Over the past year, I have had many discussions about the meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:11. Many people believe that this verse authorizes divorce. The two main arguments I have heard are: "It must mean something" and "Paul would never tell a person to remain in sin." Both of these statements are true. However, when we examine any scripture, we must be careful that we do not give it a meaning that contradicts any other scripture. If your understanding of one verse contradicts a second verse, then your understanding of at least one of the verses is wrong. Please remember this point. If the meaning you give to a verse causes it to contradict any other verse, then it must mean something else.
Many of the people who believe that 1 Corinthians 7:11 authorizes divorce want to limit this permission to only the very extreme causes, like threats of murder. There is nothing in the verse that would limit its scope. It would apply to the most trivial cause, as well as to the most extreme. If it applies for one cause, then it applies for all. And that would make all divorce lawful.
Also, many people argue that other Bible principles, like preservation of life, can take precedence over the commands that prohibit divorce. One example often used is a person on his way to worship services who drives past a person who has been in an accident. In that case, God's command to "love your neighbor" might take precedence over the command "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together." People then apply the same logic to say that "let her remain unmarried" (1 Cor. 7:11) overrides the command to not divorce. While other Bible principles might apply, we must be very careful in our judgments, because human judgments can be wrong. See Jeremiah 10:23, Proverbs 14:12, Proverbs 16:25, and Isaiah 55:9.
To understand this question on divorce, I would first like to examine what Jesus said on the matter. "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." {Matt. 19:3-6} The Pharisees asked Jesus if divorce could occur "for every cause." Jesus responded with a command that forbade divorce, "let not man put asunder." Jesus then went on to specify only one cause that authorized divorce. "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." {Matt. 19:9}
When people read Matthew 19:9, they correctly understand that remarriage is a sin because Jesus said it would be adultery. They understand the general rule that remarriage is a sin even though an exception where it is not a sin has been given. But adultery is not the only sin under consideration here. Whenever you disobey God, it is a sin. Jesus gave the command "let not man put asunder." A person who disobeys God's command "let not man put asunder" has committed a sin, whether or not that person's spouse ever remarries. For what is sin? "...sin is the transgression of the law" {1 John 3:4}. Whenever you disobey one of God's commands, you commit sin. It doesn't matter why God has forbidden divorce. What does matter is that God commanded man not to divorce. And we need to obey God's commands.
Now let us look at what Paul said about divorce. "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. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him... But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace." {1 Cor 7:10-15}. In verses 10 and 11, he gives two commands that are given to all married persons: "Let not the wife depart from her husband" and "let not the husband put away his wife." Paul states that these are commands that come from the Lord. Those people who claim that verse 11 authorizes divorce are changing these commands into something other than commands. If a statement does not need to be obeyed, then it cannot be a command. A command is a statement that must be obeyed, and when the command comes from God, it is a sin to disobey. Paul called them commands. We have no choice -- we must obey.
In verse 11, two commands are given to those people who have chosen to divorce in spite of God's prohibition against divorce: "let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." Could this be authorizing divorce? As we have seen, that would give us permission to disobey one of God's commands. That creates a contradiction. So that cannot be true. Verses 10 and 11 are both in the same sentence. In that sentence, you have a command that prohibits divorce, a statement that some say gives permission to divorce, and a command that prohibits divorce. Would the Holy Spirit ever inspire Paul to write a sentence that contradicts itself? Even if you disagree with everything else I say, you cannot take a position that causes one scripture to contradict another. God would never forbid and authorize divorce in the same sentence. So this verse cannot be authorizing divorce. It must mean something else.
So what else could it mean? Many people make the argument that Paul would never command a person to live in sin, so departing must not be a sin. Paul would never tell someone to live in sin. But is departing a sin that is never forgiven? To understand this specific sin, we need only look at sin in general. After one sins, how does he restore his relationship with God? He must repent. This applies to all sins, and it does not need to be specifically stated in this verse.
