1 Corinthians 7:11

1Co 7:11. Ἐὰν, if) This word also at the end of this verse is to be understood of the husband.—καὶ χωρισθῇ, she even be separated [be put away: not ‘depart,’ as if of herself, Engl. Vers.]) contrary to the commandment.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_7:11. From ἐάν to καταλλ. is a parenthesis pure and simple, disjoined from the rest of the sentence which continues with καὶ ἄνδρα. But in case she should perhaps (ἐὰν δέ) even (καί, 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 οὐκ ἐγὼ, ἀλλʼ ὁ Κύρ., 1Co_7:10), but he supposes a future case, which will possibly arise notwithstanding the commandment of the Lords just adduced. The ἐὰν καί therefore, with the δέ 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 Rückert, 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.

μενέτω ἄγαμος] 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.

ἤ] or else; comp on 1Co_9:15.

καταλλαγήτω] 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.

καὶ ἄνδρα γυν. μὴ ἀφιέναι] and that a husband put not away a wife, send her from him, separate himself from her. Comp Herod. v. 29: ἀπέντα ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα. The clause added by Christ (in accordance with Schamais doctrine): παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνειάς, 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_7:10, 1Co_7:11

And unto the married I command, (yet) not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from (her) husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to (her) husband: and let not the husband put away (his) wife.

The first part of the 11th verse is a parenthesis, the construction goes on with the last clause. To the married I command, Let not the wife depart from her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife. The distinction which he here and in 1Co_7:12 makes between his commands and those of the Lord, is not a distinction between what is inspired and what is not; nor is it a distinction between what Paul taught and what the Scriptures teach as Calvin understands it; but Lord here evidently refers to Christ; and the distinction intended is between what Christ had taught while on earth, and what Paul by his Spirit was inspired to teach. He tells the Corinthians that so far as the matter of divorce was concerned, they had no need to apply to him for instruction: Christ had already taught that the marriage bond could not be dissolved at the option of the parties. The wife had no right to leave her husband; nor had the husband the right to repudiate his wife. But although the marriage bond cannot be dissolved by any human authority, because it is, in virtue of the law of God, a covenant for life between one man and one woman; yet it can be annulled, not rightfully indeed, but still effectually. Adultery annuls it, because it is a breach of the specific contract involved in marriage. And so does, for the same reason, willful desertion, as the apostle teaches in a following verse. This is the Protestant doctrine concerning divorce, founded on the nature of marriage and on the explicit instructions of our Lord, Mat_5:3; Mat_19:3-9; Mar_10:2-12; Luk_16:18. According to this doctrine nothing but adultery or willful desertion is a legitimate ground of divorce, first, because the Scriptures allow of no other grounds; and secondly, because incompatibility of temper, cruelty, disease, crime, and other things of like kind, which human laws often make the occasion for divorce, are not in their nature a destruction of the marriage covenant. Romanists teach that divorce a vinculo matrimonii, where both parties were baptized, is never allowable. As this rule is contrary to Scripture, it is found injurious in practice; and therefore it is evaded by declaring marriages on frivolous grounds void ab initio; or by granting separation without dissolution of the marriage tie, for reasons not sanctioned by Scripture. The plain doctrine of the passage before us, as well as other portions of the word of God, is that marriage is an indissoluble covenant between one man and one woman for life, admitting neither of polygamy nor of divorce. If the covenant be annulled, it can only be by the sinful act of one of the parties.

But and if she depart. The law of Christ is that she should not depart; but if in violation of the law, or if from necessity she be obliged to depart, she has but two things to choose between, she must remain unmarried, or she must be reconciled to her husband. This is not intended as an exception to the law, but it contemplates a case which may occur in despite of the law. In case a woman has actually departed, with or without just cause, then she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. There are cases undoubtedly which justify a woman in leaving her husband, which do not justify divorce. Just as there are cases which justify a child leaving, or being removed from, the custody of a parent. The apostle teaches, however, that in such cases of separation, the parties must remain unmarried.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But and if she depart--or "be separated." If the sin of separation has been committed, that of a new marriage is not to be added (Mat 5:32).

be reconciled--by appeasing her husband's displeasure, and recovering his good will.

let not . . . husband put away . . . wife--In Mat 5:32 the only exception allowed is, "saving for the cause of fornication."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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; 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, (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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 Lord’s 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Cæsar 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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Gill on Mat 5:31, Mat 5:32

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

How our translators came to translate χωρισθη, 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 God’s 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 man’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If she depart. The reference throughout the verse is to separation due to incompatibility of temper, etc.; not to legal divorce.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But if she depart - Contrary to this express prohibition. And let not the husband put away his wife - Except for the cause of adultery.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

(but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife .

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11. But and if she depart. Provided, despite the prohibition, there is such disagreement that she leaves her husband, she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled. Let not the husband put away his wife. The wife “departs,” because she leaves the home; the husband “puts away his wife,” by sending her off. Both are equally prohibited. The same rules apply to each sex. Among the Jews, only the husband exercised the right of divorce; among the Greeks and Romans, the wife exercised it equally with the husband.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

11. ἐὰν δὲ καί. Nearly equivalent to our ‘but if, after all,’ or ‘but if she be separated’ (with the emphasis on ‘be’).

χωρισθῇ. Literally, be separated, as above. There were great facilities for divorce, both under the law of Greece and that of 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 (6:61–3) 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 Caesar 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 Mat 5:31-32; Deu 24:1.

μενέτω ἄγαμος. Let her not, that is, contract another marriage, which she was free by the law to do.

ἀφιέναι. The inf. after παραγγέλλω.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11.] Prohibition of separation after marriage; or in case of separation, of another marriage. These γεγαμηκότες, as the ἄγαμοι and χῆραι above, are all Christians. The case of mixed marriage he treats ver. 12 ff. They are those already married.

11.] ἐάν to καταλλαγήτω is parenthetical. It supposes a case of actual separation, contrary of course to Christ’s command: if such have really taken place (καί, 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.

καταλλ.] see above on χωρισθῇ.

κ. ἄνδρ. γυν. μὴ ἀφ.] The Apostle does not add the qualification παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας Mat 5:32 (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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. ἐάν δέ καὶ χωρισθῇ. ‘But if (in spite of Christ’s command) she even goes so far as to separate herself,’ she is not to marry any other man. The divorce is her act, not her husband’s. “Christianity had powerfully stirred the feminine mind at Corinth (11:5, 14:34). In some cases ascetic aversion caused the wish to separate” (Findlay). With the καί compare εἰ δὲ καί in 4:7. Christ had forbidden marriage with a divorced with (Luk 16:18), and His Apostle here takes the same ground. If the wife who has separated from her husband finds that, after all, she cannot live a single life, the only course open to her is to be reconciled to the husband whom she has injured. For the construction (καταλλ. c. dat.) see Rom 5:10. Like εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος (v. 15) and ἀλλʼ εἰ δύνασαι (v. 21), this ἐὰν δὲ καὶ κ.τ.λ is a parenthesis to provide for an exceptional case. He then continues the Lord’s command, that ‘a husband is not to put away (ἀφιέναι = καταλύειν) his wife.’* St Paul, like our Lord, forbids divorce absolutely: πορνεία in the wife is not mentioned here as creating an exception; and it is possible that this exception (Mat 5:32, Mat 5:19:9; see Allen and Plummer ad loc.) was unknown to the Apostle, because it had not been made by Christ.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.