"a woman's role"

[Windmill]

No the word means obey, for sure.

But the man is called to serve his wife- to give himself up for his wife.

So when the wife says: I want to move to Talsa. The husband must go: OK sweetie. I'm called to surrender myself to you, and so you must obey me and move to Talsa. And so the wife goes: Thanks hun for your great leadership.

However, the mans responsiblity is far too often overlooked in favour of the man being able to go I want to move to Talsa, then the wife saying OK sweetie, I'll obey you. She can say "OK but I don't want to move to Talsa." And then he should, according to the literal translation here, surrender his desires for hers and go "OK. We won't move to Talsa then." And then the wife needs to go "OK I'll obey you. Love you hun."

But people won't like that especially the men here who think the woman needs to submit and himself to lead with what he thinks is "best" (which is NEVER the way you were taught to "lead", you were taught to lead entirely selflessly, to put what your wife wants first, as Christ did) and then he must take some "responsiblity"? Such an idea is not Biblical, if you take it literally.

Woman is apparently required to submit everything: man is apparently not required to surrender everything! Hypocritical, dare I say it?

Thats the thing. Take both of these words to these extremes, and I can seriously argue based on the Greek that the man is required to serve his wife. But no, thats not the case because then that could mean you'd have to do way too much. Just like saying the wife is to obey (or to put it in nicer terms: be "subordinate") her husband could mean you'd have to do way too much. In fact, more emphasis is put on the males role here in explaining to him he is to be as self-sacrificing and selfless as Christ was to his wife. But this is taking it too far, but saying the wife is to always (except for moments where it would contradict what God wants) submit is not?

 

[Luther073082]

First of all inferior position and subordinate, we're dicing fine lines here. You have to remember the translator has just as much difficulty dicing up the individual words and how they would traslate to our language as we do. I think they are the same.

In ballroom dancing, physical strength and size are not required to lead.

Without going through all of that I'll just try to describe what I'm trying to say the best I can. Because I really don't belive I am disagreeing with the greek.

A man's responsibility as the leader (because the wife is asked to submit) is to make things the best he can for his wife & family. That is what it means when it says to love her as Christ loved the church. (BTW I never mentioned a protector role outside of ballroom dance, which the leader does have a protector role). And of course if he's trying to make things the best for her he does have to pay attention to her desires. (How else would he do so without knowing what she needs or wants. Its not like he can tell her what she wants)

The woman's role is to trust him to lead the family. (Lead not dictate)

To simply take the mention of church and therefore point this detailed description of how you're responsible for this and that and now responsible for your wives physical safety and responsible for if she "fails" to meet want you wanted her to do (for whatever reasons) well what? The point of that part was emphasising the the glory of Christs death. Besides, Christ did not send out commands to have the church become pure. It became pure and without blemish because of his sacrifices. He sacrificed for the good of the church, so that it might become that.

Isn't that what I just said?

It is the man's role to sacrifice as well as to lead. To put her needs and wants above his own needs and wants.

To me, it appears like you want to take the wife-obeys-the-husband to the max, but don't want to take the call of sacrifice to the max.

I'm sorry if you got that impression, but I think you need to go look at some of my previous posts. You can't take either one to a literal max. God would never have a wife go kill someone just cause her husband said so. Nor would he wish a wife who is being abused to stay in that situation.

Just as he would never have a husband starve himself for his wife's earrings.

On the flipside, if the husband wants to go and buy a car- should the wife disobey and hide their savings in a bank account before he goes and spends it on an extravagent car? Yes, or no?

I would say the two both need to fix their marriage.

The origional problem is that the husband is not doing whats best for his family or his wife. He's doing whats best for him. Again you can't seperate this from the fact that I keep trying to communicate that he's not suppose to do whats best for him, but to sacrifice himself and what he wants for his wife's needs and desires.

I'm not sure that hiding the money would be the best solution though. But make no mistake that I definatly belive the husband would be wrong to run out and buy a car for himself when his wife wants to save the money. The only exception would be is if it got extreme. If he has 5 billion dollars and gives her anything she wants then clearly it is ridiculous that she should stop him.

And if no: to what point must she obey to? And to what point must the husband sacrifice himself for his wife?

Like I said before thats what he should have done in the first place. Unless that is sufficently accomplished in which she would be absurd to tell him that he can not have anything.

But the man is called to serve his wife- to give himself up for his wife.

Have you missed all the times I've said "put her needs/wants ahead of his own?"

