TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry comments on passages, not single verses — this entry covers 1 Corinthians 7:10–16. His three-level outline is real structure in the source text, so it is rendered as structure.
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, Ezr 10:3. 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 (Co1 7:10), nor the husband put away his wife, Co1 7:11. 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 (Co1 7:12):
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 (Co1 7:40), 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, Co1 7:12, Co1 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 (Co1 7:15), 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 (Co1 7:11), 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 (Co1 7:14), 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 1:15. 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 (Co1 7:14), 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 6:13), but common and unclean, in the same sense as heathens in general were styled in the apostle's vision, Act 10:28. 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, Co1 7:15. 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 12:18), 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 (Co1 7:16): 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."
Historical interpretation
Three Centuries of Reception
11 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
"Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way."
And, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her.
And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: "Whosoever looks on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart." [Matthew 5:28] "And he that marries," says [the Gospel], "her that is divorced from her husband, commits adultery; and whosoever puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery." [Matthew 5:32] Because Solomon says: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goes in to a married woman shall not be innocent." [Proverbs 6:27-29]
A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. "For whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;" [Matthew 19:9] not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.
Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, "Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;" and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. "He that taketh a woman that has been put away," it is said, "committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress," that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.
Now, when Marcion wholly prohibits all carnal intercourse to the faithful (for we will say nothing about his catechumens), and when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements before marriage, whose teaching does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ? Even Christ, however, when He here commands "the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband," both permitted divorce, which indeed He never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation.
That a wife must not depart from her husband; or if she should depart, she must remain unmarried. In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "But to them that are married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not be separated from her husband; but if she should depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and that the husband should not put away his wife."
If a layman divorces his own wife, and takes another, or one divorced by another, let him be suspended.
Because it is a law expressly appointed by Christ which he is about to read to them about the "not putting away a wife without fornication;" therefore he says, "Not I." True it is what was before spoken though it were not expressly stated, yet it also is His decree. But this, you see, He had delivered in express words. So that the words "I and not I" have this difference of meaning. For that you might not imagine even his own words to be human, therefore he added, "For I think that I also have the Spirit of God."
Now what is that which "to the married the Lord commanded? That the wife depart not from her husband: but if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her husband." Here, seeing that both on the score of continence and other pretexts, and because of infirmities of temper, it fell out that separations took place: it were better, he says, that such things should not be at all; but however if they take place, let the wife remain with her husband, if not to cohabit with him, yet so as not to introduce any other to be her husband.
Paul did not intend this to apply to those who abandon their spouses for the service of Christ.
Here Paul recalls the words of the Lord [in Matthew 5:32]: “Whoever puts away his wife, except for fornication, makes her an adulteress.”
Continue studying 1 Corinthians 7:10 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
First Corinthians 7:10 presents a foundational command from the Apostle Paul to married believers, prohibiting a wife from departing from her husband. Crucially, Paul emphasizes that this directive is not merely his personal counsel but a direct command originating from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, underscoring the divine authority and permanence of the marital covenant within the Christian life.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is situated at the beginning of 1 Corinthians chapter 7, a lengthy and pivotal section where Paul addresses specific questions posed by the Corinthian church regarding marriage, celibacy, and divorce. The chapter opens with a general principle concerning sexual relations within marriage (1 Cor 7:1-5), then transitions to discussing celibacy for the unmarried and widows (1 Cor 7:6-9). Verse 10 marks a distinct shift, as Paul moves from his own Spirit-inspired advice to a direct reiteration of the Lord's command concerning the indissolubility of Christian marriage. This particular command is then followed by a reciprocal instruction for husbands (1 Cor 7:11) and further counsel for believers married to unbelievers (1 Cor 7:12-16), illustrating Paul's comprehensive approach to marital ethics.
Historical & Cultural Context
The city of Corinth was a bustling port city renowned for its moral laxity and diverse pagan cults, including the worship of Aphrodite, which often involved temple prostitution. New Christian converts in this environment faced significant challenges in understanding and applying biblical sexual ethics and marital norms, which often stood in stark contrast to the surrounding culture. Within both Jewish and Roman societies, divorce was permissible, though the grounds and procedures varied. Jewish law, particularly as interpreted by different rabbinic schools, allowed for divorce, primarily initiated by the husband. Roman law also permitted divorce, often with relative ease. Paul's instructions, especially those rooted in the Lord's teaching, provided a counter-cultural standard for Christian marriage, emphasizing its sacred and enduring nature against a backdrop of societal permissiveness.
Key Themes
First Corinthians 7:10 contributes significantly to several key themes within the chapter and the broader epistle. Foremost is the sanctity and permanence of Christian marriage, establishing it as a lifelong covenant intended by God, not to be easily broken. The phrase "not I, but the Lord" highlights the theme of divine authority, asserting that this particular command on marital indissolubility carries the weight of Christ's own teaching, which aligns with His words found in the Gospels regarding divorce (e.g., Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9). Furthermore, the verse implicitly addresses the theme of Christian conduct in a pagan world, providing clear ethical guidelines for believers navigating complex personal relationships while striving for holiness in a morally compromised society.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This verb, translated "I command," means "to transmit a message," "to enjoin," or "to give in charge." It denotes an authoritative instruction, a formal directive, rather than mere advice or suggestion. When Paul uses this term, especially in conjunction with "not I, but the Lord," it signals a mandate that carries the weight of divine authority, indicating that the instruction is binding and not merely a matter of personal opinion or preference.
