1 Corinthians 7:10,11

“But unto the already married I command, not I, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from the husband, 11. that if she is parted, she ought to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband do not put away his wife.”

The γεγαμηκότες, married, are contrasted, on the one hand, with those who are widowers or bachelors (1 Corinthians 7:8-9), and on the other, with the τοῖς λοίποις, the others, or the rest (1 Corinthians 7:12); as these are also married, those of 1 Corinthians 7:10 can only be regarded as spouses living in Christian marriage on both sides, and the others, of 1 Corinthians 7:12, as living in mixed marriage (a Christian spouse with a Jewish or heathen spouse). To understand the apostle's mode of expressing himself, we need only call to mind that this letter was intended to be read in the assembly of the Church; consequently, when the apostle said: “Those who are in the state of marriage” (γεγαμηκότες, the perfect), he could only thereby designate two spouses who were both Christians.

The verb παραγγέλλω, I command, sometimes includes, along with the idea of commanding, that of transmitting; perhaps it is so in this passage: “As to this command, I do not give it to you myself; I transmit it to you.”

What are the meaning and bearing of the distinction which Paul establishes in the words, not I, but the Lord? The simplest supposition is that he means to speak here of a command given by Jesus Himself during His earthly sojourn. And what confirms this meaning is, that we really find this precept in our Gospels proceeding from the mouth of Jesus, just as we read it here; comp. Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18. Not that I hold that the three first Gospels were already composed and circulated in the Churches at the time when Paul wrote; rather he derives his knowledge of this saying from the oral tradition which proceeded from the apostles. Baur has objected that if Paul had meant to cite a positive command of the Lord, he must have used the past παρήγγειλεν (He commanded), and not the present. But the command of Jesus is regarded as abiding for the Church throughout all time. No doubt it might also be that the apostle meant to say he had received this command by way of revelation. But the fact that we find it expressly given in our Gospels by the Lord proves that this is the saying to which he alludes.

And what is the effect of the distinction which Paul establishes between what the Lord commands and what he himself prescribes (1 Corinthians 7:12)? Does he mean that his apostolical commands are less infallible than those of the Lord? But this would be to sap apostolical authority with his own hands, and the words, 1 Corinthians 14:37, where he calls certain prescriptions in regard to worship a commandment of the Lord, would certainly not confirm this distinction. He means rather to establish the difference between the commands given expressly by the Lord, which have consequently indisputable force for the whole Church, and those which emanate from himself, and which, as such, are law only for the Churches founded by him and subject to his apostleship. So the former required only to be cited; they had no need of being demonstrated to any one who professed faith in Christ. The latter, on the contrary, assumed the acknowledgment of Paul as an apostle of the Lord; the apostle therefore felt himself called to expound the reasons which justified them; comp. 1 Corinthians 7:14; 1 Corinthians 7:16.

In quoting the words of Jesus, Paul omits the limitation put by the Lord on the command not to separate: “unless it be for adultery.” Luke and Mark likewise omit it in the account of this discourse. The reason is that it was taken for granted; for in this relation adultery is equivalent to death; and such a crime was not to be thought possible in the Christian community.

The wife is placed first, because it is from her, as the weaker party, that the inclinations for separation oftenest come. The apostle says, in speaking of her, χωρισθῆναι, to be separated, while in the end of the following verse, in speaking of the man, he says ἀφιέναι, to send away, or let go. The reason perhaps is because the man is in his own home, and remains there, whereas the woman leaves the domicile.

Vv. 11. The first part of the verse is a parenthesis; for the proposition begun in 1 Corinthians 7:10 finishes with the last words of 1 Corinthians 7:11. The apostle anticipates the case in which, notwithstanding his, or rather the Lord's, prohibition, a Christian woman has left her husband: ἐὰν δὲ καί, but if even (with and in spite of this prohibition). Such a violation of the Lord's words have been regarded as inadmissible. Hofmann therefore supposes that it is solely deeds already consummated at the time when Paul wrote his letter that are in question; and Holsten concludes from this same alleged impossibility that the parenthesis, ἐὰν δὲ... καταλλαγήτω, is only a later interpolation. All this is unnecessary. Paul could perfectly anticipate the case in which, notwithstanding this prohibition, a wife, outraged by the bad treatment of which she was the victim, would go off abruptly in a moment of lively irritation. Fearing to do more harm than good by doing violence to the state of things, Paul accepts the situation. But first he seeks to prevent a second and still graver evil from being added to the first, and that by a new marriage of the separated wife, a marriage which Jesus called adultery; then he recommends a reconciliation as soon as possible. It has been asked whether the interdict against a new marriage applied also to the case in which one of the spouses had been guilty of adultery; and next, whether in this case the prohibition applied to the injured party as well as to the criminal spouse. Catholic law absolutely forbids divorce, even in the case of adultery, while Protestant law in these circumstances allows it. And, as to second marriage, Protestant law likewise permits it, but only to the innocent party. The refusal of divorce in the case of adultery seems to us to transgress the meaning of the Lord's words; for by these adultery is implicitly put on the same footing as death. And, as to the right of remarriage granted to the innocent party, it does not seem to me at all contrary to the text of Scripture. But what seems to me absolutely irreconcileable with the Lord's words, is the readiness with which Protestant pastors, becoming the agents of a purely civil legislation, consent to bless in the name of the Lord marriages contracted between persons whose first marriage had not been dissolved for the only reason authorized by the Lord, so that this new union, according to His positive declaration, is adultery. To bless on His part what He Himself characterizes so severely is a strange way of acting in His name. The State may have excellent reasons for not imposing on human society in general such rules as in their severity go beyond its moral level (Matthew 19:8); but the Church has reasons not less valid for refusing to follow it in this region contrary to the will of its Master. Of course this faithful conduct of the Church demands, as a consequence, the distinction between State legislation and Church legislation. After this parenthesis, the apostle finishes the quotation of the Lord's words, by adding what concerns the husband. On the term ἀφιέναι, to put away, see on 1 Corinthians 7:10. For the rest, the two sexes are put on the same footing. Among the Greeks, the wife could separate freely from her husband.