 

[Windmill]

First of all inferior position and subordinate, we're dicing fine lines here. You have to remember the translator has just as much difficulty dicing up the individual words and how they would traslate to our language as we do. I think they are the same.

In ballroom dancing, physical strength and size are not required to lead.

Without going through all of that I'll just try to describe what I'm trying to say the best I can. Because I really don't belive I am disagreeing with the greek.

A man's responsibility as the leader (because the wife is asked to submit) is to make things the best he can for his wife & family. That is what it means when it says to love her as Christ loved the church. (BTW I never mentioned a protector role outside of ballroom dance, which the leader does have a protector role). And of course if he's trying to make things the best for her he does have to pay attention to her desires. (How else would he do so without knowing what she needs or wants. Its not like he can tell her what she wants)

The woman's role is to trust him to lead the family. (Lead not dictate)



Isn't that what I just said?

It is the man's role to sacrifice as well as to lead. To put her needs and wants above his own needs and wants.



I'm sorry if you got that impression, but I think you need to go look at some of my previous posts. You can't take either one to a literal max. God would never have a wife go kill someone just cause her husband said so. Nor would he wish a wife who is being abused to stay in that situation.

Just as he would never have a husband starve himself for his wife's earrings.



I would say the two both need to fix their marriage.

The origional problem is that the husband is not doing whats best for his family or his wife. He's doing whats best for him. Again you can't seperate this from the fact that I keep trying to communicate that he's not suppose to do whats best for him, but to sacrifice himself and what he wants for his wife's needs and desires.

I'm not sure that hiding the money would be the best solution though. But make no mistake that I definatly belive the husband would be wrong to run out and buy a car for himself when his wife wants to save the money. The only exception would be is if it got extreme. If he has 5 billion dollars and gives her anything she wants then clearly it is ridiculous that she should stop him.



Like I said before thats what he should have done in the first place. Unless that is sufficently accomplished in which she would be absurd to tell him that he can not have anything.



Have you missed all the times I've said "put her needs/wants ahead of his own?"

What you have said though is you have indicated that you think the man should decide whether or not he should go without to not give his wife extravagant earings (answer is: no) and you have implied by not answering the question that the wife should have to go without to let her husband buy the car.

For it is wrong for the wife to hide their lifes savings but it is not wrong for the husband to do so.

Now how does this work?

You said to not take either to the extreme but you have not said to what extreme, however as shown here you take the females command to be more extreme than the males.

To this extent you should give your wife the earrings.

Your role of the leader is not in line with the Greek. All it talks about here is the man sacrificing himself for his wifes sake. It never mentions about deciding what is best for the church. What it says is that Christ died for the sake of the church. Therefore you are to die for the sake of your wife. It never said you got to decide when to sacrifice and when not too. In the same manner it never said to the wife when to not submit and when to.

How come the male gets control on when to give up himself for his wife but she gets a lot less?

 

[Luther073082]

How come the male gets control on when to give up himself for his wife but she gets a lot less?

He should always be giving of himself unless the required sacrifice reaches the level of absurdity. Its a constant state of mind of what you can do for her benefit.

Its not "I'm gonna get me the car this time cause thats what I *want* because I got her what she wanted the last 5 times." Its "geez my wife really wants those earrings, I should go them for her." OR it's "My wife wants those earrings so I'll get those and get myself a less expensive car."

The only time this changes is if it reaches absurdity. If he's thinking "Gosh my wife really wants those earrings but I havn't ate in 5 days. So I think I'm gonna buy some food this time." (But this is mostly because food is a need and not a want, while earrings are a want in any situation.)

The wife should always be letting him lead unless he becomes controlling, abusive, or ask that she engage in sin.

I think you are making too big of a deal out of the control issue. This should not be a control type of thing. Leaders don't control people. They move people to follow them due to trust. And leaders trust the people that they lead. (In other words I'm not talking about a marriage where only the man has the debit card and the checkbook.)

What I'm talking about is a communication of needs and wants. When one want conflicts with another want, the husband gives up his want. And if sadly one need conflicts with another need the husband gives up on his need. Leadership comes in with the details. The wife should communicate her peace as always. I belive proverbs says a man should listen to the council of his wife. However he would make the final decisions on these details and to try to keep a close eye that they are working out.

I don't want to legalize these things too much though. Advice is never ment to be legalized and diced up word for word and followed to an extreme. And that is true here as well. For example if I gave you the advise of "save your money" because it is good to save money. Would you take that advice to the extreme that you would stop eating and live in a van down by the river in order to save more money?? I should hope not, because that wouldn't be the intention. The intention would be to tell you to watch your spending and becareful about what you are buying. But literally it could be taken that you shouldn't buy anything.

