de Medici to preserve such MSS. as had escaped the ravages of the Turks. This is confirmed by the later corrections (C3) in the MS., which were evidently made at Constantinople3. But from the form of the letters, and other peculiarities, it is believed to have been written at Alexandria, or at all events, where the Alexandrine dialect and method of writing prevailed. Its text is perhaps the purest example of the Alexandrine text,-holding a place about midway between the Constantinopolitan MSS. and most of those of the Alexandrine recension. It was edited very handsomely in uncial type, with copious dissertations, &c., by Tischendorf, in 1843. He assigns to it an age at least equal to A, and places it also in the fifth century. Corrections were written in, apparently in the sixth and ninth centuries: these are respectively cited as C2, C3.
[27] The CODEX SINAITICUS. Procured by Tischendorf, in 1859, from the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipsic), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Ep. of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer. A magnificent edition prepared at the expense of the Emperor of Russia appeared in January, 1863, and a smaller edition containing the N.T. &c., has been published by Dr. Tischendorf. The MS. has four columns on a page, and has been altered by several different correctors, one or more of whom Tischendorf considers to have lived in the sixth century. The work of the original scribe has been examined, not only by Tischendorf, but by Tregelles and other competent judges, and is by them assigned to the fourth century. The internal character of the text agrees with the external, as the student may judge for himself from the readings given in the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are:-A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us -corr1; B (cited as 2), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; Ca (cited as 3a) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading is cited as found in 1, it is to be understood, if no further statement is given, that Ca altered it to that which is found in our text; Cb (cited as 3b) lived about the same time as Ca, i.e. some centuries later than the original scribe. These are all that we need notice here6.
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 husbands conversion? Or what assurance hast thou, O husband, whether thou shalt be the means of thy wifes conversion? This interpretation is the only one compatible with the obvious sense of 1Co 7:15, and of the expression (not , but) ; and is also in exact harmony with the general tenor of the Apostles 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.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 7:16. , 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.–, husband, wife) averse from thee, and therefore from the faith.-, thou shalt save) The one consort ought to lead, as far as possible, the other consort to salvation.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 7:16
1Co 7:16
For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?-If the unbelieving husband so will, the Christian wife must live with him because it is possible that she may be able to save him. In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives; beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear. (1Pe 3:1-2).
or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?-The unbelieving wife may often be won by the godly behavior of the husband. When a believer finds him or herself with an unbeliever, instead of seeking a separation, the believer should live in peace and seek by a godly behavior to win the unbelieving companion to Christ.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
save
(See Scofield “Rom 1:16”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
O wife: 1Co 9:22, Pro 11:30, Luk 15:10, 1Ti 4:16, Jam 5:19, Jam 5:20, 1Pe 3:1, 1Pe 3:2
how: Gr. what
Reciprocal: Mic 6:8 – O man Rom 2:1 – O man Rom 9:20 – O man Rom 11:14 – by 1Co 9:19 – that
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 7:16. The preceding verse was rather a break into the line of thought being set forth in 1Co 7:14. In that Paul was showing that a believing husband or wife need not break up their marriage on account of the unbelief of the other; that the morality of the marriage was not affected by the unbelief of one of them. The present verse continues the thought, and gives another reason why he should remain in the marriage, namely, he might be able to convert his partner. This idea is taught in 1Pe 3:1-2.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
1Co 7:16. A negative reason for the foregoing advice.
Thou will save: 1Co 9:22; see Rom 11:14.
Whether etc.: same phrase in LXX. as a ground of hope and motive for action, in Esther, Est 4:14; 2Sa 12:22; Joe 2:14; Jon 3:9. But that here it supports the foregoing permission to separate, is proved by 1Co 7:17 a, which gives an injunction not to change one’s position as an exception to the principle defended in 1Co 7:16. If it were certain that the enforced presence of the Christian would save the heathen consort, this certainty would justify the spiritual risk of the continued connection. But it was far from certain; and therefore not worth the risk involved. And separation did not imply an abandonment of any suitable efforts to save the separated one.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
It is possible that Paul meant Christians should not separate from their unbelieving spouses because by staying together the unbeliever may eventually become a Christian (cf. 1Pe 3:1). [Note: Barrett, p. 167.] He may have meant the believer should not oppose the unbeliever’s departing because he may become a Christian through channels other than the witness of the believing spouse. Both possibilities are realistic so even though we cannot tell exactly what the apostle meant here, what we should do is clear. The Christian can have hope that God may bring the unsaved spouse to salvation while the believer does the Lord’s will.
1Co 7:16 is a positive note on which to close instructions to Christians who have unsaved spouses.