Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:10
And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:
10 16. Mutual obligations of Married Persons
10. yet not I, but the Lord ] The Apostle is quoting our Lord’s words in St Mar 10:11-12. No distinction is intended between what he, as a private individual enjoined, and what God commanded. “He never wrote of himself, being a vessel of the Holy Ghost, Who ever spoke by him to the Church.” Dean Alford.
Let not the wife depart from her husband ] Literally, be separated, but not implying that the separation took place without her consent. The Apostle would seem here to be speaking of voluntary separations, not of such violations of the fundamental principle of marriage (see ch. 1Co 6:15-18) as are glanced at in St Mat 19:9. So St Chrysostom on 1Co 7:12: “Here there is hope that the lost member may be saved through the marriage, but in the other case the marriage is already dissolved.” Such voluntary separations were contrary to the command of Christ, and could only be allowed (see 1Co 7:15) under very exceptional circumstances.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And unto the married – This verse commences the second subject of inquiry; to wit, whether it was proper, in the existing state of things, for those who were married to continue this relation, or whether they ought to separate. The reasons why any may have supposed that it was best to separate, may have been:
- That their troubles and persecutions might be such that they might judge it best that families should be broken up; and,
- Probably many supposed that it was unlawful for a Christian wife or husband to be connected at all with a pagan and an idolater.
I command, yet not I, but the Lord – Not I so much as the Lord. This injunction is not to be understood as adVice merely, but as a solemn, divine command, from which you are not at liberty to depart. Paul here professes to utter the language of inspiration, and demands obedience. The express command of the Lord to which he refers, is probably the precept recorded in Mat 5:32, and Mat 19:3-10. These precepts of Christ asserted that the marriage tie was sacred and inviolable.
Let not the wife depart … – Let her not prove faithless to her marriage vows; let her not, on any pretence, desert her husband. Though she is a Christian. and he is not, yet let her not seek, on that account, to be separate from him – The law of Moses did not permit a wife to divorce herself from her husband, though it was sometimes done (compare Mat 10:12); but the Greek and Roman laws allowed it – Grotius. But Paul here refers to a formal and legal separation before the magistrates, and not to a voluntary separation, without intending to be formally divorced. The reasons for this opinion are:
(1) That such divorces were known and practiced among both Jews and pagans.
(2) It was important to settle the question whether they were to be allowed in the Christian church.
(3) The claim would be set up, probably, that it might be done.
(4) The question whether a voluntary separation might not be proper, where one party was a Christian, and the other not, he discusses in the following verses, 1Co 7:12-17. Here, therefore, he solemnly repeats the law of Christ, that divorce, under the Christian economy, was not to be in the power either of the husband or wife.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 7:10-17
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.
The marriage union: how disturbances of it are to be alleviated
I. If both parties are believers–according to our Lords command.
1. Not by divorce.
2. But by mutual conciliation.
II. If one party is an unbeliever–according to apostolic prescription.
1. Not by divorce.
2. But by patience in the believing party, that by example, &c., the unbelieving party and the children may be saved.
III. If the unbelieving party brings about a separation.
1. By submission, love to God must predominate.
2. God can overrule it for good.
3. Everyone must content himself with the appointments of Providence. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Unity in marriage
The Cherokee marriage ceremony is very expressive. The man and woman join hands over running water, to indicate that their lives are thenceforth to flow in one stream.
Divorce is
I. A sad evidence of human depravity. Except in the case of confirmed lunacy–
1. It originates–
(1) In marrying out of impure motives.
(2) In the loss of affection,
(3) In the unfaithfulness of one or both parties.
2. Is opposed
(1) To the express command of our Lord (Mat 5:31; Mat 19:1-12), which is founded on the deep significance of the marriage bond (Mat 19:6; Eph 5:32).
(2) To the diffusion of the kingdom of God, as exerting a deleterious influence on the general welfare of mankind.
II. Cannot be entirely disallowed.
1. The Lord permits it in certain instances (Mat 5:39), and the apostle extends the permission m an exceptional case (1Co 7:15).
2. Yet so long as there is hope of reconciliation, every means must be used to maintain an unbroken union.
3. Separation is therefore allowable when it is evident that a perpetuated union will only be a source of sin, or that it will prove perilous to the salvation of the innocent party. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Divorce: mixed marriages
Having spoken of celibacy and marriage, the apostle now deals with the case of those already married.
I. Where both parties are Christian. In this case Christ has decided, and Paul refers them to His words (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9).
1. The marriage bond is indissoluble. This arises from the relationship itself, as well as from the Divine appointment. Husband and wife are ideally one; the bond has no parallel in the world; God has made the union sacred by blessing it.
2. Separation is not to be final. The cause of separation (ill-treatment, &c.) may or may not be sufficient to justify it, but it must not be regarded as severing the tie. The wife must remain unmarried, or she must be reconciled to her husband. The latter is the desirable course, inasmuch as husband and wife cannot go apart without scandal to the Christian name. Let them reconsider their position, and remove every barrier to union.
II. Where one party is Christian and the other heathen. Christ had given no utterance on mixed marriages, and therefore Paul gives his inspired judgment regarding them. Consider the case where–
1. The unbelieving partner is content to remain. The Christian spouse is not to seek a separation as if the marriage were unholy (1Co 7:14). The apostle does not mean that an unbeliever by conjugal union with a believer becomes personally holy; but that he or she is consecrated. As the altar sanctifies the gift (Mat 23:19), so the Christian reflects something of his character on everything connected with him. His property, business, family, are all in a sense holy as belonging to one who is in covenant with God, and are under His special protection. Hence the pagan partner is a privileged person on the ground of union with a Christian. The reason is significant (1Co 7:14). It was an accepted maxim that the children of such marriages were born within the Church. This principle was recognised among the Jews, as the case of Timothy shows (Act 16:1-3). If, then, the children of such marriage are reckoned holy, the marriage from which they spring cannot be inconsistent with the law of God (Rom 11:6 and conversely). The children take their standing from the Christian parent, who is regarded as the nobler of the two.
2. The unbelieving partner refuses to remain. In this case the Christian is to acquiesce. For–
(1) He or she is not under bondage (1Co 7:15). The marriage is not to be dissolved at the instance of the believing partner; but if the other refuses to remain, the contract is no longer binding. It would be a case of bondage if the one were held to a union which the other has wilfully broken up.
(2) God hath called us in peace. The gospel is not intended to produce strife; but if this be the result of the heathen partner continuing to dwell with the Christian, it were better to let him have his wish.
(3) The Christian partner is not to prevent the departure of the other in the hope of being instrumental to conversion. This is at best uncertain, and peace is not to be hazarded therefore. And if such a union is not to be maintained for the sake of a possible conversion, much less is it to be contracted with that view. Conclusion:
1. This passage is generally adduced as the Bible warrant for the view that wilful desertion is a sufficient reason for divorce. Such desertion is a de facto rupture of the marriage bond, and stands on the same footing as adultery.
2. The evil of mixed marriages. They–
(1) Render the complete fellowship of husband and wife impossible.
(2) Break up domestic peace.
(3) Prevent family religion.
(4) Interfere with the religious training of children. (H. Bremner, B. D.)
Christian casuistry
1. St. Paul makes a distinction between those things which he speaks by commandment and by permission; between what he says as being taught of God, and that which he speaks only as a servant, called of the Lord and faithful.
2. It is plain that there are many questions in which right and wrong are fixed; while there are others where these terms depend on circumstances, e.g., there may be circumstances in which it is the duty of a Christian to be married, and others remain unmarried. In the case of a missionary it may be right to be married; in the case of a pauper, unable to maintain a family, it may be proper to remain unmarried. No fixed law can be laid down upon this subject.
3. These, therefore, are questions of casuistry, which depend upon the particular case: from which casuistry is derived. On these points the apostle speaks not by commandment, but by permission. This distinction is not between inspired and uninspired, but between a decision in matters of Christian duty, and advice in matters of Christian prudence. God cannot give advice; He can only issue a command. When we come to advice the human element is introduced.
4. There are three main questions on which the apostle here gives his inspired decision.
I. Concerning the sanctity of the marriage bond between two Christians (1Co 7:10).
1. Of all earthly unions almost this is the only one permitting of no change but that of death. It is that engagement in which man exerts his most awful and solemn power–that of parting with his freedom. And yet it is perhaps that relationship which is spoken of and entered into most carelessly. It is not an union merely between two creature, but between two spirits; and the intention of that bond is to perfect the nature of both, by giving to each sex those excellences in which it is naturally deficient.
2. There is no earthly relationship which has so much power to ennoble (1Co 7:16). The very power of saving belongs to it, and that of ruin too. For there are two rocks on which the soul must either anchor or be wrecked. The one is the Rock of Ages, on which if the human soul anchors, it lives the blessed life of faith; against which if the soul be dashed, there ensues atheism–the worst ruin of the soul. The other rock is of another character. Blessed is the man or woman whose life-experience has taught a confiding belief in the excellences of the sex opposite to their own. And the ruin is second only to perdition. And it is the worst of these alternatives which the young risk when they form an inconsiderate union, and which parents risk when they bring up their children with no higher view than that of a rich and honourable marriage.
II. The sanctity of the marriage bond between a Christian and a heathen.
1. The question arose, Is not the marriage null and void? As if it were an union between one dead and one living. And that perpetual contact with a heathen, and therefore an enemy of God, is not that defilement? The apostle decides this with his usual inspired wisdom–the marriage bond is sacred still (1Co 7:12-13).
2. Now for us the decision is not of so much importance as the reason in support of it, which amounts to this: If this were no marriage, but an unhallowed alliance, it would follow that the offspring could not be the children of God; but it is the instinctive conviction of every Christian parent, My child is a child of God, or, in the Jewish form of expression, My child is clean (1Co 7:14). It follows if the children are holy in this sense of dedicated to God, then the marriage relation was not unhallowed, but sacred and indissoluble. The value of this argument in the present day depends on its relation to baptism. This question is whether we are baptized because we are the children of God, or, whether we are the children of God because we are baptized. Here the apostles argument is unanswerable. He does not say that these children were Christian, or clean, because they were baptized, but because they were the children of one Christian parent.
3. Observe also the important truth which comes out collaterally from this argument–namely, the sacredness of impression, which arises from the close connection between parent and child. Possibly from the very first moments of consciousness we begin to impress ourselves on our children. There is scarcely one here who cannot trace back his religious character to some impression from one or other of his parents–a tone, a look, a word, a habit, or even, it may be, a bitter exclamation of remorse.
III. Existing relations (1Co 7:17; 1Co 7:20; 1Co 7:24). Christian men were to remain in them, and in them to develop the Christian life. Paul applies this principle in two ways.
1. Ecclesiastically (1Co 7:18). The Jews, after their conversion, were to continue Jews, if they would. Christianity required no change in these outward things. Paul circumcised Timothy, and used Jewish customs. It was not the duty of a Christian to overthrow the Jewish system, but to throw into it a Christian feeling. Let us apply this to modern duties. The great desire among men now appears to be to alter, and so have perfect institutions, as if they would make perfect men. Mark the difference between this feeling and that of the apostle (verse 20). No man will get true rest for his soul in these days of controversy, until he has learned the significance of these wise words.
2. Civilly–to that relationship which, of all others, was the most difficult to harmonise with Christianity–slavery (verse 21). Recollect–
(1) That Christianity had made much way among slaves. No wonder that they embraced with joy a religion which taught the dignity of the human soul, and declared that rich and poor, master and slave, were equal in the sight of God. And yet it was to be feared lest men should be tempted to compel their masters and oppressors to do them right.