Obviously both the idea of obedience and the idea of sacrifice can be taken to extremes. Asking a Christian woman to stop going to church is an extreme. (the problem with the article). Its also pitting the husband against God in her heart. Ipso facto God wins.

Sacrifice can also be taken to an extreme as well. Yes Christ loved the church so much that he died for her life, and most husbands would be willing to die for their wives if it was nessessary to protect their lives. But dying of starvation over a pair of earrings is a different manner.

What I'm trying to say is to just listen to it a bit to hear the message. Wives: let the guys sort of take charge of some things. Husbands, be willing and when necessary do give up of yourself for your wife.

 

[katautumn]

Jesus is Savior is a joke of a website filled with crazy conspiracy theories about September 11th and horrendous articles about women wearing pants, how women are supposed to act, etc. I would take anything they say with a huge grain of salt.

 

[Luther073082]

Jesus is Savior is a joke of a website filled with crazy conspiracy theories about September 11th and horrendous articles about women wearing pants, how women are supposed to act, etc. I would take anything they say with a huge grain of salt.

Yeah I immediatly noted that.

I'd qualify it in some ways as a hate site.

 

[Bootstrap]

Here's another take on the whole submission / mutual submission issue:

Worth Dying For
Rob Bell
Worth Dying For - Christian Singles Today

I don't always like Rob Bell, but I like this.

 

[akeng]

A particular sentence stood out to me in that link, I think there has been alot of focus on the man not leting the woman go to church but feminism boils down to this sentence "many American women today have spoiled brat attitudes that are driving their husbands away" I have seen a few marriages broken down by the spoiled brat mentality, im not saying men dont have there issues but feminism has gone way over the top on condoning this type of behavior in american woman. He is also correct that rape and genuine abuse cases are the extremem minority. Feminism is destroying the institution of marriage quietly and without the chruch lifting a finger to stop it.

If you accedently get a spoiled brat you had better cut your losses becasue all the hoop haa is just going to waste years of your life and the counseling will fail, I have a good friend who tried to "make it work" for 10 years with a spoiled brat when he could have "made it work" for 2-6 months and saved himself 9.5 years of misery. If there is not profound changes after 2 to 6 months of counseling there is no gaurentee that there ever will be, after 2-6 months both parties are very well aware of the issues it just becomes an unwillingness to meet the others need because they feel they dont have to because it "degrages them" or makes them feel "inferiour" and they dont have to and the whole thing reduces to phyco bable.

 

[Bampot]

Partnership is about equality and working together. If there is one constantly overpowering the other, then it's hardly a partnership.

Also, as others have pointed out, that site is a joke.

 

[akeng]

Just because "others" point something out does not make it ture, if you actually read the site there is alot of truth in it, I agree there is some stuff in that page that I dont agree with but I have learned in life you have to mine it for the gold not the slag. No one is advocating overpowering anyone im not sure what you are talking about unless its about not allowing the wife to go to church then I would agree with you but I think that is a divergance from the main point of the page. The main point is alot of women are spoiled brats straight up and there spoiled brat behavior leads to the man leaving, to often cases of rape and physical violance is way over hyped when in reality thoes types of scenarios are infrequent at best and in most cases rare. Feminism tries to use the minority of valid cases of divorce as a shell for women acting like spoiled brats, its a spin game.

Partnership is about equality and working together. If there is one constantly overpowering the other, then it's hardly a partnership.

Also, as others have pointed out, that site is a joke.

 

[Luther073082]

Just because "others" point something out does not make it ture, if you actually read the site there is alot of truth in it, I agree there is some stuff in that page that I dont agree with but I have learned in life you have to mine it for the gold not the slag. No one is advocating overpowering anyone im not sure what you are talking about unless its about not allowing the wife to go to church then I would agree with you but I think that is a divergance from the main point of the page. The main point is alot of women are spoiled brats straight up and there spoiled brat behavior leads to the man leaving, to often cases of rape and physical violance is way over hyped when in reality thoes types of scenarios are infrequent at best and in most cases rare. Feminism tries to use the minority of valid cases of divorce as a shell for women acting like spoiled brats, its a spin game.

I think its a stretch to act as though women alone are the cause of the vast majority of divorces.

