Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 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.
11. but and if she depart ] Literally, be separated, as above. There were great facilities for divorce, both under the law of Greece and Rome, in St Paul’s day, but the facilities were greater for the husband than for the wife. At Athens the husband could dismiss his wife at will. At Sparta failure of issue was regarded as a sufficient reason. Thus the Ephors, we are told by Herodotus (1Co 7:39) sent for Anaxandrides and urged him, lest the race of Eurysthenes should be extinct, to put away his wife. Something similar is related by the same historian (vi. 61 3) of Ariston. So in Roman law, the husband had originally the full disposal of the wife’s person and liberty, but this harsh regulation was resented by the wives, and in the days of the empire the wife also obtained the power of divorce. Cicero and Csar both divorced their wives. Juvenal ( Sat. vi. 229, 230) speaks of the fatal facility of divorce, possessed by the wives in his day: the then accepted theory being that whatever put an end to conjugal affection was sufficient to dissolve marriage. See Art. Divortium in Smith’s Dictionary of Antiquities, and Merivale’s History of Rome, Vol. iv. The Jewish law of divorce was also very lax. See St Mat 5:31-32; Deu 24:1.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But and if she depart – If she have withdrawn by a rash and foolish act; if she has attempted to dissolve the marriage vow, she is to remain unmarried, or be reconciled. She is not at liberty to marry another. This may refer, I suppose, to instances where wives, ignorant of the rule of Christ, and supposing that they had a right to separate themselves from their husbands, had rashly left them, and had supposed that the marriage contract was dissolved. Paul tells them that this was impossible; and that if they had so separated from their husbands, the pure laws of Christianity, did not recognize this right, and they must either be reconciled to their husbands, or remain alone. The marriage tie was so sacred that it could not be dissolved by the will of either party.
Let her remain unmarried – That is, let her not marry another.
Or be reconciled to her husband – Let this be done, if possible. If it cannot be, let her remain unmarried. It was a duty to be reconciled if it was possible. If not, she should not violate her vows to her husband so far as to marry another. It is evident that this rule is still binding, and that no one who has separated from her husband, whatever be the cause, unless there be a regular divorce, according to the law of Christ Mat 5:32, can be at liberty to marry again.
And let not the husband – See the note at Mat 5:32. This right, granted under the Jewish law, and practiced among all the pagan, was to be taken away wholly under the gospel. The marriage tie was to be regarded as sacred; and the tyranny of man over woman was to cease.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 11. But, and if she depart] He puts the case as probable, because it was frequent, but lays it under restrictions.
Let her remain unmarried] She departs at her own peril; but she must not marry another: she must either continue unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.
And let not the husband put away his wife.] Divorces cannot be allowed but in the case of fornication: an act of this kind dissolves the marriage vow; but nothing else can. It is a fact that, among the Jews, the wife had just as much right to put away her husband as the husband had to put away his wife. As divorces were granted, it was right that each should have an equal power; for this served as a mutual check.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
How our translators came to translate , which is manifestly a verb passive, if she depart, I cannot tell. It signifieth, if she be departed, and so is as well significative of a being parted from her husband by a judicial act of divorce, as of a voluntary departing. The Jews were wont to give bills of divorce to their wives for any trivial cause. The word is to be interpreted as well of any legal divorce, not according to the true meaning of the Divine law, as concerning a voluntary secession; in which case the apostle commandeth that she should marry to no other: the reason is plain, because no such cause of divorce broke the bond of marriage; she was yet the wife of her former husband in Gods eye and account, and committed adultery if she married to another, as our Saviour had determined, Mat 5:32; 19:9. But he gives her a liberty to
be reconciled to her husband. In case that a woman put away by her husband became another mans wife, by the law, Deu 24:4, she might not (though that latter husband died) return to her former husband; but in case she remained unmarried, she might be reconciled to him.