(2) That all this occurred in an age in which slavery had reached its worst and most fearful form. And yet fearful as it was, the apostle says, Care not for it. And hence we understand the way in which Christianity was to work. No doubt it will at length abolish slavery, war, &c., but there is not one case where we find Christianity interfering with institutions, as such: Onesimus Paul sent back to his master, but he told him of a higher feeling that would make him free with the shackle upon his arm. And so it was possible for the Christian then, as it is now, to be possessed of the highest liberty even under tyranny. It many times occurred that Christian men found themselves placed under an unjust government, and compelled to pay unjust taxes. The Son of Man showed His freedom not by refusing, but by paying them. His glorious liberty could do so without any feeling of degradation. Conclusion: It is possible from all this to draw a most inaccurate conclusion. Some men have spoken of Christianity as if it was entirely indifferent about public questions. This indifference is not to be found in the Apostle Paul. While he asserts that inward liberty is the only true liberty, he still goes on to say, If thou mayest be free use it rather. Christianity gave to the slave the feeling of his dignity as a man, at the same time it gave to the Christian master a new view of his relation to his slave, and taught him to regard him not now as a servant, but a brother beloved. And so by degrees slavery passed into freed servitude, and freed servitude, under Gods blessing, may pass into something else. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.—
Pauls inspiration
The distinction here is not between his uninspired and inspired commands. If we say that he usually writes under Divine inspiration, but that when he speaks about celibacy it fails him, to return suddenly when he enters on the question of divorce, again to desert him when he writes on the case of mixed marriages, inspiration becomes at once
(1) arbitrary, because there is nothing in the nature of the subjects to account for the difference; and
(2) mechanical, because it comes and goes independently of the writers mental activity. The explanation is that on the question of divorce Christ had legislated (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9); but on the other questions gave no direct decision. The question of divorce touches the inmost nature of marriage, as it was instituted by God at the beginning, and afterwards connected by Christianity with the union between Christ and the Church. For this reason Christ, as the Divine lawgiver, rescinded the Mosaic permission to divorce for other causes than adultery, and restored the original idea of marriage. Paul never dared to rescind a law of Moses. Yet the apostle draws various inferences from the words of Christ. One distinction between the teaching of Christ and of His apostles must necessarily be that Christ always commands. He never arrived at a conclusion through a process of reasoning, much less discussed a question and left it unanswered. This absolute certitude is essential in the revelation of central principles. But it would be destructive of all that is valuable in human effort if it extended to the minute details of life; if it decided beforehand every possible case of conscience, and reduced our moral activity to a mechanical conformity with unswerving and merely authoritative regulations. The danger attaches to all books of casuistry; but in a book accepted by the doubting conscience as containing Divinely-inspired casuistry, the effect is fatal. The writings of the apostles abound, on the other hand, in argument and inference, which sometimes end in practical decisions, sometimes only in the expression of an opinion. The decision is often left to the enlightened conscience of the spiritual man (cf. verse 25)
. But apart from the teaching of Christ, the fons et origo of revelation, the inspiration of the apostles would have been an altogether different thing from what it is. We need not suppose that Christ gave the apostle an immediate revelation on the question of divorce. The general tradition of the Early Church and the narrative in the Acts points to an intimate connection between Paul and Luke. Indeed, our Lords doctrine on that subject was in that age singular, and cannot fail to have been known among Christians throughout the world. (Principal Edwards.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 10. I command, yet not I, but the Lord] I do not give my own private opinion or judgment in this case; for the Lord Jesus commands that man shall not put asunder them whom God hath joined, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:6. And God has said the same, Ge 2:24. The following extracts will prove that the law among the Jews was very loose relative to the firmness of the marriage bond:-
A woman might put away or depart from her husband by giving this simple reason to the elders, who would give the following certificate. “In ____ day of ____ week, of ____ year, A., daughter of B., put away before us and said: My mother, or my brethren, deceived me, and wedded me or betrothed me, when I was a very young maid, to C., son of D.; but I now reveal my mind before you, that I will not have him.”
Sometimes they parted with mutual consent, and this also was considered legal, as was also the marriage of the separated parties to others. Witness the following story: “A good man had a good wife; but because they had no children, they mutually put away each other. The good man married a bad (a heathen) wife, and she made him bad (a heathen;) the good woman married a bad (a heathen) husband, and she made him good.”
Divorces were easily obtained among them, and they considered them the dissolving of the marriage bond; and, in consequence of these, the parties might remarry with others. This was contrary to the original institution of marriage, and is opposed both by our Lord and the apostle.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The apostle had spoke to the married before, but in another case, he now returneth in his discourse to them again, speaking to another case, which it should seem they had put to him; what it was is not plainly expressed, but it may easily be gathered from 1Co 7:12,13, as also from the apostles determination in this verse: or it was this: Whether it was lawful for the husband to depart from his wife, or the wife from her husband, unless it were in the case of adultery; for though here be nothing spoken as to that case, yet it plainly must be excepted, as determined before by our Saviour; but as the Jews, so the heathens amongst whom these Corinthians lived, had entertained much too mean thoughts about the marriage bond, indulging themselves in a liberty to break it for every slight cause; and it should seem by 1Co 7:12,13, it was judged by them a sufficient cause, if one of them were not converted to the faith of Christ. Now in this case, saith the apostle,
I command, and what I tell you is the will of God; it is not I alone who command it, but you are to look upon it as the will of God concerning you, though revealed to you by me that am the minister of God to you.
Let not the wife depart from her husband; she may be divorced from her husband in case of fornication, but let her not for any other cause make a voluntary secession.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
10. not I, but the Lord(Compare1Co 7:12; 1Co 7:25;1Co 7:40). In ordinary cases hewrites on inspired apostolic authority (1Co14:37); but here on the direct authority of the LordHimself (Mar 10:11; Mar 10:12).In both cases alike the things written are inspired by the Spirit ofGod “but not all for all time, nor all on the primary truths ofthe faith” [ALFORD].
Let not the wifedepartliterally, “be separated from.” Probably theseparation on either side, whether owing to the husband or to thewife, is forbidden.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And unto the married I command,…. To the unmarried and widows he spoke by permission, or only gave advice and counsel to remain unmarried, provided they could contain; but if not, it was advisable to marry; but to persons already in a married state, what he has to say to them is by commandment, enjoining what they are under obligation to observe, not being at liberty to do as they will:
yet not I, but the Lord; not as if he took upon him the dominion over them, to make laws for them, and, in an imperious authoritative way, oblige them to obedience to them; no; what he was about to deliver, was not a law of his own enacting and obtruding, but what their Lord, their Creator, head, husband, and Redeemer, had ordered and enjoined; and this grave solemn way of speaking he makes use of, to excite their attention, command awe and reverence, make the greater impression upon their minds, and show the obligation they were under to regard what was said:
let not the wife depart from her husband; for the same law that obliges a man to cleave to his wife, obliges the wife to cleave to her husband, Ge 2:24 and those words of Christ, “what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder”, Mt 19:6 regard the one as well as the other; and the rules he has given, forbidding divorces only in case of adultery, Mt 5:32 are as binding upon the wife as upon the husband. The wife therefore should not depart from her husband upon every slight occasion; not on account of any quarrel, or disagreement that may arise between them; or for every instance of moroseness and inhumanity; or because of diseases and infirmities; nor even on the score of difference in religion which, by what follows, seems to be greatly the case in view. The apostle observes this, in opposition to some rules and customs which obtained among Jews and Gentiles, divorcing and separating from one another upon various accounts; not only husbands put away their wives, but wives also left their husbands: for women to put away, or leave their husbands, were not in former times allowed of among the Jews, but from other nations crept in among them; indeed if a man married one under age, and she did not like him for her husband, she might refuse him, and go away without a bill of divorce; the manner of refusal was, by saying before two witnesses, I do not like such an one for my husband, or I do not like the espousals, with which my mother or my brother espoused me, or in such like words; and sometimes a written form of refusal was given m; but otherwise where marriage was consummated, such a departure of the wife was not allowed. Salome, the sister of Herod, is thought to be the first that introduced it, who sent a bill of divorce to Costobarus n her husband; and in this she was followed by Herodias, the daughter of Aristobulus, who left her husband, and married Herod Antipas o; and it seems certain, that this practice prevailed in Christ’s time, since not only such a case is supposed, Mr 10:12 but a very flagrant instance is given in the woman of Samaria, Joh 4:18 who had had five husbands, not in a lawful regular manner, one after another upon their respective deaths, but she had married them, and put them away one after another: and as for the Gentiles, the account the Jews p give of them is, that though they had
“no divorces in form, they put away one another; R. Jochanan says, , “a man’s wife might put him away”, and give him the dowry:”
though, according to other accounts, they had divorces in form, which, when a man put away a woman, were called , “letters of dismission”; and when a woman left her husband,
, “letters of dereliction”, such as Hipparchia the wife of Alcibiades gave to him q; and Justin Martyr r gives us an instance of a Christian woman, who gave her husband what the Roman senate called a divorce.
m Maimon. Hilch. Gerushim, c. 11. 1. 8. 11. & Ishot, c. 4. sect. 3. n Joseph. Antiqu. l. 15. c. 7. sect. 10. o lb. l. 18. c. 6. sect. 1. p Bereshit Rabba, sect. 18. fol. 15. 3. q Plutarch. in Alcibiade. r Apolog. 1. p. 41, 42.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Inviolability of the Marriage Bond. | A. D. 57. |
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 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?
In this paragraph the apostle gives them direction in a case which must be very frequent in that age of the world, especially among the Jewish converts; I mean whether they were to live with heathen relatives in a married state. Moses’s law permitted divorce; and there was a famous instance in the Jewish state, when the people were obliged to put away their idolatrous wives, Ezra x. 3. This might move a scruple in many minds, whether converts to Christianity were not bound to put away or desert their mates, continuing infidels. Concerning this matter the apostle here gives direction. And,
I. In general, he tells them that marriage, by Christ’s command, is for life; and therefore those who are married must not think of separation. The wife must not depart from the husband (v. 10), nor the husband put away his wife, v. 11. This I command, says the apostle; yet not I, but the Lord. Not that he commanded any thing of his own head, or upon his own authority. Whatever he commanded was the Lord’s command, dictated by his Spirit and enjoined by his authority. But his meaning is that the Lord himself, with his own mouth, had forbidden such separations, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9; Mar 10:11; Luk 16:18. Note, Man and wife cannot separate at pleasure, nor dissolve, when they will, their matrimonial bonds and relation. They must not separate for any other cause than what Christ allows. And therefore the apostle advises that if any woman had been separated, either by a voluntary act of her own or by an act of her husband, she should continue unmarried, and seek reconciliation with her husband, that they might cohabit again. Note, Husbands and wives should not quarrel at all, or should be quickly reconciled. They are bound to each other for life. The divine law allows of no separation. They cannot throw off the burden, and therefore should set their shoulders to it, and endeavour to make it as light to each other as they can.