First of all in something like that, its rare to find one of the two parties not guilty. Unless there was some adultry or abuse going on, I really have a hard time believing a person who says a divorce wasn't any of their fault. I'd want to hear from their partner as well.

I don't think you can look at divorces and decide that they are happening just because the woman was "selfish"

Also I'd like you to clarify and specify as to what "spoiled brat" behavior women are engaging in and how that is all caused by feminism. (Which I would agree feminism, in terms of how its modernly defined is harmful.) My main concern is that you are looking for one group to blame for a problem that has everyone to blame.

 

[lenaj]

I agree with the comment above. You can not put the blame on just one party. As far as the feminist movement goes, let us look at the reason it came up in the first place. During this time women were now asked to take on the "role" of a man and be the provider for the family. So naturally if you are asking someone to take on the "role" of a man she will expect the same type of respect a man is given.

Yes I agree with a women being submissive to her husband. Because of this it is very important that women take the time to really get to know the man she is about to allow to lead her.

 

[akeng]

I agree its never 100%/0% even in cases of adultry there is likely some push by the other spouse to steer them to adultry. What I have noticed with relationships is both parties can be messing up but its the spouse that is making "deal breaker" screw ups and not fixing them ASAP that is the cause of the divorce. This can be done by the man or the woman but I have seen more and more cases in recent time (friends, aquatances, etc) where the divorces are casued by a womans bratty behavior, he was not perfect but she was the one making the "deal breaker" mistakes and refused to change them because she felt "degraded", "inferiour", whatever, its all a cop out. I can use buzz words too to make people feel sorry for me but the behavior that leads to lagitimate degradation is 99.9% not present. In the feminist movement woman were not asked to take the role of a man the feminists pushed for it and given enough time and courption they partially got there way. Ultimatly the woman themselves pay for it because any self respecting man is not going to put up with that behavior and she will be left to grow old alone.

 

[Luther073082]

You still havn't detailed what the bratty behavior is though? What kind of "deal breaker" mistakes

Still I think you are way oversimplifying divorce on the whole. I've seen bratty behavior out of both men and women. And very little of it had to do with the feminist movement.

Despite what feminists would love you to think. Very few women are terribly involved with or terribly care about that movement. That is because the movement is and has not for a while been about improving the lives of women so much as it has been about pursuing political agendas.

I have no great love of the feminist movement, but I don't see how it causes women to act like brats.

It does however cause the media to completly ignore the rights of men by making sure everyone believes that the male can never be the victim.

 

[akeng]

A deal breaker mistake would be one that if done enough would cause one spouse to leave the relationship, most people establish "deal breakers" upfront in a relationship, most deal breaker issues are around sex, religion or money but could be anything important enough to the individual to leave the relationship. I agree most women probably do not care about the feminist "movement" but they display feminist traits (brattiness) because feminist behavior has become rooted in society.

Brat - an ill-mannered immature person
Other traits of a feminist influanced woman is passive aggressivness

Each situation has to be determined on an individual basis to know if she is being bratty or if there are lagitimate issues. Usually bratty woman when pushed into a corner and confronted on their behavior will cry and start to make things up like my friend just experienced in court for child custody. There is usually no logic they just say what they have to to get there way so they can continue to abuse people. This type of behavior used to be rare in adults but has gotten more prevalent so men are more reluctant to get married these days because passive aggressive woman are good at putting up fronts early in the relationship and you have to be very keen at looking for the red flags. And when a woman says she does not want to have sex until she is married he wonders is this a control tactic by a passive aggressive woman or a lagitimate religious conviction, generally that can be determined by the womans sexual past, if she has slept with several people and now all of a sudden your the guy who has to wait but she still wants all the other bennifits of the relationship red flags should be going up. I have found courtship the way God intended is skirting a thin line next to impossible this day in time, anybody can regurgetate scripture but real life still happens and the path you negotiate through society is never perfect. People come up with little sayings that "sound" biblical but really are not

1. Sexual acts in a marriage must be agreed upon by both
2. We are to be in society but not apart of it
3. Divorce and remarriage is a sin

These are just 3 that I know of off the top of my head

I think every new christian should be put into a read the bible in a year program to be able to discern what people are saying, people try to twist scripture in order to control other people or take advantage of people who have not read the entire bible. The bible must be read in its entirety in order to get the proper context not just passages here and there. If something someone is saying makes your life more onerous and is not freeing then you should question it because the truth will set you free not enslave you.

You still havn't detailed what the bratty behavior is though? What kind of "deal breaker" mistakes

Still I think you are way oversimplifying divorce on the whole. I've seen bratty behavior out of both men and women. And very little of it had to do with the feminist movement.