Translated "the Lord," this term signifies "supreme in authority," "controller," or "Master." In the New Testament, when referring to Jesus, it unequivocally attributes divine sovereignty and authority to Him. Paul's use of "the Lord" here explicitly grounds the command against marital separation in the teachings and authority of Christ Himself, elevating it above any human counsel or cultural norm.
This verb, translated "depart," means "to place room between," "to part," or "to go away." It implies a physical and relational separation, a breaking of the marital bond, whether through legal divorce or simply living apart. The command "Let not... depart" is an emphatic prohibition against such a severance, reinforcing the ideal of lifelong unity within marriage.
Verse Breakdown
"And unto the married I command,"
Paul directly addresses those who are married, indicating that the following instruction is specifically for them. The verb "command" (παραγγέλλω, parangéllō) signals an authoritative directive, not a mere suggestion. Paul, as an apostle, is delivering a binding instruction to the church.
"[yet] not I, but the Lord,"
This is the pivotal clause, where Paul distinguishes the source of the command. He clarifies that while he is the messenger, the authority behind this specific instruction is not his own apostolic judgment (as he will offer elsewhere in the chapter, e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:12), but directly from Jesus Christ. This indicates that the prohibition against divorce is a reiteration of Christ's own teaching during His earthly ministry, likely referring to passages such as Matthew 5:32 or Mark 10:11-12.
"Let not the wife depart from [her] husband:"
This is the specific command itself. The Greek construction uses a prohibitive aorist subjunctive, which conveys a strong, emphatic prohibition. The word "depart" (χωρίζω, chōrízō) implies a definitive separation, whether legal (divorce) or physical. While specifically mentioning the wife, the reciprocal nature of marriage and the subsequent verse (1 Corinthians 7:11) make it clear that the command applies equally to the husband, emphasizing the mutual obligation to maintain the marital union.
Literary Devices
Paul employs several literary devices to convey the weight and source of this command. The most prominent is Apostolic Authority, where Paul, as an apostle, delivers a direct injunction. However, he immediately qualifies this with a powerful use of Distinction/Contrast through the phrase "not I, but the Lord." This rhetorical move serves to elevate the command beyond Paul's personal wisdom or Spirit-inspired counsel, attributing it directly to the supreme authority of Christ. This creates an Emphasis on the divine origin and binding nature of the instruction, setting it apart from other pieces of advice Paul offers in the chapter. The direct, prohibitive language ("Let not...") further underscores the absolute nature of the command against marital separation, reinforcing its gravity for the Corinthian believers.
Theological and Thematic Connections
First Corinthians 7:10 profoundly reinforces the biblical understanding of marriage as a sacred, lifelong covenant instituted by God. By explicitly stating that this command comes "from the Lord," Paul aligns Christian marital ethics directly with Jesus' own teachings, which uphold the Genesis account of marriage as a one-flesh union intended to be indissoluble. This divine mandate elevates marriage beyond a mere social contract or human arrangement, rooting its permanence in God's design and will. It underscores the theological truth that marriage is a profound reflection of covenant faithfulness, mirroring God's steadfast love for His people. The command challenges believers to pursue reconciliation and perseverance in their marriages, recognizing that their union is under divine authority and serves as a testimony to God's faithfulness in a fallen world.
Reflection and Application
First Corinthians 7:10 serves as a powerful and enduring call for Christian married couples to uphold the sanctity and permanence of their vows. In a world where marital dissolution is increasingly common, this verse reminds believers that their union is not merely a legal or social arrangement, but a covenant under the direct command of the Lord Jesus Christ. It challenges spouses to prioritize reconciliation, forgiveness, and steadfast commitment, even amidst difficulties and disagreements. Rather than seeking an easy exit, the command encourages couples to invest deeply in their relationship, seeking God's wisdom and grace to navigate challenges, grow in love, and honor their commitment. For those facing marital struggles, it is a strong impetus to seek counsel, prayer, and practical steps toward restoration, rather than resorting to separation.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why does Paul distinguish between his own command and the Lord's in this verse?
Paul's distinction ("not I, but the Lord") is crucial for understanding the varying levels of authority and origin for his instructions in 1 Corinthians 7. When Paul says "not I, but the Lord," he is indicating that this particular command is a direct reiteration of Jesus' own teaching during His earthly ministry, likely referring to Christ's explicit prohibitions against divorce found in the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 19:6-9 and Mark 10:9-12). This contrasts with other parts of chapter 7 where Paul offers his own Spirit-inspired counsel or judgment, which, while still authoritative as an apostle, is presented as distinct from a direct word from Jesus (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:12, where he says, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord"). This distinction underscores the absolute and universally binding nature of the command against marital separation for believers.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
The command for a wife not to depart from her husband, rooted in the Lord's own teaching, finds its ultimate Christ-centered fulfillment in the profound mystery of Christ's unwavering faithfulness to His Church. Just as God established marriage as a covenantal union, Christ Himself entered into a divine covenant with humanity, culminating in His sacrificial death and resurrection, thereby betrothing Himself to His Church as His bride. The permanence and indissolubility of Christian marriage, as commanded in 1 Corinthians 7:10, thus becomes a living parable of Christ's steadfast love and commitment to His people, a love from which He will never "depart." Our human marriages, when lived out in faithful commitment, become a tangible witness to the unbreakable bond between Christ and His Church, embodying the self-giving love and enduring covenant described in passages like Ephesians 5:25-32, where the husband's love for his wife is to mirror Christ's love for the Church. Therefore, to uphold the sanctity and permanence of marriage is to reflect the very heart of the Gospel and the enduring fidelity of our Lord Jesus Christ.