II. He brings the general advice home to the case of such as had an unbelieving mate (v. 12): But to the rest speak I, not the Lord; that is, the Lord had not so expressly spoken to this case as to the former divorce. It does not mean that the apostle spoke without authority from the Lord, or decided this case by his own wisdom, without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He closes this subject with a declaration to the contrary (v. 40), I think also that I have the Spirit of God. But, having thus prefaced his advice, we may attend,
1. To the advice itself, which is that if an unbelieving husband or wife were pleased to dwell with a Christian relative, the other should not separate. The husband should not put away an unbelieving wife, nor the wife leave an unbelieving husband, 1Co 7:12; 1Co 7:13. The Christian calling did not dissolve the marriage covenant, but bind it the faster, by bringing it back to the original institution, limiting it to two persons, and binding them together for life. The believer is not by faith in Christ loosed from matrimonial bonds to an unbeliever, but is at once bound and made apt to be a better relative. But, though a believing wife or husband should not separate from an unbelieving mate, yet if the unbelieving relative desert the believer, and no means can reconcile to a cohabitation, in such a case a brother or sister is not in bondage (v. 15), not tied up to the unreasonable humour, and bound servilely to follow or cleave to the malicious deserter, or not bound to live unmarried after all proper means for reconciliation have been tried, at least of the deserter contract another marriage or be guilty of adultery, which was a very easy supposition, because a very common instance among the heathen inhabitants of Corinth. In such a case the deserted person must be free to marry again, and it is granted on all hands. And some think that such a malicious desertion is as much a dissolution of the marriage-covenant as death itself. For how is it possible that the two shall be one flesh when the one is maliciously bent to part from or put away the other? Indeed, the deserter seems still bound by the matrimonial contract; and therefore the apostle says (v. 11), If the woman depart from her husband upon the account of his infidelity, let her remain unmarried. But the deserted party seems to be left more at liberty (I mean supposing all the proper means have been used to reclaim the deserter, and other circumstances make it necessary) to marry another person. It does not seem reasonable that they should be still bound, when it is rendered impossible to perform conjugal duties or enjoy conjugal comforts, through the mere fault of their mate: in such a case marriage would be a state of servitude indeed. But, whatever liberty be indulged Christians in such a case as this, they are not allowed, for the mere infidelity of a husband or wife, to separate; but, if the unbeliever be willing, they should continue in the relation, and cohabit as those who are thus related. This is the apostle’s general direction.
2. We have here the reasons of this advice. (1.) Because the relation or state is sanctified by the holiness of either party: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband (v. 14), or hath been sanctified. The relation itself, and the conjugal use of each other, are sanctified to the believer. To the pure all things are pure, Tit. i. 15. Marriage is a divine institution; it is a compact for life, by God’s appointment. Had converse and congress with unbelievers in that relation defiled the believer, or rendered him or her offensive to God, the ends of marriage would have been defeated, and the comforts of it in a manner destroyed, in the circumstances in which Christians then were. But the apostle tells them that, though they were yoked with unbelievers, yet, if they themselves were holy, marriage was to them a holy state, and marriage comforts, even with an unbelieving relative, were sanctified enjoyments. It was no more displeasing to God for them to continue to live as they did before, with their unbelieving or heathen relation, than if they had become converts together. If one of the relatives had become holy, nothing of the duties or lawful comforts of the married state could defile them, and render them displeasing to God, though the other were a heathen. He is sanctified for the wife’s sake. She is sanctified for the husband’s sake. Both are one flesh. He is to be reputed clean who is one flesh with her that is holy, and vice vers: Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy (v. 14), that is, they would be heathen, out of the pale of the church and covenant of God. They would not be of the holy seed (as the Jews are called, Isa. vi. 13), but common and unclean, in the same sense as heathens in general were styled in the apostle’s vision, Acts x. 28. This way of speaking is according to the dialect of the Jews, among whom a child begotten by parents yet heathens, was said to be begotten out of holiness; and a child begotten by parents made proselytes was said to be begotten intra sanctitatem–within the holy enclosure. Thus Christians are called commonly saints; such they are by profession, separated to be a peculiar people of God, and as such distinguished from the world; and therefore the children born to Christians, though married to unbelievers, are not to be reckoned as part of the world, but of the church, a holy, not a common and unclean seed. “Continue therefore to live even with unbelieving relatives; for, if you are holy, the relation is so, the state is so, you may make a holy use even of an unbelieving relative, in conjugal duties, and your seed will be holy too.” What a comfort is this, where both relatives are believers! (2.) Another reason is that God hath called Christians to peace, v. 15. The Christian religion obliges us to act peaceably in all relations, natural and civil. We are bound, as much as in us lies, to live peaceably with all men (Rom. xii. 18), and therefore surely to promote the peace and comfort of our nearest relatives, those with whom we are one flesh, nay, though they should be infidels. Note, It should be the labour and study of those who are married to make each other as easy and happy as possible. (3.) A third reason is that it is possible for the believing relative to be an instrument of the other’s salvation (v. 16): What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? Note, It is the plain duty of those in so near a relation to seek the salvation of those to whom they are related. “Do not separate. There is other duty now called for. The conjugal relation calls for the most close and endeared affection; it is a contract for life. And should a Christian desert a mate, when an opportunity offers to give the most glorious proof of love? Stay, and labour heartily for the conversion of thy relative. Endeavour to save a soul. Who knows but this may be the event? It is not impossible. And, though there be no great probability, saving a soul is so good and glorious a service that the bare possibility should put one on exerting one’s self.” Note, Mere possibility of success should be a sufficient motive with us to use our diligent endeavours for saving the souls of our relations. “What know I but I may save his soul? should move me to attempt it.”
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
To the married ( ). Perfect active participle of , old verb, to marry, and still married as the tense shows.
I give charge (). Not mere wish as in verses 1Cor 7:7; 1Cor 7:8.
Not I, but the Lord ( ). Paul had no commands from Jesus to the unmarried (men or women), but Jesus had spoken to the married (husbands and wives) as in Matt 5:31; Matt 19:3-12; Mark 10:9-12; Luke 16:18. The Master had spoken plain words about divorce. Paul reenforces his own inspired command by the command of Jesus. In Mr 10:9 we have from Christ: “What therefore God joined together let not man put asunder” ( ).
That the wife depart not from her husband ( ). First aorist passive infinitive (indirect command after ) of , old verb from adverbial preposition , separately, apart from, from. Here used of divorce by the wife which, though unusual then, yet did happen as in the case of Salome (sister of Herod the Great) and of Herodias before she married Herod Antipas. Jesus also spoke of it (Mr 10:12). Now most of the divorces are obtained by women. This passive infinitive is almost reflexive in force according to a constant tendency in the Koine (Robertson, Grammar, p. 817).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Not I, but the Lord. Referring to Christ ‘s declarations respecting divorce, Mt 5:31, 32; Mt 19:3 – 12. Not a distinction between an inspired and an uninspired saying. Paul means that his readers had no need to apply to him for instruction in the matter of divorce, since they had the words of Christ himself.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
ORDER OF MARRIAGE AMONG GENTILE SAINTS
1) And unto the married I command, (tois de gegameekosin parangello) To the ones having married, I admonish, enjoin, or advise. not (entole) having had a direct command from the Lord, but being led of the Lord.
2) yet not I, but the Lord, (ouk ego alla ho Kurios), by inspiration, though not aforestated by direct command in the Law and the Prophets or by Jesus.
3) Let not the wife depart from her husband: (gunaika apo andros mee chooristheenai) or a wife-woman let not abandon her husband, a permanent departure or separation. Let her linger unmarried. Paul was inspired in recording these things, as in all his Pauline letters a thing he charged all to accept as the commandments of the Lord, 1Co 14:37; Gal 1:20.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
10. To the married I command. He now treats of another condition of marriage — its being an indissoluble tie. Accordingly, he condemns all those divorces that were of daily occurrence among the heathens, and were not punished among the Jews by the law of Moses. Let not, says he, the husband put away his wife, and let not the wife depart from her husband. Why? Because they are joined together by an indissoluble bond. It is surprising, however, that he does not make an exception, at least in case of adultery; for it is not likely that he designed to curtail in anything the doctrine of Christ. To me it appears clear, that the reason why he has made no mention of this (399) is, that as he is discoursing of these things only in passing, he chose rather to send back the Corinthians to the Lord’s permission or prohibition, than to go over everything in detail. For when persons intend to teach anything in short compass, they content themselves with a general statement. Exceptions are reserved for a minuter and more extended and particular discussion.
But as to what he subjoins — not I, but the Lord — he intimates by this correction, that what he teaches here is taken from the law of God. For other things that he taught he had also from the revelation of the Spirit; but he declares that God is the author of this, in respect of its being expressly taken from the law of God. If you inquire as to the particular passage, you will nowhere find it in so many words; but as Moses in the beginning testifies, that the connection between a husband and wife is so sacred, that for the sake of it
a man ought to leave his father and mother. (Gen 2:24.)
It is easy to gather from this, how inviolable a connection it is. For by right of nature a son is bound to his father and mother, and cannot shake off that yoke. As the connection of marriage is preferred to that bond, much less ought it to be dissolved.
(399) “ Il n’a pas voulu toucher ce poinct;” — “He has not chosen to touch upon this point.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Butlers Comments
SECTION 2
The Permanence of Marriage (1Co. 7:10-16)
10 To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband 11(but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband)and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. 16Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
1Co. 7:10-14 Command: Gods commandment has always been that each human marriage is to be permanentuntil death separates one member of the marriage. That has been Gods will from the beginning of creation (cf. Mat. 19:8). Paul reinforces that by stating, To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord. . . . Paul uses the Greek word parangello which means, a proclamation, a command or commandment . . . strictly used of commands received from a superior and transmitted to others (see Act. 5:28; Act. 16:24; 1Th. 4:2; 1Ti. 1:5; 1Ti. 1:18; Luk. 5:14; Luk. 8:56; 1Ti. 6:13; 1Ti. 6:17 for usage of the word parangello). Paul charges that the wife should not divorce her husband. The RSV translates the Greek word choristhenai as separate, but it is the same Greek word used by Matthew in reporting (Mat. 19:6) Jesus statement about divorce. Paul is not talking here about separation without divorce. All through this context he is talking about divorce, the dissolution of a marriage.
Apparently in Corinth, new converts to Christ were leaving their believing partners, or unbelieving partners were leaving their believing partners, and completely dissolving the marriages by divorce. When Christians marry non-Christians, or when one unbeliever in a marriage becomes a believer and the other partner does not, there will always be difficulties. But, according to the apostle Paul, they are not insurmountable difficulties. The difficulties of such an unequally yoked marriage are not necessarily such as should call for divorce. The ideal situation, of course, is that both partners in a marriage be Christians. People who are contemplating marriage can and should choose Christian partners before. Love is not blind! Infatuation and emotionalism is blind. Love is not something one falls into but is something one wills, decides and does, and does constantly in spite of emotions or circumstances!
Marriage as an institution predates all other institutions. It was sanctioned by God before the Law of Moses or the Christian dispensation. Gods will is that marriage should be permanent, no matter who is involved. When it comes right down to it, there is no essential difference between a Christian marriage in a church and a pagan marriage in the living room of a justice of the peace. There is no differentiate in Gods will that every marriage be permanent until death. Marriage is not a sacrament of the church performed exclusively by and for the church. Marriage is for the maintenance of human social structure. It is an institution established by God to be practiced by the entire human race. When a man and woman sincerely agree to become husband and wife, and obey the social and civil laws for marriage in their community, they are husband and wife regardless of their religion! Marriage can only be made permanent through unreserved faith in Jesus Christ by both partners. It can never be made permanent by civil law or force. Jesus made that plain in Mat. 19:3-12. When men have hard hearts they will rebel against all that God has sanctified, including the permanence of marriage. The law is laid down for the lawless and disobedient (1Ti. 1:8-9) and the civil state must legislate and enforce laws which will keep sinful and wicked people from perverting marriage until they destroy social order.