Despite what feminists would love you to think. Very few women are terribly involved with or terribly care about that movement. That is because the movement is and has not for a while been about improving the lives of women so much as it has been about pursuing political agendas.

I have no great love of the feminist movement, but I don't see how it causes women to act like brats.

It does however cause the media to completly ignore the rights of men by making sure everyone believes that the male can never be the victim.

 

[lenaj]

As others have pointed out the things you are stating are things that both men and women do. Right now it appears that your comments are one sided due to your limited experiences. Have you considered the thousands of "bratty" men that lie to their employers and stop working so they don't have to pay child support for the children they had no problem creating??? Or let us considered the men that lie and tell half truths so they can have more than one sexual partner? Which they know is a "deal breaker", which is why they try to keep the truth from coming out. If a woman has had sex prior to a new relationship and now chooses to no longer have pre-marital sex, it does not mean she is playing games. Time has a way of changing what we accept in our lives. Especially when you are really allowing Christ to work in your life.

There is one comment that you have made about women loosing out, this is so true. Today there are so many men that only look at the scripture that tells a woman she is to submit herself to her husband, but fail to look at the scripture that tells a man that he is to love his wife as Christ loved the church, giving "him-self" up for her.

Again I truly believe that both men and women are to blame, not just one party.

 

[Luther073082]

Brat - an ill-mannered immature person
Other traits of a feminist influanced woman is passive aggressivness

Each situation has to be determined on an individual basis to know if she is being bratty or if there are lagitimate issues. Usually bratty woman when pushed into a corner and confronted on their behavior will cry and start to make things up like my friend just experienced in court for child custody. There is usually no logic they just say what they have to to get there way so they can continue to abuse people. This type of behavior used to be rare in adults but has gotten more prevalent so men are more reluctant to get married these days because passive aggressive woman are good at putting up fronts early in the relationship and you have to be very keen at looking for the red flags.

But there are lots of guys who use the same tatics.

Could it be you are talking about a "human" problem and not a "woman" problem.

I have found courtship the way God intended is skirting a thin line next to impossible this day in time, anybody can regurgetate scripture but real life still happens and the path you negotiate through society is never perfect. People come up with little sayings that "sound" biblical but really are not

1. Sexual acts in a marriage must be agreed upon by both

Heresy

"Husband's love your wives as Christ loved the church."

Christ would not rape the church or force her into anything. She comes into the union with Christ of her own choice. Paul does indicate that sex is a duty of both spouses I will give you that. But as to individual acts the how, when and where, a husband that loves his spouse does not force her into anything of that sort for his own pleasure. That is the opposite of his job which is to sacrifice on her behalf.

2. We are to be in society but not apart of it

Mmm ok, but we are ment to be sanctified. So if someone said that to me I would guess I would ask what they mean?

We are ment to be ruled by scripture over societal expectations, this is true. However we are also ment to be around people, not all of whom of course will agree with us. And based on scripture, it seems as though scripture, specifically Paul advises us that in issues where the word takes no position we are allowed to follow general society.

3. Divorce and remarriage is a sin

Umm Matt 9:19 "9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The only exception is if there is adultry.

I think every new christian should be put into a read the bible in a year program to be able to discern what people are saying, people try to twist scripture in order to control other people or take advantage of people who have not read the entire bible. The bible must be read in its entirety in order to get the proper context not just passages here and there. If something someone is saying makes your life more onerous and is not freeing then you should question it because the truth will set you free not enslave you.

I disagree, I think reading the entire bible is a good practice enough.

However to get a proper understanding of fundamental Christian truths, one should be a part of a focused catechism class. Without one its impossible for a Christian to even consider understanding how to rightly divide law and gospel and their relationship to eachother.

 

[akeng]

I totally agree with you, men can be just as bad. I think CSED are a bunch of extortionists, I have a fiend who is living with me for free right now because CSED is so extreme in the amount of your paycheck they take that it makes it difficult for the man to maintain a stable house hold to even have his kids on the weekend and if you are laid off you have to go to court to force CSED to reduce your payments. Even if you are doing what you are suppost to CSED will still play hard ball which just hurts the kids because then the father is in such an economicly crippled position he cant really do anything for his kids becasue he himself is just trying to live. I have never understood why men would want multipule sexual partners at one time if the woman they have takes care of them and if they dont leave/divorce her and find someone else.

