1 Corinthians 7:10–11

People bring verse 10 forward too, and misunderstand it just as much: "To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband." The rationalist would make this a distinction between what is inspired and what is not. But the apostle is pointing to something else. The Lord had settled this question Himself, in person. So it was not left to His servant now: see Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:12. Verse 12 makes this clear: "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord)." The Lord had not ruled on the case now in question, as the Gospels show.

The apostles spoke with an authority the Lord had given them, and those who were loyal to the truth and to God listened to them (1 John 4:6). But when the Lord Himself speaks, everyone who hears must heed His word and obey, for He is supreme over all. A "Thus says the Lord" is enough for those who are redeemed by His precious blood. Neither questions nor hesitation should have any place in any matter on which the Lord has spoken.

This permission, and this advice that Christians should marry, was not a commandment from the Lord given by inspiration. It was the fruit of the apostle's experience — and the Holy Spirit was not absent from that experience... But on marriage itself there was no longer room for the counsel of experience. The Lord's commandment was definite. The woman was not to separate from the man, nor the man from the woman. If they did separate, the bond was not broken. They had to remain unmarried or else be reconciled.

This takes nothing away from the truth that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. But it does show that not all Scripture is revelation. Here God inspired Paul to answer the questions of the Corinthians with his own spiritual judgment. And as we read it, let us remember the man who wrote it. He was willing to give up what was lawful for himself, so that he might do what is most fitting and please the Lord with joy. It would hardly seem wise to belittle the advice of such a man. Could we ourselves give better?

This was no new direction from apostolic authority. It was the ruling of the Lord Himself, already known: the general duty of husband and wife, resting on a tie that cannot be dissolved. The wife was not to leave her husband, nor the husband to send his wife away. If they were parted, she was to stay unmarried, or be reconciled. Even if she were without fault, separation is a disgrace and might be a trap.

What is helpful is recommended; what is right must be enforced. Whether they knew it at the time of their engagement or not, God was in the ordinance that bound husband and wife together. So let no false view of her higher calling tempt a Christian woman to abandon her husband. Still less may she do so on any lower ground... To dissolve such a tie, except by the express permission of Him who first formed it, is to despise the Lord. By His recorded sentence, a marriage once made is annulled only by the sin that by its nature breaks it.

Paul was an inspired apostle. The Holy Spirit inspired him to write the whole of 1 Corinthians. Yet in chapter 7 he marks off what came from himself as an apostle of Christ from what the Lord gave him directly. In verse 12 he says, "I, not the Lord"; but in verse 10 the charge is "not I, but the Lord." … The apostles spoke with an authority the Lord had given them, and those loyal to the truth and to God listened to them. But when the Lord Himself speaks, all who hear must heed His word and obey, for He is supreme over all. Neither questions nor hesitation should have any place in any matter upon which the Lord has spoken.

But on marriage itself there was no longer room for advice drawn from experience. The Lord's command was definite. The woman was not to separate from the man, nor the man from the woman. And if they did separate, that did not break the bond. They must stay unmarried or else be reconciled.

This was not a new direction from apostolic authority. It was the ruling of the Lord Himself, already known: the general duty of husband and wife, resting on the fact that the tie cannot be dissolved. The wife was not to part from her husband, nor the husband to send his wife away. If she did part from him, she was to stay unmarried, or be reconciled. For even if she were not at fault, separation brings disgrace and could become a trap.

Reconciliation is, in plain language, making everything straight… From there it passes into its more ordinary sense: smoothing things out between two people who have become estranged, and bringing back one who is estranged or hostile… It brings back to unity, peace, and fellowship what was divided and estranged… Compare 1 Corinthians 7:11, "be reconciled to her husband." This is not only her mind returning to affection and good feeling. It is matters made straight between them — the relationship made good.

If the husband wishes to come back, the wife should receive him. 1 Corinthians 7:13 shows this: "If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him." If he wishes to come back, that amounts to consenting to live with her. And a command not to leave him amounts to a command to receive him. At least, so we judge. It may be the Lord is about to bring the husband to Himself. If so, it would be very sad if a Christian wife should prove a stumbling-block by failing in grace.

The Lord plainly tells the wife not to leave her husband. Of course, if he were unfaithful to her, that would be a different matter. But if a wife did leave her husband, she is told to stay unmarried, or to be reconciled to him. And if her husband had married again in the meantime, that would change everything. She could then never rightly be reunited to him, even if his second wife died (Deut. 24:3,4).