And let not the husband put away his wife; the apostle giveth the same precept concerning husbands.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
11. But and if she departor”be separated.” If the sin of separation has beencommitted, that of a new marriage is not to be added (Mt5:32).
be reconciledbyappeasing her husband’s displeasure, and recovering his good will.
let not . . . husband putaway . . . wifeIn Mt 5:32the only exception allowed is, “saving for the cause offornication.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But and if she depart,…. This is said, not as allowing of such a departure, which only in case of fornication is lawful; but supposing it a fact, that a woman cannot be prevailed upon to stay with her husband, but actually forsakes him upon some difference arising between them,
let her remain unmarried: she ought not to marry another man; her departure does not make the marriage void; nor is it to be made void by any difference between them, either on religious or civil accounts, only in case of adultery; and therefore, if upon such separation she marries, she is guilty of adultery:
or be reconciled to her husband; which is rather to be chosen, than to remain separate, though unmarried; if she has given the offence, and is the cause of the separation, she ought to acknowledge it, and ask forgiveness of her husband, and return to him and live in peace with him; and if the fault is on his side, she ought to make use of all proper methods to convince him of it, bring him into good temper, forgive any injury done her, and live peaceably and comfortably together:
and let not the husband put away his wife; as the Jews were wont to do, upon every trifling occasion; [See comments on Mt 5:31] [See comments on Mt 5:32]
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But and if she depart ( ). Third class condition, undetermined. If, in spite of Christ’s clear prohibition, she get separated (ingressive passive subjunctive),
let her remain unmarried ( ). Paul here makes no allowance for remarriage of the innocent party as Jesus does by implication.
Or else be reconciled to her husband ( ). Second aorist (ingressive) passive imperative of , old compound verb to exchange coins as of equal value, to reconcile. One of Paul’s great words for reconciliation with God (2Cor 5:18-20; Rom 5:10). (Mt 5:24 which see) was more common in the older Greek, but in the later. The difference in idea is very slight, – accents notion of exchange, – the perfective idea (complete reconciliation). Dative of personal interest is the case of . This sentence is a parenthesis between the two infinitives and (both indirect commands after ).
And that the husband leave not his wife ( ). This is also part of the Lord’s command (Mr 10:11). occurs in Mark of the husband’s act and here, both meaning to send away. Bengel actually stresses the difference between of the woman as like separatur in Latin and calls the wife “pars ignobilior” and the husband “nobilior.” I doubt if Paul would stand for that extreme.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) But and if she depart, (ean de kai choristhe) if indeed even she is separated from her husband.
2) Let her remain unmarried, (Meneto agamos) Let her remain, linger, or continue unmarried.
3) Or be reconciled to her husband. (he to andri Katalageto) or to her own husband become reconciled.
4) And let not the husband put away his wife. (kai andra gunaika me aphienai) And let not a husband leave, desert, abandon, or put away his wife. Such has been the primary will of God, from the beginning, Mat 19:3-9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
11. But if she depart That this is not to be understood of those who have been put away for adultery, is evident from the punishment that followed in that case; for it was a capital crime even by the Roman laws, and almost by the common law of nations. But as husbands frequently divorced their wives, either because their manners were not congenial, or because their personal appearance did not please them, or because of some offense; (400) and as wives, too, sometimes deserted their husbands on account of their cruelty, or excessively harsh and dishonorable treatment, he says that marriage is not dissolved by divorces or dissensions of that nature. For it is an agreement that is consecrated by the name of God, which does not stand or fall according to the inclination of men, so as to be made void whenever we may choose. The sum is this: other contracts, as they depend on the mere inclination of men, are in like manner dissolved by that same inclination; but those who are connected by marriage are no longer free, so as to be at liberty, if they change their mind, to break in pieces the pledge, (401) (as the expression is,) and go each of them elsewhere in quest of a new connection. For if the rights of nature cannot be dissolved, much less can this, which, as we have said already, is preferred before the principal tie of nature.
But as to his commanding the wife, who is separated from her husband, to remain unmarried, he does not mean by this that separation is allowable, nor does he give permission to the wife to live apart from her husband; but if she has been expelled from the house, or has been put away, she must not think that even in that case she is set free from his power; for it is not in the power of a husband to dissolve marriage. He does not therefore give permission here to wives to withdraw, of their own accord, from their husbands, or to live away from their husband’s establishment, as if they were in a state of widowhood; but declares, that even those who are not received by their husbands, continue to be bound, so that they cannot take other husbands.