In a world where the majority of human beings are not Christians, Gods ideals for marriage are seldom considered. Sometimes a Christian will compromise principle and marry a non-Christian. Sometimes, after two non-Christians are married one becomes a Christian. What is the Lords will in such circumstances? Gods will is always for the permanence of marriage. In any circumstance that would threaten to dissolve a marriage, Gods will is for reconciliation (reunion, coming back together). While it is possible that a marriage might have to be dissolved for continued sexual unfaithfulness (see Mat. 5:32; Mat. 19:9) or because of unsolicited desertion (1Co. 7:15) it is certainly not what God desires. He wants repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation.
Nor does the Lord desire that the conversion of one marriage partner precipitate the dissolution of a marriage. Paul says, If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. The Greek verb translated consents is suneudokei and means willingly resolves to dwell (Gr. oikein) with her without coercion.
There are several reasons the Lord demands permanence in marriage. We have already stated onethe need of stability in the social structure. Another reason is discussed in 1Co. 7:14the power marriage has to sanctify unbelievers. Pauls instruction to the Corinthian Christian married to an unbeliever is that the believer should sanctify the unbeliever through the permanence of the marriage. The unbeliever is in a set apart circumstance (at least that much set apart from the world) by being married to a believer. So, the marriage of an unbeliever to a believer can become a powerful tool. When a man is converted, as head of the house he should lead his family to the Lord (e.g. the Philippian jailer and Cornelius). When a wife is the Christian and the husband an unbeliever, she has to be content with a slower process. Peter says that wives should submit themselves to their husbands; the husbands will more readily be won to Christ this way than through nagging, complaining or arguing (1Pe. 3:1-2). Children who have even one Christian parent are at a great advantage over children reared in non-Christian homes. So, children are set apart from total worldliness by just one Christian parent. Gods will is that marriage with just one Christian partner be permanent wherever and whenever human beings are agreeable. Of course, Paul does not mean that any unbelieving spouse or child is saved by association. Being married to a Christian or being born by a Christian parent does not guarantee salvation. But it does mean, where one marriage partner is a Christian, the unbelievers in the home will undoubtedly hear the gospel or see it being lived out there more clearly and often than anywhere else!
1Co. 7:15-16 Concession: But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate (divorce) let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. The Greek words chorizetai and chorizestho in 1Co. 7:15 should be translated, But if the unbelieving partner divorces, let him (or her) be divorced. There is no word in the Greek text for desiresthat is supplied by the translators. And, as we have pointed out above, Matthew used the word chorizetai to describe the Lords discussion of divorce (not separation). There may be cases where one partner, not at all seeking to do Gods will, may dissolve the marriage (for any number of so-called reasons) while the other partner may not be able to stop the dissolution. When the unbelieving partner in a marriage has a heart so hardened by sin he or she puts asunder (the meaning of the Greek word chorizetai) or divorces the believing partner, then the believing partner (brother or sister) is not bound. What does Paul mean by, not bound? At least he means the Christian brother or sister is not bound to the divorcing-unbeliever as a spouse. Most civil societies (some with more latitude than others) have laws permitting divorce. When an unbeliever sues in civil court for dissolution of a marriage from a believer, and it is granted, there is nothing legal a believer can do to maintain the bonds of that marriage. Therefore, the believer is not bound to that marriage. But the big question is: Since a believer is not bound to a marriage he or she was forced by civil law to dissolve (when the believer was unwilling to have it dissolved), may the divorced believer remarry?
Paul has already admitted the reality that there is a possibility of the dissolution of marriages even where one party does not want it to be so. The unbeliever who has caused divorce has sinned. He or she must become a believer, repent and be immersed in water in order to be forgiven. The question remains, however, does the New Testament absolutely and unequivocally forbid remarriage with a different partner after divorce? (see Mat. 5:31-32; Mat. 19:1-12; Mar. 10:2-12; Luk. 16:18; 1Co. 7:15; 1Co. 7:39; Rom. 7:3-4). Actually, there are no absolute or unequivocal directions in this matter of remarriage. What each Christian believes or practices he does so by his inference or deductions from certain principles. It is the opinion of this writer that remarriage is not only possible for those who have violated the will of God and dissolved marriages by divorce, but that God desires remarriage in such a case for both believer and unbelieverfor both the guilty party and the innocent party. The following deductions have brought this writer to his opinion:
a.
God made marriage for the whole human race.
b.
Divorce is a sin; marriage is not a sin.
c.
Very few men or women have the gift to remain sexually celibate.
d.
Paul emphatically states, more than once, that enforced sexual continence (celibacy) when a person does not have self-control is dangerous to ones salvation (1Co. 7:2; 1Co. 7:5; 1Co. 7:9; 1Co. 7:36; 1Th. 4:3-8; 1Ti. 5:14, etc.).
e.
It is illogical to reason that a person who is divorced, when he or she is unwilling to be divorced, may be considered an adulterer or adulteress should they marry another partner. People cannot be made to be adulterers against their will! Society may gossip and stigmatize an innocent person in a divorce situation, but he cannot be an adulterer unless he has an attitude of promiscuitya heart that is against permanence in marriage.
f.
When there is a divorce there is no longer a marriage, neither in Gods eyes nor in mans eyesTHERE IS A SIN IN GODS EYES FOR WHICH SOMEONE MUST REPENT (preferably a repentance resulting in remarriage to the same partner). But unless there is a reconciliation of the divorced persons, the marriage is over. They are no longer married to one another.
g.
There are two circumstances preceding a divorce in which, I believe, God considers one party in the divorce innocentsexual unfaithfulness and desertion. In both circumstances one party has to be unwilling to the dissolution of the marriage. It is, therefore, this writers opinion that the innocent party is most certainly free to remarryguided by his knowledge of the revealed will of God about marriage and his own conscience.
It is, further, the opinion of this writer that God desires remarriage even for the guilty party in divorce rather than trying to force him or her to a life of celibacy which he may not be able to endure without burning with passion. I believe God and Christ are interested in producing the highest good in every persons life and in society in general. That is the spirit behind any Old Testament legislation or New Testament principle (for example, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath).
a.
For the maintenance of social order, if an unbeliever cannot be controlled from promiscuous sexual intercourse by self-control, he or she should be married according to the laws of human responsibility and to keep society from degenerating to the level of animals.
b.
Paul points out in several places that while Christians are controlled by the highest principle, divine love, the non-Christian must be controlled by civil law, enforced by civil authorities (cf. 1Ti. 1:8-11; Rom. 13:1-7).
c.
What practical or ultimate good is going to be served by forcing those once divorced to remain celibate the rest of their lives? There really is no legislation to that effect anywhere in the Bible. There is certainly no civil law to that effect. If all Christians lived by the law of divine love, Christian husbands and wives would never divorce one another. But some Christians do not live on that planethey fallthey divorce one another. Are they to be banned to a life of celibacy for the rest of their natural lives? Is that seeking their highest good? What if they do not have the gift of sexual self-control? Should a minister of the gospel not also seek the highest good in every fallen persons life?
d.
Would enforced celibacy really heal the problems faced by children when divorce occurs? What if a husband is left with small children to rear? What if a wife is? Who shall support them financially? Are they better served to be reared without a father or without a mother?
e.
Would enforced celibacy heal the results of divorce? Will the church be able to support both materially and psychologically, all broken homes? Should Christians leave the healing of divorce in Christian homes to the civil state?
f.
Would enforced celibacy heal the problems of temptation and incontinence? (1Co. 7:2; 1Co. 7:5; 1Co. 7:9; 1Co. 7:36). Suppose we paraphrase Jesus thus, Is it lawful to do good through the institution of marriage or to tempt to promiscuity through enforced celibacy? Marriage was made for man, not man for marriage! Enforced celibacy in prisons merely intensifies sexual crimes! Christians who say those once delivered should never remarry need to look at what happens in prison among men and women separated from heterosexual marriage!
g.
In no sense of the word do I condone divorce for any cause. I do not even condone loveless marriages whether the partners remain legally and outwardly married until they die. Both of these situations are certainly less than Gods ideal.
h.
But, neither do I think a minister of the gospel is partaking of the sin of divorce by performing marriage vows (since he is authorized by the civil authorities to do so) for couples who are unbelievers; for couples where one is a believer and another an unbeliever; for couples where either one or both parties have previously been divorced. God does not approve of divorce; I do not approve of divorce. God knows that all people do not have the gift of sexual self-control without burning; that is revealed truth and experiential truth. God does approve of marriage; I approve of marriage. As a minister, I have had nothing to do with their divorce; but I can have something to do with their remarriage, and, perhaps, repentance.
i.
And, of some significance, in every marriage I perform I may, in a positive way, be able to instruct and exemplify the Christian gospeland in a negative sense I may not give anyone an opportunity to criticize the church for lack of compassion and understanding.
j.
When I stand for marriage and the responsibilities that go with it, I am standing for law and order in the lives of unbelievers who will not be controlled by divine love but must be controlled by civil legislation.
k.
Is divorce a sin for which there can be no repentance (and no forgiveness) and no restoration? If a person embezzles, is imprisoned, released and states that he is of a different attitude, is he never to be allowed to handle an employers money again? Should a divorced person never be allowed to handle marriage again?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Appleburys Comments
Directions for the Married (1024)
Commentary
Unto the married, I give charge.Paul, speaking as an apostle of Christ, gives direction to those who are already married. It is in complete agreementhow could it be assumed to be otherwise since he is writing under the direction of the Holy Spiritwith what the Lord had said. This is a good answer to those who assume that the red letter sections of the New Testament are superior to the words of the apostles. Actually, their words are the words of Christ as He spoke them by His Spirit through the apostles (Joh. 16:14).
but the Lord.The apostle gives us the inspired interpretation of what Jesus said on this matter as recorded in Mat. 19:3-9. Jesus spoke to men who were under the jurisdiction of the law of Moses. He reminded them that the marriage law that had been in force since the beginning was still in force. Moses had made certain exceptions because of the hardness of their hearts, but this did not annul the original law of marriage. Jesus reminded them that the one who put away his wife except for fornication and married another committed adultery, that is, the wife so put away was stigmatized by his act as an adulteress. See Rom. 7:3. The one who married a wife put away in this manner also committed adultery.
This inevitably raises the question of the right of the innocent party to remarry. To refuse the innocent one the right to marry again, it is said, is unfair. Perhaps this is true, but who is to decide the question of innocence? What did the inspired apostle say as he interpreted the word of Our Lord on this subject? The answer is given in just two places in the New Testament. Paul discusses it in the Roman letter. There he says that a woman is bound to the husband while he lives (Rom. 7:2). To make the matter clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding, he adds, if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. The only other reference to the duration of the binding effect of marriage is in First Corinthians chapter seven. The same law is upheld, A wife is bound so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married (1Co. 7:39).
Many commentators assume that the innocent one is given the right to marry again. Every one acting on such opinion should for his own sake weigh carefully what Paul has said on the matter. Consider this also: The nineteenth chapter of Matthew which gives Jesus teaching on marriage and divorce also tells what He said to the rich young ruler about eternal life. Because they were living under the law of Moss, Jesus told him to keep that law. When the people on the Day of Pentecostthe beginning of the Christian ageasked what to do to be saved, they were told by the inspired apostles to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 3:28). Now if we do not go to Matthew nineteen for the answer to the important question about what to do to be saved, why should we do so to the neglect of the apostles inspired interpretation of what Jesus said on the matter of marriage and divorce? This seems to be a valid argument, and it should be considered by those who would interpret Matthew nineteen as permitting remarriage under the gospel covenant.
