Issues:

1. Does this passage authorize divorce for some reason other than adultery?
2. Does this passage authorize some form of separation that falls short of divorce?
3. Is this passage saying not to divorce, but if you ignore God's command, don't make it worse by committing a second sin?

Context:

In the early verses of this passage, the Apostle Paul, speaking through inspiration from God, makes it clear that husbands and wives are NOT to separate for any significant period. This avoids self-temptation and spousal temptation to engage in sexual immorality.

In verses 10-11, Paul COMMANDED, by the Lord's authority, that a wife is NOT TO DEPART from her husband. And he commanded the husband NOT TO DIVORCE his wife.

In Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, the words "not to depart" are directly translated from the Greek as "not to be separated" and the words "not to divorce" as "not to leave." And the Greek word for "depart" doesn't leave any room for the concept of long-term "temporary" separations. The word is chorizo; in Greek literature it is used synonymously with "divorce." In Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9, where such action is expressly forbidden, the same Greek word is translated "put asunder."

Does 7:11 provide a second, and broad, exception to God's marriage/divorce law?

Paul wrote, "but and (even-NKJV) if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband."

Is Paul issuing an inspired apostolic COMMAND and then telling the woman what to do if she violates the command? English versions seem to be open to that interpretation.

How do we reach a proper answer?

1. Grammar
2. Context
3. Proper hermeneutical approach

Grammatically, we must ask whether the "departure" in view is past, present, or future.

The meaning of the text varies, depending on our conclusion.

Also, we must determine whether the wife is performing the departing action (active voice), or whether she is being acted upon because her husband leaves or divorces her (passive voice). I am told there are five grammatical possibilities.

1. Active/Future (Permissive)

   In this case, divorcing in the future would be permitted, but she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. This is the only grammatical possibility that provides an additional exception to God's marriage law.

2. Active/future (non-permissive)

   If she divorces in the future, contrary to God's command, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled. This interpretation, based on active/future, sees the departure as a sin but offers a remedy and a way to avoid future or additional sin.

3. Past tense/active (non-permissive)

   If she already has divorced in the past and discovers her error, she is instructed to remain unmarried or be reconciled. Quite a few Greek scholars support this view.

4. Passive/future (non-permissive)

   If her husband divorces her sometime in the future, her options are celibacy or reconciliation. The chapter context supports the passive voice; that is, the woman is being acted upon, instead of her doing the acting by departing from her husband (see verses 5, 10, 12, 13, 15).

5. Passive/past (non-permissive)

   Grammatically, this case covers a woman whose husband has put her away in the past. Again, her options are celibacy or reconciliation.

Which of these grammatical options is correct?

According to Greek scholars, ALL are possible. Because all are possible, we must now examine each in light of:

• Context
• Proper hermeneutical principles

Context:

Everything in the context indicates a passive position for the Christian. Verse 10 forbids Christians to actively put away or divorce their mates. Verse 5 forbids them to sexually defraud their mates. And verses 12-13 tell Christians not to put away their unbelieving spouses. The entire context teaches against the Christian being the one who instigates the marriage breakup.

Any action must originate with the unbeliever (see verse 15, in particular). If the unbeliever departs, puts away, or divorces the believer, the believer is not to abandon his/her faith in Christ to save the marriage.

Hermeneutical principles:

A basic rule of Bible interpretation is that one passage cannot be correctly interpreted if that interpretation conflicts with other clear Scripture teaching.

Jesus gave one exception to the marriage-for-life command. Any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 that is designed to permit a second exception is, therefore, in conflict with the clear teaching of Jesus, and must be wrong.

An active/permissive interpretation opens the door for numerous exceptions, so long as the person does not remarry.

MY CONCLUSIONS AT THIS HOUR

Considering the chapter context and proper interpretation principles, the passive/future (non-permissive) interpretation appears to be the only viable one. Otherwise, the statement in verse 11 seems nonsensical in light of what Paul clearly taught in the remainder of the context. Other interpretations also seem to offer additional exceptions to what Jesus taught.