But what if a wife is wanton, or otherwise incontinent? Would it not be inhuman to refuse her the remedy, when, constantly burning with desire? I answer, that when we are prompted by the infirmity of our flesh, we must have recourse to the remedy; after which it is the Lord’s part to bridle and restrain our affections by his Spirit, though matters should not succeed according to our desire. For if a wife should fall into a protracted illness, the husband would, nevertheless, not be justified in going to seek another wife. In like manner, if a husband should, after marriage, begin to labor under some distemper, it would not be allowable for his wife to change her condition of life. The sum is this — God having prescribed lawful marriage as a remedy for our incontinency, let us make use of it, that we may not, by tempting him, pay the penalty of our rashness. Having discharged this duty, let us hope that he will give us aid should matters go contrary to our expectations.
(400) “ Pource qu’elles n’estoyent assez belles, ou pour quelque autre despit ou desplaisir;” — “Because they were not handsome enough, or on the ground of some other offense or dislike.”
(401) The phrase used by our Author — frangant tesseram — ( break the pledge) contains an allusion to the custom among the Romans of having, on occasion of a league of hospitality being formed, a tally ( tessera ) or piece of wood cut into two parts, of which each party kept one. If either of the parties acted inconsistently with the engagement, he was said — confregisse resseraph — to have broken the pledge. See Plaut. Cist. 2. 1:27. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(11) But and if she depart.Better, but if she have actually separated. These words, from but to husband, are a parenthesis, and the concluding words, and let not the husband put away his wife, are the completion of the Lords command given in 1Co. 7:10. The Apostle, in case such a separation should already have taken place, anticipates the difficult question which might then arise by parenthetically remarking that in such a case the woman must not marry again, but ought to be reunited to her former husband.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
11. If A provision both for cases of separation already existing, and for separations from unavoidable causes. The party must then remain single, or if a resumption of the connexion be practicable, it must be made.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 7:11 . From to . is a parenthesis pure and simple, disjoined from the rest of the sentence which continues with . But in case she should perhaps ( ) even ( , i.e. in fact, actually ; see Hartung, Partikell . I. p. 132 f.) be separated (have separated herself); in this Paul is not granting something in the way of exception, as though the preceding injunction were not to be taken too strictly (which is set aside at once by , ., 1Co 7:10 ), but he supposes a future case, which will possibly arise notwithstanding the commandment of the Lord’s just adduced. The therefore, with the of antithesis, introduces, as in 1Co 7:28 , an occurrence which will possibly be realized in the experience of the future (Hermann, a [1105] Viger. p. 834; Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 367]). This in opposition to Rckert, who maintains that the words refer to that specific case (see on 1Co 7:10 ), and mean: if, however, she should perhaps have already separated herself before receiving this decision; and likewise to Hofmann, who renders: if such a separation has actually already taken place within the church, thereby presupposing that such a thing will henceforth never take place there again.
] assumes that her marriage is not to be looked upon as really dissolved; hence she would be guilty of adultery should she contract another union. Comp Mat 19:9 .
] or else ; comp on 1Co 9:15 .
] passive , leaving it undefined as to who was the active subject in the case (see Buttmann, I. p. 368; Winer, p. 245 [E. T. 328]): let her be reconciled , be friendly again with her husband. The voluntary separation of the wife from her husband is, in fact, just the cancelling of her peaceful relation to him, which is to be restored again.
. ] and that a husband put not away a wife , send her from him, separate himself from her. Comp Herod. v. 29: . The clause added by Christ (in accordance with Schamai’s doctrine): , Mat 5:32 ; Mat 19:9 , does not occur in Luk 16:18 or Mar 10:11 . We are not warranted in supposing that Paul was not aware of this exception having been recognised by Christ, or that he had perhaps never heard of it at all, for the simple reason, that the validity of this ground of divorce was self-evident. Comp on Mat 5:32 .
[1105] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 11. Or let her be reconciled ] Ut quae mode pugnarant iungant sua rostra columbae. (Ovid.) Why should married couples be as glass, that being once broken can never be pieced again? The Lord hates putting away, Mal 2:16 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
11 .] to is parenthetical. It supposes a case of actual separation, contrary of course to Christ’s command: if such have really taken place ( , veritably: see note on 2Co 5:3 , and Hartung, Partikell. i. 132), the additional sin of a new marriage ( Mat 5:32 ) must not be committed, but the breach healed as soon as possible.
. ] see above on .