That the wife depart not from her husband.No exception allowed by this categorical statement! The same rule applies to husband: that the husband leave not his wife. I understand this to say clearly that remarriage is not permitted under the regulations of the New Covenant. The law that was ordained in the beginning and upheld by Jesus is in force in the Christian age.
This presents a real problem on which the apostle did not write. What is one to do who may have divorced and remarried without knowing what the New Testament teaches on the subject? What I say here can only be expressed as an opinion based on what the Bible says in general about forgiveness of sin. Suppose that divorce and remarriage is a violation of the law of God. It then become a sin to do so. And if this is true, there is only one thing to do about it: repent and pray God if perchance the thought of the heart may be forgiven (Act. 8:22). This would, of course, require baptism in the case of those who have not been baptized (Act. 2:38; Act. 22:16). John says, If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1Jn. 1:9). Since there is a question about the matter, the conscientious Christian couple who may be involved, it would seem, should determine not to repeat the mistake and ask God to forgive if they have violated His law.
Should such couples separate? This is another problem on which we do not have Scriptural teaching. In so many cases, it would be impossible to do so. The sinif it is a sinis in the divorcing and remarrying. Perhaps it would be better not to try to return to the former partners, since in so many cases it could not be done anyway.
The alarming problem of divorce with its effects on the children of the nation should cause Christian people to avoid the appearance of approving it. The church should hold before its young people, by teaching and by the example of elders and deacons, the ideal marriage relations as ordained by God in the beginning.
if she should depart.This directive is clear enough. She is to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. This is in accord with the above interpretation of remarriage. It is not permitted by the inspired teaching of the New Testament. The wife who leaves her husband is not free to marry another man while her husband lives, only if he is dead. The same rule applies to the husband; he is not to leave his wife.
But to the rest say I, not the Lord.Some have assumed that Paul is giving his private opinion which is not substantiated by the Lord. On the contrary, he is speaking as the Lords inspired apostle. The Lord through His inspired apostle is giving additional information to guide those who find themselves in a situation which did not exist during His personal ministry. The church was not established until the day of Pentecost. Now a situation arises that calls for inspired instruction. What is the Christian to do who finds himself married to an unbeliever? If the unbelieving partnerhusband or wifeis willing to maintain the home, the Christian is not to leave husband or wife. This answers the contention of some who say that marriage is not valid before the Lord unless both parties are Christians. The facts are that the law of marriage was given in the beginning and was upheld by the Lord in His teaching to the Jews and is, undoubtedly, to be looked upon as valid for allChristian and non-Christian.
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife.The rule applies to either party, husband or wife. Marriage is holy, and the unbelieving partner in this holy relationship is sanctified in the believer, that is, the marriage relationship is sacred because of the one partner that belongs to the Lord. If this were not so, the children of such marriages would be unclean, but now they are holy. That is to say, the marriage is in accord with the holy regulations of the Lord; the children of such marriages are not to be considered as being born out of wedlock.
A word of caution must be given here: This matter of sanctification has to do with the sanctity or the marriage relationship. It does not say that an unbeliever who is married to a Christian is saved from his sins just because he is married to a believer. Salvation and sanctification in respect to sin are, after all, personal issues. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, said Jesus (Mar. 16:15-16). When we remember that Paul was speaking about the sacredness of the marriage relationship and not personal salvation, there is no problem.
Yet if the unbelieving departeth.This action is on the part of the one who has not submitted to the law of Christ. The Christian is not to initiate the action andalthough it is not so stated in this contextis surely not to be the cause of the unbeliever departing. Who but the Lord can really know whether or not the believer may be guilty of such conduct or attitude as to actually cause the unbeliever to depart? The Christian is under obligation to conduct himself in accord with the obligations involved in the marriage contract even if he is married to an unbeliever (1Co. 7:3-5). This may often present a very difficult problem to the Christian; but, if he really wants to honor his Lord, he can find grace to cope with the situation.
not under bondage in such.Some assume that this frees the believer to remarry. However, the rule is plainly stated without exceptions in 1Co. 7:39 : A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married. In verse eleven, Paul had said that the one who departs is to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. Some, of course, will argue that these rules do not apply to the case in hand. But when the whole body of instruction for marriage is considered, it is difficult to find a valid reason for assuming that remarriage is permitted except when one partner is dead.
What, then, is meant by not under bondage? No one is bound to maintain an impossible situation. An unbeliever who will not submit to the law of Christ will do as he pleases. Even the most loving Christian wife or husband may not be able to maintain the home if the unbeliever decides to leave. Let him depart; that may well be all one can do.
but God hath called us in peace.This is a difficult passage. Does it mean that the believer is not under obligation to live with an unbelieving husband or wife unless there can be peace in the home? Surely it is hard to have a home without peace. Or does it mean that the believer is under obligation to maintain peace in the home if at all possible? Probably the latter, because of the reason suggested in the next sentence.
For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband.This, of course, applies also to a husband who is a believer The whole issue is just this: Are you really interested in the salvation of the unbeliever? Too often the interest is in getting rid of the other partner, using his unbelief as a pretext. Taken with the statement about peace, this would seem to say that the Christian is to maintain peace in the home with a view to winning his unbelieving partner to the Lord. Unless one can live as a real Christian under such trying conditions, there is little reason to expect the unbeliever to change.
And so I ordain in all the churches.The rule applies to all the churches, Corinth included. Each was to live in the state in which he was called, that is, in whatever state one found himself on becoming a Christian, let him be content with it and live as a Christian without disrupting such things as marriage, bondage, status as Jew or gentile. This rule is given to those who may have assumed that they were freed from the marriage vows by becoming Christians.
Circumcision.The meaning of circumcision is to be taken from its use in the case of Abraham who was found righteous because of his faith in God before he was commanded to be circumcised (Rom. 4:9-12). Circumcision become a mark that indicated that God acknowledged his righteousness. To many, this became a mark of acceptance by the Lord regardless of their actual status before Him. In itself, then, circumcision counted for nothing. The real question was the attitude of the heart (Rom. 2:28-29). Since this was true, the Christian was not to be concerned about such outward marks.
Wast thou called being a bondservant?One did not need to change even slavery in order to become a Christian. But see the beautiful story of Onesimus, the runaway slave who became a Christian (Phm. 1:1-11). What does Paul mean by saying, use it rather? Some suggest that he is saying that a slave is to use his slavery to the credit of the cause of Christ (Eph. 6:5-6). On the other hand, it is more likely that he is saying if the opportunity to become free presents itself, use it. Human bondage cannot long endure where there is an atmosphere of Christian freedom. If the truth as Christ taught it were actually accepted by men everywhere, freedom would spread to all human relationships. The only true freedom is found in being Christs bondservant.
Ye were bought with a price.This is the second time that Paul has reminded his readers of this. See 1Co. 6:20. Actually they belonged to the Lord, for He bought them with His precious blood. They were not to be slaves to the sin of immorality. Even if they were in human bondage, they were the Lords freedmen.
become not bondservants of men.The Christian is not to have his conduct regulated by human masters. Christ has given h m direction through the inspired apostle whether he is a slave or a free man. No human bondage is to supersede this divine relationship.
therein abide with God.Heaven is the Christians home. He should learn to live with that thought in mind. On earth he has a work to do, glorifying God in the body. The thought of abiding with God in this life helps to bear the trials and hardships that come to His children.
Text
1Co. 7:25-40. Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy. 26 I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is. 27 Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28 But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none; 30 and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possesed not; 31 and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 But I would have you to be free from cares. He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and is divided. So also the woman that is unmarried and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is seemly, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. 36 But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry. 37 But he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching his own will, and hath determined this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, shall do well. 38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better. 39 A wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(10) And unto the married . . .The Apostle has concluded his instruction to the unmarried and widows, and in 1Co. 7:10-11 gives his advice to those married persons who had been troubled with doubts as to whether they ought (if marriage were undesirable) to continue in that state.
I command, yet not I, but the Lord.The contrast which is commenced here, and again brought out in 1Co. 7:12, is not between commands given by St. Paul as an inspired Apostle, and St. Paul as a private individual. In 1Co. 14:37 the Apostle expressly claims that all his commands as an Apostle should be regarded as the commandments of the Lord, and in 1Th. 4:15 the Apostle speaks of that knowledge into which he was guided by the Holy Spirit as given by the word of the Lord. St. Paul must not therefore be regarded as here claiming for some of his instructions apostolic authority, and not claiming it for others. The real point of the contrast is between a subject on which our Lord Himself while on earth gave direct verbal instruction, and another subject on which He now gives His commands through His Apostle St. Paul. Christ had given directions regarding divorce (Mat. 5:31; Mat. 19:3-9; Mar. 10:2-12), and the Apostle here has only to reiterate what the Lord had already commanded.
Let not the wife depart from her husband.Better, Let her not be separated. The account of our Lords words given here differs in two respects from the record given of them by St. Matthew (Mat. 5:32; Mat. 19:9), where the reference is, first and more prominently, to the man putting away his wifenot, as here, to the wife separating herself from her husbandand the exception made, except it be because of fornication, is here omitted. The fact that St. Paul only knew from others what our Lord had said, and that the Evangelists wrote what they had heard themselves, would not sufficiently account for this difference; for surely these very Evangelists, or others who like them had heard the Lords words, would have been St. Pauls informants. The reason of the variety in the two accounts is to be found, not in inaccurate knowledge on St. Pauls part, which we have no reason to suppose, but in the particular circumstances to which the Apostle was applying the teaching of Christ; and this verbal difference is an instructive indication to us of how the Apostles understood that even in the case of the Lord Himself it was the living spirit of His teaching, and not its merely verbal form, which was of abiding and universal obligation. There was no necessity here to introduce the one exceptional cause of divorce which Christ had allowed, for the subject under consideration is a separation voluntarily made, and not as the result of sin on the part of either husband or wife; so the mention here of that ground of exception would have been inapplicable, and have tended only to confuse.
The other point of differenceviz., the mention here of the woman more prominently as separating from the husbanddoes not in any way affect the principle of the teaching, and indeed our Lord probably did put the case in both ways. (See Mar. 10:12.) It may be also that in the letter to which St. Paul was replying the doubt had been suggested by women, who wereas their sex is often stillmore anxiously scrupulous about details of what they conceived to be religious duty; and the question having been asked concerning a womans duty, the Apostle answers it accordingly, and adds the same instruction for the husband (1Co. 7:11).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Law and counsel as to separation of married parties, 1Co 7:10-17.
10. Not I By my own authority.
But the Lord By his recorded command in Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:3-12, where see our notes. It is not at all improbable that Paul was acquainted with Matthew’s gospel; yet, no doubt, both pure verbal traditions (see our vol. ii, p. 5) and authentic documents (see our note on Luk 1:1-4) furnished to him the words in which the Lord laid down this law. Mar 10:12, (which gospel was not now published,) states the law for both men and women. But one side is stated here; perhaps, as Alford suggests, because it was the Corinthian women who were conscientiously most inclined to hold celibacy as obligatory on all.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But to the married I give charge, yes, not I but the Lord, that the wife does not leave her husband, (but and if she does depart let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband does not leave his wife.’
