Explain 1 Cor 7:16 purpose

[bm69]

By ‘must remain chaste’ I am trying to say they can only have sex with their spouse. It’s the closest single word to celibate with the exception of their spouse. In trying to find a simple word, it seemed the most appropriate in the context of a marital situation. The Lord says in v11, “she must remain unmarried” which in today’s language is probably closer to saying she must remain chaste - no sex except her husband. This applies equally to the husband of course w.r.t. his wife. Today people are ‘hooking up’, etc, so I am trying to be more accurate.

 

[bm69]

Again, I’m not discussing Church laws, etc. I’m simply looking at the scripture as Paul communicated it.

What is v16’s purpose in the context of v12-16, especially v15?

 

[JGD]

so, are you saying that because your version says ‘wife/husband’ in v16 and only ‘partner’ in v15 that only verses that use ‘wife/husband’ are related (eg. 14 and 16) and therefor since v15 uses ‘partner’ v16 can’t be related to 15 and must be related to 14 only?

Thanks for the Douay translation of those verses; caused me to check the Greek, and, as always, Douay has a better literal translation. (no separate word “partner” in the Greek; just “unbelieving/er”.)

In vs 15 Paul does specifically refer to the abandoned Christian spouse as “brother” or “sister” (title among fellow believers) and no longer uses “husband or wife” as the identifying title.

From your opening post that I was focusing on:

What is v16 saying? What does it mean? Why is it here? Is it unnecessary or does it clarify the previous verses?

Verse 16 isn’t there to clarify verse 15. It’s there to emphasize what he said in verses 12, 13, & 14 - giving yet another benefit that could come from the believer remaining with the unbeliever.

(Personal thought): It’s like a speaker who ends his discourse on a topic by having the last sentence summarize and/or express what he most wants people to remember.

If the act of letting the non-Christian husband (or wife) leave unbinds the Christian from their marriage is part of some plan to ‘save’ the non-Christian, then the sentiments …

It’s not part of a plan to ‘save’, but for the sake of peace to which God calls us. (vs.15 ….“But God hath called us in peace.”)

 

[bm69]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you’re taking the position that v16 isn’t a continuation of the specific scenario of v15, but rather is a concluding sentence for, say v12-15. In other words, you’re saying that v16 is just the concluding sentence for the topic of ‘should a new Christian separate (willingly or unwillingly) from her NB husband?’

While I’m not sure I am satisfied with that conclusion, I do want to know if that’s the answer you’re going with here. Have I summarized it accurately?

 

[JGD]

Yes, that is essentially how I understand the vs. 12-16 section. And, in v.16, Paul ends that teaching on mixed marriages with the strongest reason for remaining in a mixed marriage – the Christian could be instrumental in saving his/her spouse.

 

[bm69]

[12] For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.
[15] But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.
[16] For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

OK, first, I have to make a large technical correction. I have been referring in some of my comments to v14 in the context of 15 and 16. When I did this, I should have been talking about v12&13. I was thinking 16 is the ‘hope’ verse, 15 was the ‘NB leaves’ verse and 14 was the ‘NB stays’ verse. I apologize for the confusion. So if I said v14, I probably meant v12&13.

The structure is basically:
12 - NB wife stays
13 - NB husband stays (mirror of 12)
…14 - sub comment about children as it relates to ‘staying’ in 12 and 13
15 - NB leaves
16 - B spousal act might save NB

So two of the thoughts put forward to support the PP would be to either swap 15 and 16 or not have 16 at all, which would look like these:

12 - NB wife stays
13 - NB husband stays (mirror of 12)
…14 - sub comment about children as it relates to ‘staying’ in 12 and 13
16 - B spousal act might save NB
15 - NB leaves

This links the spousal act to the staying scenario and leaves the leaving scenario to stand in complete contrast.

12 - NB wife stays
13 - NB husband stays (mirror of 12)
…14 - sub comment about children as it relates to ‘staying’ in 12 and 13
15 - NB leaves

This is clear because it says, if stays, then stay; if leaves, then let him leave. Although this wouldn’t state the B could remarry specifically (would have been clearer if it did), it is more conducive to the idea of the B who’s NB leaves being free to remarry.

 

[bm69]

BTW, here’s another thought. In (the actual v14), Paul talks about the staying NB and B (v12&13), because they’ve stayed, having their children sanctified by this arrangement otherwise they would be ‘unclean’. So the question is, what would Paul then say by inference about their children in the NB who leaves scenario. Would they remain unclean if the B remarried?

[12] For to the rest I speak, not the Lord. If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
[13] And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband.
[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.

Or would the children be holy regardless because of the B, even in the scenario where their parent leaves?

Would the the NB husband still be sanctified by the B wife if the husband leaves?

And what does that mean for the children because Paul clearly states that the children’s unclean or holy state somehow derives from this sanctification that flows from v12&13 - the stay together scenario?