. . . . ] The Apostle does not add the qualification Mat 5:32 ( Mat 19:9 ), not found in Mar 10:11 or Luk 16:18 . But we cannot hence infer that he was not aware of it. The rule , not the exception, here was in his mind: and after what had been before said on the subject of fornication, the latter would be understood as a matter of course.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
remain = abide, as in 1Co 7:8.
reconciled. Greek. katallasso. See Rom 5:10.
put away = send away. Greek. aphiemi. App-174.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
11.] to is parenthetical. It supposes a case of actual separation, contrary of course to Christs command: if such have really taken place (, veritably: see note on 2Co 5:3, and Hartung, Partikell. i. 132), the additional sin of a new marriage (Mat 5:32) must not be committed, but the breach healed as soon as possible.
.] see above on .
. . . .] The Apostle does not add the qualification Mat 5:32 (Mat 19:9), not found in Mar 10:11 or Luk 16:18. But we cannot hence infer that he was not aware of it. The rule, not the exception, here was in his mind: and after what had been before said on the subject of fornication, the latter would be understood as a matter of course.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 7:11. , if) This word also at the end of this verse is to be understood of the husband.- , she even be separated [be put away: not depart, as if of herself, Engl. Vers.]) contrary to the commandment.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 7:11
1Co 7:11
(but should she depart, let her remain unmarried,-If she and her husband cannot live harmoniously together let her remain unmarried. She is not permitted to marry again. That would be adulterous.
or else be reconciled to her husband);-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 same thing applies to the husband under similar circumstances.
and that the husband leave not his wife.-This passage undoubtedly teaches that the believer is to take no steps to hinder the restoration of the marriage relations, but to be ready to seek to restore them. Divorce is intended to make the separation permanent and to make unlawful marriage possible. No Christian can do this. Nothing severs the marriage relationship between Christians save the sin of adultery.
No man or woman with a living wife or husband not guilty of adultery can marry another without adultery, and no lapse of time will purge the cohabitation of its sinfulness. The one who separates from the other tempts the other to commit adultery. One in a state of sin cannot become a Christian or live a Christian life without making an earnest endeavor to correct that wrong. Repentance involves the confession of all our sins as occasion may demand, and of our undoing our wrongs, as far as in our power. A failure to do so shows a lack of faith from the heart and of genuine repentance towards God. Neither the woman nor the man with whom she cohabits can live the Christian life without ceasing their adulterous relationship. No service is acceptable to God unless done because God requires it, and done to obey him. The great trouble on this question is not a failure to understand the teaching of the Bible, but a lack of faith and courage to do what it requires.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
or: Jdg 19:2, Jdg 19:3, Jer 3:1
and let: Deu 22:19, Isa 50:1, Mar 10:2
Reciprocal: Gen 2:24 – and they shall be one flesh Deu 24:1 – send her Mat 5:32 – whosoever Mat 19:9 – doth Mar 10:11 – Whosoever Joh 4:18 – is not 1Ti 5:9 – having
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 7:11. Regardless of what might cause a wife to depart, she would have no right to remarry some other man. The husband had no right to put away his wife on the ground of Paul’s advice about the “present distress.”
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 7:11. (but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.) The case here supposed is that of such disagreement between Christian husband and wife as induces the wife, in spite of the prohibition, to leave her husband. In this case she must either get reconciled to her husbandwhich is bestor remain single.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
(but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
If separation (divorce) occurs, they should either remain unmarried (i.e., stay as they are) or reconcile with their mate. Paul said this was to be the wife’s course of action because if she left her husband she would be the mate who had to decide what to do. However the same procedure would be appropriate for the husband. In Greco-Roman culture wives could divorce their husbands, but among the Jews they could not. [Note: Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 69.] Only the husband could initiate a divorce (Deu 24:1).
I believe Paul did not deal with the exception that Jesus Christ allowed on the grounds of fornication (Gr. porneia; Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9) because it is an exception. Paul wanted to reinforce the main teaching of Christ on this subject, namely, that couples should not dissolve their marriages.
Some of the Corinthian Christians appear to have been separating for ascetic reasons: to get away from sexual activity. In many modern cultures the reason is often the opposite; people often divorce to marry someone else. Regardless of the reason for the temptation, Paul commanded Christian husbands and wives to stay together and to share their bodies as well as their lives with each other. It is impossible for a Christian husband and wife to provide a model of reconciliation to the world if they cannot reconcile with each other.