Now he warns against misapprehension. He is not recommending divorce or separation so as to better serve God. It is God’s direct command that a wife does not leave her husband, and a husband does not leave his wife. This is God’s view of Christian marriage and He sees it as indissoluble. Thus they do God no service by disobeying Him. They are commanded to remain married.
‘Leave’ here means leave permanently and with intent. It does not include such situations as Peter leaving his wife at home, to follow Jesus, but still acknowledging her as his wife (although it is, of course, possible that Peter’s wife was one of the women who ministered to Jesus. Certainly she goes around with him in his later ministry – 1Co 9:5). There are times when such sacrifices are justifiable. But only if they do not lead into sin.
Paul, however, seems to accept that legitimate situations might arise where a woman can depart from her husband. This might be, for example, in cases of continual harshness, violence or insanity. Such situations can arise through great pressures or various illnesses which are not the fault of anyone. But in that case she must remain unmarried, with the alternative of returning and being reconciled with her husband if he becomes more amenable. That this is the possible scenario comes out in that there is no thought of a husband leaving a wife. He should be able to cope with his wife’s violence. But this does not make her free to marry elsewhere. Marriage is binding for life.
Thus Paul is as firm as Jesus in stating that divorce is not permissible. However, as Jesus pointed out, the one thing that does permit divorce is when the other party is guilty of ‘fornication’. For that breaks the marriage bond because the person has now become linked to an adulterer. Under the Law indeed they should be put to death (Deu 22:22), and the innocent party would then be free to marry again. Thus in view of the relaxation of that Law the same outcome is considered to arise. The guilty party is ‘seen as dead’.
Alternately in the case of such women Paul may be providing for cases of leaving the husband in straight disobedience to God’s command, although if that were so it is difficult to see Paul accepting it so placidly, and if it is so why not vice versa as well? Even if he has a particular case in mind why does he not command a reconciliation? By his statements she is guilty of disobedience to God. Thus the ‘leaving’ is possibly rather seen as due to necessity for one reason or another, something so severe that it justifies leaving. He is not speaking of just walking out due to personal preference.
In view of the stated purpose of marriage in the whole passage it is difficult to think of any other grounds for desertion which would be acceptable to Paul, especially in view of his statement in 1Co 7:3-4 and his other injunctions in this verse. Presumably ‘remaining unmarried’ here means not seeking to obtain a divorce in order to remarry. But his main point is that a woman who has left her husband is not free to marry another while he lives. Marriage is inviolable unless destroyed by sexual misbehaviour which breaks the marriage bond.
‘Not I but the Lord.’ It is probable that this is put in for special emphasis because this issue was especially alive and pressing and one in which some were saying, ‘it is only Paul who is saying that. We have been inspired to see it differently’. The issue was so huge that he wanted it to be quite clear that the authority behind his words was the maximum possible. This was not just the words of one ‘prophet’ as against another, or even of an Apostle, they were the words of Jesus Himself. Thus Paul is saying, ‘take especial note that this is not just my command, it is the Lord’s.’ The inviolability of marriage was primary and was directly Jesus’ commandment. Nothing could circumvent that. Once and for all the issue was decided.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Advice to the Married – In 1Co 7:10-24 Paul gives his advice to those believers who were married when they were saved. He will basically tell them not to initiate divorce. They were to stay married as long as it was tolerable. But for those who decided that it was no longer tolerable, he gave them strict guidelines to either remain unmarried, or to seek reconciliation with their ex-spouse (1Co 7:11). Paul then gives the married a guiding principle to remain in their callings that they had when they were saved (1Co 7:17-24).
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Stay Married, if Possible 1Co 7:10-11
2. Marriage Between Believer and Non-believer 1Co 7:12-16
3. Abiding in One’s Divine Calling 1Co 7:17-24
1Co 7:10 And unto the married 1 Command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:10
Mat 5:32, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
Mar 10:11-12, “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
Luk 16:18, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1Co 7:11
1Co 7:11 Comments – Jesus laid the foundation for the doctrine of the Church on divorce and remarriage by telling us that there are two ways in which a child of God could remarry, either by the death of the spouse, or by an act of adultery by the spouse (read Mat 5:27-32; Mat 19:1-12, Mar 10:1-12, Luk 16:18). In this lengthy passage, Paul is building upon this doctrine. He does allow a believer to depart from a marriage out of necessity. But in this verse, Paul is careful to qualify the conditions. A man or a woman is not in God’s will to remarry if they depart for other reasons besides the two given by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Illustration – I have seen situations in which the best way in which a spouse can forgive the mate is to leave the situation entire in order to begin the healing process, which means a divorce. In the case of some difficult marriages, where the wife is being abused, she may be better off leaving in order to save her life or her mental well being. She is then in a position to turn loose of the hurts of the past and forgive the ex-spouse. Otherwise, if she continues in such a troublesome marriage, she is not the better, but rather she becomes worse.
1Co 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13 1Co 7:14 1Co 7:14
Deu 1:39, “Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.”
I was teaching my staff about the salvation experience one day at Lighthouse Television (August 20, 2003). I made the point that children go to heaven until they reach the age of accountability. I used Luk 16:18 to point out the words of Jesus, “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” One staff member asked me about those children who were offered up by their parents in demonic sacrifice and those dedicated to Satan. (This is Africa and witchcraft was common.) The Lord quickened this verse to me in 1Co 7:14, which classifies children into two categories. God sees them as either “unclean” or “holy”. This verse tells us that a believing spouse will sanctify the unbelieving spouse, so that God sets the unbeliever apart for divine protection. This divine protection is also given to the children of believers. But to those children with unbelieving parents, they are not set apart for God’s divine protection. They suffer in their innocence because of the sins of their parents. When a child dies before he/she reaches an age of accountability by which they understand that they are sinners, then such a child will go to heaven, regardless of his parent’s sins.
Illustrations (1) Not the following illustrations in the Old Testament. Noah’s and Lot’s families were delivered because of these righteous men. Their families were sanctified because of believing husbands. That is, the wife was sanctified and children were made clean because of Noah and Lot.
Illustrations (2) Note the following illustrations in the New Testament:
Act 16:15, “And when she was baptized, and her household , she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.”
Act 16:31, “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house .”
Act 16:33, “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his , straightway.”
Act 27:24, “Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.”
Illustrations (3) Note the following illustrations of sanctification. During the time of Noah, God delivered his wife, his three sons and their wives. During the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God rescued Lot and his wife and two children. In Job 1:5, we see how Job prayed for his children and they were sanctified, or set for God’s blessings. So, in this passage, the word “sanctified” does not mean saved.
Job 1:5, “And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.”
In Mat 23:17-19, the gold and the gifts offered unto God are sanctified by the temple and its altar.
Mat 23:17-19, “Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?”
In Paul’s perilous and stormy journey to Rome by sea, the Lord not only delivered him, but also all of his companions.
Act 27:24, “Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.”
In 1Ti 4:5, food is sanctified.
1Ti 4:5, “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”
So, God is saying in 1 Corinthian 1Co 7:14 that the lost spouse receives many of God’s benefits in life due to a believing spouse. The lost spouse is set apart for God’s blessings.
Scripture References –
Isa 49:17
Isa 49:25, “But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.”
Isa 54:13, “And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.”
Jer 31:16-17, “Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.”
Also, note that in Exodus 12, there was one lamb per household used to sanctify each household.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
1Co 7:15
1Co 7:18-19 Comments Cultural Differences are Fine – Paul tells the believers in 1Co 7:18-19 that a Jew does not have to live like a Gentile in order to serve the Lord, and a Gentile does not have to embrace the traditions of the Jewish culture in order to serve Him. It is fine to be culturally different. What is required is that we obey His commandments in His Word.
1Co 7:21 “but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather” Comments We see a suggestion in 1Co 7:21 that some of the Christian slaves who were members of the church had opportunities to be free. A clear example of this is found in the epistle of Philemon, where Paul pleads for the release of a Christian slave named Onesimus.
1Co 7:21 Comments Slavery was a big part of the fabric of Roman society. J. Vernon McGee says that there were an estimated sixty million slaves serving their masters in the Roman Empire, which had an estimated population of one hundred and twenty million people. [121] Thus, half of the population was bound in slavery. The cruel Roman government enforced this bondage because the success of its economy was dependent upon the sweat of slave labour. Thus, Paul had to be careful not to appear as if he was calling for a revolution of emancipation of slavery. He would have quickly been thrown in prison. Yet, his Jewish background found him against it. His understand of the Gospel led him to the understanding that slavery was not God’s will for mankind. Thus, every time Paul addresses this issue, he does it with carefulness by drawing attention to the spiritual laws of freedom in Christ and servanthood to one another.
[121] J. Vernon McGee, The Epistle to Philemon, in Thru the Bible With J. Vernon McGee (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub., 1998), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Introduction.”
Eph 6:5-9, “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”
Col 3:22, “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:”
1Ti 6:1-2, “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. They that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.”
1Pe 2:18, “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
1Co 7:10. And unto the married I command, &c. The translation published by the English Jesuits at Bourdeaux has it, To those who are united in the sacrament of marriage; which we mention as one instance selected from a number, of the dishonesty of that translation, and of the subtilty of the translators.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 7:10 . But to those who have married ; this is opposed to the , which referred to future marriages. Accordingly, just as . applied only to Christians of both sexes leading a single life, so , too, refers exclusively to married persons both of whom were Christians . It is perfectly correct, therefore, to designate the married persons, where one party in the union was not a Christian, by , 1Co 7:12 ; for, apart from the cases discussed down to 1Co 7:12 , there are no others remaining to be spoken of except those living in mixed marriage. Rckert understands to mean specially the newly married people ; Paul, he holds, has a particular case in view, in which a single man perhaps had married a widow, which had been disapproved of by some; and, because the apostles had given an opinion in 1Co 7:8 unfavourable to such marriages, he must now forbid the dissolution of a union of that sort when once formed. But the fact of the and the widows being coupled together in 1Co 7:8 lends no support whatever to this, for applies to both sexes. Moreover, were the perfect participle, which is the present of the completed action, meant here to convey the notion of “newly married,” this would need to be indicated either by some addition (such as ), or undoubtedly at least by the context. The fact, again, that Paul speaks first and chiefly of the wife (which Rckert explains on the ground of the wife having desired a separation), may very reasonably be accounted for, without supposing any special design, in this way, that the cases in which a wife separated herself from her husband presented to the Christian consciousness the most anomalous phenomenon in this sphere, and notwithstanding might not unfrequently occur in the wanton city of Corinth even within the Christian society. [1103] This is quite sufficient, without there being any need for assuming that the apostle had been questioned about some case of this kind (Hofmann), particularly as the passage itself gives no sign of any such interrogation, but simply disposes of the point in the evenly course of the discussion regarding marriage, and with a view to its completeness.
, ] The negation is absolute. Paul knew from the living voice of tradition what commands Christ had given concerning divorce, Mat 5:31 f., Mat 19:3-9 ; Mar 10:2-12 ; Luk 16:18 . Hence , sc [1104] , for the authority of Christ lives on in His commands (against Baur, who infers from the present, which is to be supplied here, that Paul means the will of Christ made known to him by inspiration ). It is otherwise in 1Th 4:15 . As regards the , again, Paul was conscious (1Co 7:40 ) that his individuality was under the influence of the Holy Spirit. He distinguishes, therefore, here and in 1Co 7:12 ; 1Co 7:25 , not between his own and inspired commands, but between those which proceeded from his own (God-inspired) subjectivity and those which Christ Himself supplied by His objective word . Since, now, the in no way differs from the (Rom 8:9-11 ), (1Co 14:37 according to the Text. recept. ) could be predicated of the former class of precepts also, although neither in the same sense as of the latter, in which Paul’s own subjectivity had no share whatever, nor with the same force of absolute obligation; but, on the contrary, only in so far as the other party recognises them as (1Co 14:37 ).