I believe there are woman who have a sexual past who now have lagitimate religious convictions but I think some women use it as a control tactic.

As others have pointed out the things you are stating are things that both men and women do. Right now it appears that your comments are one sided due to your limited experiences. Have you considered the thousands of "bratty" men that lie to their employers and stop working so they don't have to pay child support for the children they had no problem creating??? Or let us considered the men that lie and tell half truths so they can have more than one sexual partner? Which they know is a "deal breaker", which is why they try to keep the truth from coming out. If a woman has had sex prior to a new relationship and now chooses to no longer have pre-marital sex, it does not mean she is playing games. Time has a way of changing what we accept in our lives. Especially when you are really allowing Christ to work in your life.

There is one comment that you have made about women loosing out, this is so true. Today there are so many men that only look at the scripture that tells a woman she is to submit herself to her husband, but fail to look at the scripture that tells a man that he is to love his wife as Christ loved the church, giving "him-self" up for her.

Again I truly believe that both men and women are to blame, not just one party.

 

[akeng]

in red

But there are lots of guys who use the same tatics.

Could it be you are talking about a "human" problem and not a "woman" problem.



Heresy

"Husband's love your wives as Christ loved the church."

Christ would not rape the church or force her into anything. She comes into the union with Christ of her own choice. Paul does indicate that sex is a duty of both spouses I will give you that. But as to individual acts the how, when and where, a husband that loves his spouse does not force her into anything of that sort for his own pleasure. That is the opposite of his job which is to sacrifice on her behalf.

No he would not but if you choose to not follow him you are effectivly divorcing yourself from him much in the same way a wife divorces herself from her husband if she refuses him in any way shape or form, I never advocated rape but I do advocate divorce for refusal per duet 24, You like to quote alot out of new testimate but Jesus said he did not come to change the mosaic law and mosic law allows divorce for failure to perform your basic marrital duties.

Mmm ok, but we are ment to be sanctified. So if someone said that to me I would guess I would ask what they mean?

We are ment to be ruled by scripture over societal expectations, this is true. However we are also ment to be around people, not all of whom of course will agree with us. And based on scripture, it seems as though scripture, specifically Paul advises us that in issues where the word takes no position we are allowed to follow general society.



Umm Matt 9:19 "9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The only exception is if there is adultry.

How to you reconsile matt with duet 24, the situation surrounding that statement jesus made was becasue the pharisies were hinting that they could divorce for a wife burning there toast, if this were not the case then Jesus would be going against what was writen in mosic law.

I disagree, I think reading the entire bible is a good practice enough.

However to get a proper understanding of fundamental Christian truths, one should be a part of a focused catechism class. Without one its impossible for a Christian to even consider understanding how to rightly divide law and gospel and their relationship to eachother.

I dont know what a catechism class is but I think everyone should read the entire bible (preferably a study bible) before taking any sort of class. I dont know about you but life is hard enough I dont need people making my life harder unless I know for sure its in the bible and I agree with the context. Thats just my opinion.

 

[Bootstrap]

Umm Matt 9:19 "9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The only exception is if there is adultery.

Don't forget abandonment by an unbelieving spouse:

7:12 To the rest I say – I, not the Lord – if a brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is happy to live with him, he should not divorce her. 7:13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is happy to live with her, she should not divorce him. 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified because of the wife, and the unbelieving wife because of her husband. Otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 7:15 But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace. 7:16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will bring your husband to salvation? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will bring your wife to salvation?

• In these verses, Paul does not claim God's authority for what he says
• He does not even claim God's authority for believers to remain with their unbelieving spouses if their spouses are willing
• Holiness can be contagious - the other spouse can be sanctified because of the believer
• Children are holy because of the believing spouse
• If an unbeliever wants a divorce, let it happen. And in this case, the believer is not bound.
• See 7:39 for implications of not being bound - when a widow is no longer bound, she is free to remarry. This may be implied by "no longer bound" here.
• There is no guarantee that a believer will bring an unbelieving spouse to salvation

And this is related to Exodus 21:

Exodus 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female servant, she will not go out as the male servants do. 21:8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreign nation, because he has dealt deceitfully with her. 21:9 If he designated her for his son, then he will deal with her according to the customary rights of daughters. 21:10 If he takes another wife, he must not diminish the first one’s food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 21:11 If he does not provide her with these three things, then she will go out free, without paying money.

• Outlines the basic rights of a slave wife
∘ Food
∘ Clothing
∘ Marital rights
• If these are not provided, she may go free