] let her not be separated , which, however, is not purely passive here (as in Polybius xxxii. 12. 7), but means: let her not separate herself . Isae. viii. 36, p. 73. For the rest, 1Co 7:13 ; 1Co 7:15 prove that this phrase and in 1Co 7:11 are not so different, that the former can be used only of the wife and the latter only of the husband.
[1103] That we are to ascribe the tendency to such separation precisely to devout enthusiasm on the part of Corinthian wives leading them to shrink from matrimonial intercourse (de Wette, comp. Hofmann, p. 146), is a view which is inadmissible for this reason, that Paul, having before him such a mere error of feeling and judgment, would have made a disproportionate concession to it by saying . The state of morals at Corinth is explanation enough, more especially in connection with the easy and frivolous way in which divorces took place in Greek social life generally (Hermann, Privatalterth . xxx. 14 16), not merely by dismissal on the part of the husband ( ), but also by desertion on the part of the wife ( ); comp. Bremi, ad Dem. I. p. 92.
[1104] c. scilicet .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
Ver. 10. Yet not I ] By prudential advice only.
But the Lord ] Not in so many words, but by just consequence drawn from Mat 19:6 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
10, 11 .] Prohibition of separation after marriage; or in case of separation, of another marriage . These , as the and above, are all Christians . The case of mixed marriage he treats 1Co 7:12 ff. They are those already married.
10. , ] Ordinarily , the Apostle ( ) writes, commands, gives his advice, under conscious inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God . See 1Co 7:40 . He claims expressly. ch. 1Co 14:37 , that the things should be recognized as ( ). But here he is about to give them a command resting, not merely on inspired apostolic authority , great and undoubted as that was, but on that of THE LORD HIMSELF. So that all supposed distinction between the Apostle’s own writing of himself and of the Lord , is quite irrelevant. He never wrote of himself , being a vessel of the Holy Ghost, who ever spoke by him to the church. The distinction between that which is imperative, and that which is optional, that which is more and that which is less weighty in his writings, is to be made by the cautious and believing Christian, from a wise appreciation of the subject-matter , and of the circumstances under which it was written. ALL is the outpouring of the Spirit , but not all for all time, nor all on the primary truths of the faith.
Not I, but the Lord , viz. in ref. Matt. See also Mar 10:12 , where the woman’s part is brought out. That it occupies the principal place here, is perhaps because the Christian women at Corinth may have been the most ready to make the separation: or perhaps, because the woman, from her place in the matrimonial union, may be more properly said than the man .
. , be separated , whether by formal divorce or otherwise ; the below, is like this, an absolutepassive ; undefined whether by her own or her husband’s doing.
1Co 7:10-16 . 21. PROHIBITION OF DIVORCE. Pagan sentiment and law, while condoning fornication, were exceedingly lax in permitting divorce (see Hermann-Stark, Griech. Privat-alterthmer , 30. 15, 17), as Jewish practice was on the side of the husband (Mat 5:31 f., Mat 19:7 ff.); and marriages were often contracted without affection. Unfit unions became irksome in the extreme, with the stricter ethics and high ideal of the new faith; in many cases one of the partners remained a heathen (1Co 7:12 f.). It was asked whether Christians were really “bound” ( , 1Co 7:15 ) by the ties of the old life formed under unholy conditions, and whether it was right for man and wife to live together while one was in the kingdom of God and the other in that of Satan. These questions, propounded in the letter from Cor [1030] , Paul has now to answer ( a ) as respects Christian couples (1Co 7:10 f.), ( b ) as respects married pairs divided in religion (1Co 7:12-16 ).
[1030] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
1Co 7:10-11 . “But in the case of those that have married ( . , pf. of settled fact), I charge wife not to separate from husband and husband not to send away ( or let go) wife.” The parenthesis, “not I but the Lord” (it is His command, not mine), refers the indissolubility of marriage to the authority of Christ . The exceptional cause of divorce allowed by Jesus, (Mat 5:32 ; Mat 19:9 ; also unmentioned in Mar 10:11 , Luk 16:18 ), is not contemplated in the instance of wedded Christians (Paul is addressing both partners at once). The Apostle’s tone is changed ( cf. 1Co 7:6 ff.); he is laying down the law , and on Supreme Authority. He cites Christ’s words in distinction from his own (1Co 7:12 ), not as though his word was insufficient (see, to the contrary, 1Co 7:40 , 1Co 2:16 , 1Co 5:3 f., 1Co 14:37 , etc.), but inasmuch as this was a principle upon which “the Lord” had pronounced categorically. It is noticeable that the case of the woman seeking separation comes first and is dwelt upon; Christianity had powerfully stirred the feminine mind at Cor [1031] (see 1Co 11:5 ff., 1Co 14:34 f.). In some cases, not so much incompatibility as ascetic aversion ( cf. 1Co 7:3 f.) caused the wish to separate. The is qualified by the parenthesis : “but if indeed she have separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband”. P. is not allowing exceptions from the rule of Christ, but advising in cases where the mischief was done; the aor [1032] sbj [1033] , , is timeless, taking its occasion from the context: see Bn [1034] , 98. Her remaining unmarried is virtually included in the law of Christ (Mat 5:32 ; Mat 19:9 ). , pass [1035] , “let her get herself reconciled”: the vb [1036] indicates the fact of alienation or dissension, but not the side on which it exists ( cf. the theological use of in Rom 5:10 f.); if the husband disallows her return, she must remain . Romanists have inferred from the text, after Aug [1037] , and notwithstanding Mat 5:32 , that even adultery leaves the marriage-vow binding on the wronged partner; but this question is not in view here (see Ed [1038] in loc .).
[1031] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[1032] aorist tense.
[1033] subjunctive mood.
[1034] E. Burton’s Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the N.T. (1894).
[1035] passive voice.
[1036] verb
[1037] Augustine.
[1038] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians .
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 7:10-11
10But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
1Co 7:10 “to the married” This is the third of the groups addressed: “the unmarried,” “the widowed,” and now “the married.”
“not I, but the Lord” By this phrase Paul is referring to the words of Jesus, many, but not all of them, recorded in the Synoptic Gospels concerning divorce (cf. Mat 5:32; Mat 19:6; Mar 10:11-12; Luk 16:8).
This is a good example of the fact that Paul is not dealing with all aspects of the Lord’s teaching on divorce, only one. Paul’s letters are “occasion documents.” He is reacting to the poor theology of both the libertines and ascetics. This situation continues the pattern of Paul affirming some of the statements of the false teachers or factions, but also denoting the limits of their slogans. Half-truths are so hard to correct, especially if there is abuse on both sides of the issue!
“that the wife should not leave her husband” This implies that both are believers (cf. 1Co 7:12-16). Women did not have the right of divorce in Judaism, but they did in Roman society. Just because a given culture allows or disallows something does not mean that believers should avail themselves of the right or turn it into a taboo! Because one can does not mean one should (cf. Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13). There are certainly circumstances in which divorce is seemingly best.
1. the lesser of two wrongs
2. reconciliation has become impossible
3. physical danger to the spouse and children is a real possibility
At this point I want to reemphasize the biblical seriousness of making vows in deity’s name. Christian weddings are religious vows! God, more than secular society, holds believers accountable for how we treat His name. Marriage was meant to be permanent. Marriage is the norm, not the exception. In 2002 the current percentage of traditional homes in North America (i.e., husband, wife, and children) is down to 23%! Do you see the problem of easy divorce? Marriage is primarily a promise to God and then to another person. Strong Christian homes may be one of the most powerful witnessing tools in our day (so much like ancient Rome).
1Co 7:11 “if” This is a third class conditional sentence, which implies potential action. NASB puts this clause in parenthesis as a side comment. The subjunctive mood implies that divorces were occurring in the Christian community.
“she must remain unmarried” This is a present active imperative. The question of Christian remarriage is a difficult one. Deuteronomy 24 was written by Moses to provide for remarriage. Jesus’ answers, in light of the Pharisees’ questions, do not specifically deal with the subject. One might say, what about Mar 10:11-12. The problem is that this Gospel does not include the exception clause as Mat 5:32 does. How does the exception clause relate to remarriage? 1Ti 5:14-15 needs to be expanded in our day to a wider group than “young widows.” Surely God’s care for singles who desire to marry in 1Co 7:9 must relate to our troubled society also. Humans were created by God as sexual creatures. Unless there is a gift of celibacy, and/or self-controlled maturity, there must be an appropriate sexual option for God’s people; sexual immorality is never an option, but a Christian remarriage may be an acceptable alternative. Grace and revelation must both apply here.
“or else be reconciled to her husband” This is an aorist passive imperative. In this cultural situation the Pauline options for the already married were (1) singleness or (2) reconciliation.
This verse has been used as a hard and fast universal rule by many modern believers. Reconciliation is always a hope unless remarriage of one of the partners has occurred. In that situation it ceases to be a desired result (i.e., it is forbidden in the OT).
It is difficult to interpret 1 Corinthians because
1. there are obviously cultural issues that modern western culture does not directly deal with (i.e., food offered to idols, virgin partners in ministry, etc.).
2. there are two groups of personality types (i.e., ascetics or libertines) or theological factions. Paul’s words are an attempt to affirm the truths involved, but limit the excesses (i.e., dogmatic legalism, do not marry; and no-rules freedom, if it feels good, do it).
It is uncertain if these extremes reflect (1) Jews/Gentiles; (2) legalists/libertines; (3) personality types; or (4) two forms of Greek thought (later seen in Gnostic factions). The confusion comes when modern interpreters do not know
1. what the slogans were
2. the source of the slogans
a. Paul’s earlier preaching
b. Judaism
c. Stoics/incipient Gnostics
Paul addresses both extremes! The difficulty is deciding which words are addressed to true believers and which to factious groups. Modern interpreters hear what they want to hear and condemn what they do not like! Our interpretations say more about our theology than Paul’s letter to a Roman city in first century Achaia.
“and that the husband should not divorce his wife” Remember this context is addressing believers who are married. There are two NT exceptions to this mandate: (1) inappropriate sexual activity (cf. Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9) and (2) unbelief (cf. 1Co 7:12-13).
command. Greek. parangello. See Act 1:4.
yet, &c. Figure of speech Epanorthosis. App-6.
Lord. App-98. Compare Mat 5:32.
Let not the wife. Literally That the wife should not.
depart = be separated. Greek. chorizo. In Mat 19:6, put asunder.
from. App-104.
10, 11.] Prohibition of separation after marriage; or in case of separation, of another marriage. These , as the and above, are all Christians. The case of mixed marriage he treats 1Co 7:12 ff. They are those already married.
1Co 7:10.[58] , , I command, yet not I) a similar zeugma to, I live, yet not I, Gal 2:20. The force of the word, I command, is affirmatively connected with the Lord.- , the Lord) Christ, who had given instructions on this subject, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:4-5; or even spoke to Paul respecting this matter; comp. 1Co 7:12.- , not to be separated) The less noble party, the wife is separated; the more noble, the husband, puts away; then in a converse point of view the believing wife also is said to put away, and the unbelieving husband to be separated, 1Co 7:13; 1Co 7:15.
[58] -, to the married) when both husband and wife are among the number of believers. The antithesis is , ver. 12; when one or other of the parties is an unbeliever.-V.g.
1Co 7:10
1Co 7:10
But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord,-He now gives command from the Lord to those already married. Under the law of Moses they had been permitted to be separated when displeased. But Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses permitted this because of the hardness of their hearts, but it was not Gods law of marriage as ordained in the beginning. The man must leave all others and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. (Mat 19:3-9).
That the wife depart not from her husband-Paul, following the teaching of Jesus, commands the wife not to depart from her husband.
yet: 1Co 7:12, 1Co 7:25, 1Co 7:40
Let: 1Co 7:15, Jer 3:20, Mal 2:14-16, Mat 5:32, Mat 19:6-9, Mar 10:11, Mar 10:12, Luk 16:18
Reciprocal: Gen 2:24 – and they shall be one flesh Deu 24:5 – a man Mat 19:9 – Whosoever Mar 10:2 – Is it Joh 4:18 – is not 1Co 7:39 – wife 1Co 11:11 – General 1Ti 5:9 – having
1Co 7:10. Yet not I, but the Lord. This teaching was not given to them merely by the permission of the Lord (1Co 7:6), but He commanded him to give it. Let not the wife depart. Some might think that if it was better not to marry, it would likewise be proper for a wife to relieve her husband of these “added obligations,” and Paul is teaching against such an action.
1Co 7:10. But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord (i.e. the Lord Jesus), that the wife depart not from her husband. The LordJesus had Himself emphatically given this charge (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9), and it is on this that the apostle falls back.
As if the apostle had said, Although it be no sin to marry, yet it is a sin to depart when married; herein I lay the authority of God’s command upon you, that you agree together, and that no difference which may arise between you cause you to separate and live asunder. But to marry upon departure, is a double sin.
Therefore if any disagreements and discontents between husband and wife cause you to live asunder for a time, think not either of you of marrying to another person; but be reconciled to each other, and live together in love, as it becometh persons professing godliness.
A civil war in families is fatal, as well as in the commonwealth. Domestic contentions, especially betwixt husband and wife, are dangerous and destructive of love and peace. If at any time they arise to that height as to cause a separation betwixt them two who are one flesh, yet nothing of that nature can warrant their divorce; nothing but death or adultery can untie the marriage knot, and release them from their obligation to each other.
Should Married Christians Separate?
The second question would seem to be, “Should a Christian, who is joined to Christ, separate from the union of marriage?” Jesus had answered this question ( Mat 5:31-32 ; Mat 19:3-9 ; Mar 10:2-12 ; Luk 16:1-8 ). Generally, they should not even separate. Lipscomb says, “If she and her husband cannot live harmoniously together let her remain unmarried. She is not permitted to marry again. That would be adulterous.” Further, “If the wife who has separated from her husband finds that, after all, she cannot live a single life in purity the only course open to her is to be reconciled to the husband whom she has injured.” The rules of this verse apply to a husband, too ( 1Co 7:10-11 ).
Paul wrote the Lord’s commandments ( 1Co 14:37 ), but the Lord had not spoken of this matter while on earth. By inspiration, Paul spoke the Lord’s will in the matter. To this point, Paul has instructed believers married to unbelievers. If the unbeliever is willing to live with the believer and allow him to be faithful, the believer should not separate. The principle applies to believing wives as well as husbands ( 1Co 7:12-13 ).
There is nothing sinful or illegitimate about a marriage between believer and unbeliever. The children were not born of an illegitimate union. So, the law would not require the believer to quit such a relationship. McGarvey says the word “unclean” should be taken in the Jewish sense, meaning “not to be touched.” A marriage of such a nature under Moses’ law would have been unclean ( Deu 7:13 ; 1Ki 11:12 ; Ezr 9:12 ). “The law of Christ so reverses that of Moses that the Christian sanctifies or removes the uncleanness of the unbelieving partner, and of the children” ( 1Co 7:14 ).
If the unbelieving partner refuses to live with the believer, so long as the believer practices his, or her, beliefs, then, the believer does not have to live with the unbeliever. Continuing to live with the unbeliever would, under these circumstances, place the believer in slavery to Satan and cause him to reject Christ. The unbeliever cannot, by appealing to the husband/wife relationship of love, force the believer into such bondage. The believer should, however, separate peacefully. By being peaceful and patient, the believer may be able to convert the unbeliever ( 1Co 7:15-16 ; 1Pe 3:12 ).
1Co 7:10-11. The married I command Greek, , Now those that have married I charge: so these words should be rendered, the phrase being the same with that in 1Ti 1:3, rendered by our translators, that thou mightest charge some. Yet not I Only, or not I by any new revelation, nor by mere counsel, or prudential advice, as 1Co 7:25; 1Co 7:40. But the Lord Namely, in the first institution of marriage, Gen 2:24; and the Lord Christ also commanded the same, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:6; Mat 19:9. The Lord Jesus, during his ministry on earth, delivered many precepts of his law in the hearing of his disciples. And those which he did not deliver in person, he promised to reveal to them by the Spirit, after his departure. Therefore there is a just foundation for distinguishing the commandments which the Lord delivered in person, from those which he revealed to the apostles by the Spirit, and which they made known to the world in their sermons and writings. This distinction is not only made by Paul; it is insinuated likewise by Peter and Jude, 2Pe 3:3, Jdg 1:17, where the commandments of the apostles of the Lord and Saviour are mentioned, not as inferior in authority to the commandments of the Lord, (for they were all as really his commandments as those which he delivered in person,) but as different in the manner of their communication. And the apostles intention here was not, as many have imagined, to tell us in what things he was inspired, and in what not; but to show us what commandments the Lord delivered personally in his own lifetime, and what the Spirit inspired the apostles to deliver after his departure. This Paul could do with certainty; because, although he was not of the number of those who accompanied our Lord during his ministry, all the particulars of his life and doctrine were made known to him by revelation, as may be collected from 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3; 1Ti 5:18; and from many allusions to the words and actions of Christ, found in the epistles which Paul wrote before any of the gospels were published; and from his mentioning one of Christs sayings, not recorded by any of the evangelists, Act 20:35. Further, that the apostles intention, in distinguishing the Lords commandments from those he calls his own, was not to show what things he spake by inspiration, and what not, is evident, from his adding certain circumstances, which prove that, in delivering his own commandments, or judgment, he was really inspired. Thus, when he asserted that a widow was at liberty to marry a second time, by adding, (1Co 7:40,) she is happier if she so abide, after (that is, according to) my judgment; and I think, or, (as rather means,) I am certain that I also have the Spirit of God, he plainly asserted that he was inspired in giving that judgment or determination. See more on this subject in Macknight. Let not the wife depart from her husband Wilfully leave him, on account of any disagreement between them. But if she depart Contrary to this express prohibition, assigning, perhaps, reasons apparently necessary for it, as that her life is in danger, or the like; let her remain unmarried, or Rather, if it may be accomplished by any submission on her part, let her be reconciled to her husband That, if possible, they may live in such a union and harmony as the relation requires. And let not the husband put away his wife Except for the cause of adultery; because the obligations lying on husbands and wives are mutual and equal. The apostle, after saying concerning the wife, that if she departed from her husband, she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to him, did not think it necessary to add a similar clause respecting the husband, namely, that if he put away his wife, he must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her. This, however, is implied in what he says concerning him.
Vv. 10-16.
The rules to be followed in the case of two Christian spouses (1Co 7:10-11).
But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord [by his own lips– Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:3-12; Mar 10:12], That the wife depart not from her husband
10-13. They had written to him a diversity of questions which to them, so recently converted out of heathenism, were exceedingly complicated. Some took up the idea, somewhat looking at the example of their spiritual father, then more than fifty years old and unwedded, that it was better to forego matrimony altogether. Others had an idea that, if one of the matrimonial twain became a Christian, and the other persisted in heathenism, the former should leave the latter. This question Paul settles in the negative. If the unsaved party abandon you because you become a Christian, let such go in peace. But when the party is willing to live with a converted husband or wife, so much the better.
1Co 7:10-11. To those who are married: in contrast to let them marry. That those married to unbelievers are made in 1Co 7:12 a special case, implies that Paul refers to Christians married to Christians. Just so, in 1Co 7:9 let them marry refers only (cp. 1Co 7:39) to marriage with a believer.
Give charge: not advice, but solemn command.
Not I but Christ, the Lord of the Church; who had already (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:6-9) given an express command. His word made Paul’s word of no account. This implies, not that Paul’s own authority (cp. 1Co 14:37) is less than absolute; but that special solemnity belongs to those words which came from the lips of the incarnate Son.
Not to separate etc.: cp. Mat 19:6, where with the same word Christ expressly forbids a divorce.
But if she do separate; suggests that there may be a case in which for special reasons even the solemn words of Christ may be inapplicable.
Remains unmarried, i.e. without a husband: according to still more solemn words of Christ, Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9.
Be reconciled: Mat 5:24 : lay aside, or persuade him to lay aside, whatever prevents them from living together. The mention of this alternative suggests that reunion is desirable, even in the special case in which separation has taken place. A dissolution of marriage, for any reason or no reason, was easy in Roman law. Hence the need for the injunctions of Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9. The shorter injunction in 1Co 7:11 b to the husband, suggests perhaps that the wish for divorce was more likely in the wife. And we can easily conceive a wife to be prompted to the total change consequent on her conversion and by a new-born consciousness of Christian liberty, to avail herself of the laxity of Roman law, in order to escape from the control of one whom, though a Christian, she felt to be an unsuitable consort. Paul reminds her, while leaving room for an exceptional case, that Christ has expressly forbidden separation; and has still more emphatically forbidden re-marriage.
7:10 {7} And unto the married I command, [yet] not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:
(7) Seventhly, he forbids contentions and the granting of divorces (for he speaks not here of the fault of whoredom, which was then death even by the law of the Romans also) by which he affirms that the band of marriage is not dissolved, and that from Christ’s mouth.
No divorce for Christians whose mates are believers 7:10-11
Some Corinthian spouses wanted to abstain from intercourse (1Co 7:1-7), but some others apparently wanted to extricate themselves from their marriages altogether (1Co 7:10-16). [Note: Keener, p. 64.] Again Paul advised remaining as they were, but he also allowed an exception.
"While Paul displays ambivalence toward whether widowers and widows should get married (1Co 7:8-9), he consistently rejects the notion that the married may dissolve their marriages." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 291.]
The Lord Jesus Christ gave instruction concerning what believers are to do in marriage when He taught during His earthly ministry (Mat 5:27-32; Mat 19:3-12; Mar 10:1-12). Paul cited some of this teaching and added more of his own. This is one of the rare instances when Paul appealed directly to Jesus’ teachings (cf. 1Co 9:14; 1Co 11:23; 1Ti 5:18). Usually he taught in harmony with Jesus without citing Him. Of course, God’s instructions through Paul are just as inspired and authoritative as His teaching through Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. This is one of Paul’s few commands in this chapter (cf. 1Co 7:2-5).
The main point of Paul’s advice is that Christians should not break up their marriages (Mat 19:4-6; Mar 10:7-9). "Leaving" and divorcing (1Co 7:12-13) were virtually the same in Greco-Roman culture. [Note: Ibid., p. 293.] "Separate" (Gr. chorizo) was vernacular for "divorce." [Note: William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 899.] In our day one popular way to deal with marriage problems is to split up, and this has always been an attractive option for many people. Nevertheless the Lord’s will is that all people, including believers, work through their marital problems rather than giving up on them by separating permanently.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)