So the options given in verse 11 can be stated as "let her [repent and] remain unmarried or [repent and] be reconciled." As we examine this, we must remember that repentance is more than just a feeling of sorrow. There must be a change in lifestyle. There must be an attempt to make things right. Consider the man who steals a car -- can he tell the owner he is sorry or does he need to give back the car? It is obvious that he must correct the wrong.
Thus, one of the options that Paul gives the woman is to be reconciled to her husband. That would put things back the way God intended. But what if the husband refuses to take her back? Is she doomed to remain unforgiven? No, there are times when a person has done all he or she can do, and yet cannot put things back the way they should be. Compare this to a murderer who can never restore the life of the one he killed. To obtain forgiveness, the murderer must truly repent. The divorced who truly repent can be forgiven. However, they are not free to remarry, even if they repent. That would cause adultery. So they must remain unmarried. Therefore, Paul commanded the divorced to remain unmarried, or be reconciled to their spouses.
In verses 12 and 13, two commands are given to believers who are married to unbelievers: "If ...she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away" and "if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him." This is consistent with the commands given to all the married. Verse 15 gives one exception: "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart." Only the unbeliever is allowed to depart. The believer is commanded not to depart. What happens to believers when their spouses depart? The believer is still not free to marry another. "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord" {1 Cor 7:39}. Her only option is to remain unmarried, which is what God commands her to do in 1 Cor. 7:11.
Another way to understand 1 Cor. 7:10-11 is to compare it with a verse that has the same structure. "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" {1 John 2:1}. This verse commands us not to sin. Yet, the verse also tells us what Jesus will do for us when we do sin. Is this verse giving us permission to sin? No. But it declares that man, by his nature, will sin. This verse also assumes that we must repent. Jesus will not be our advocate until we repent of our sins. Both passages contain commands: "let not the wife depart" and "sin not." Both passages acknowledge that men will disobey the commands: "But and if she depart" and "if any man sin." So if 1 Cor. 7:11 gives permission to divorce, then 1 John 2:1 must give permission to sin. We know this could never be. Therefore, 1 Cor. 7:11 must mean something else.
Some people argue that Matthew 19:29 allows divorce for Christ's name's sake. As we examine this verse, we must be careful not to contradict God's commands that forbid divorce. One possible explanation of this verse is that some who became Christians were in unlawful marriages at the time of their conversions. What must a person do in such circumstances? As in the days of Ezra, they need to put away their unlawful wives (Ezra 10:1-44). To remain in an unlawful marriage would be sinful; they need first to get out of sin before they can be right in God's sight
In conclusion, God gave us five separate commands that forbid divorce: Matt. 19:6, 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 12 and 13. These verses state a general rule that divorce is a sin, even though exceptions where it is not sin are given. We have seen that 1 Cor. 7:11 could never authorize divorce because that would contradict these five commands. But some will ignore God's commands and divorce anyway. So 1 Cor. 7:11 reminds these people that their only options are to remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouses. Even after they repent of their sins, they are still not free to remarry, because that would be adultery. They must try to reconcile with their spouses (repent). If that fails, they must remain unmarried. Remember, if your understanding of a verse contradicts another verse, then it must mean something else.
***Editor's Note: I appreciate brother Hepner's writing this particular article on this difficult subject. On the following pages, I've written an article that considers some other thoughts on this subject. This subject is causing many problems in the Lord's church. At last count, there are at least 16 different teachings among brethren! Is the subject that difficult? Not really, if we leave our emotions out of the discussion. Please do so as you ponder God's teaching on this serious subject. Souls are hanging in the balance.
***Author's Note: I have crossed out the sentence that Brother Greer had a problem with. Notice that Brother Greer stated, "I agree that all sin must be repented of...". Although I should not have added the words into the verse, the principle of repentance applies to this verse in the same way that it applies to all sins. Sin brings consequences. Sometimes people find themselves in a situation that is a consequence of their sin and they are not able to restore the situation to its original condition even after they have repented. This can be true in a divorce. If the spouse refuses to reconcile, then you must remain in that situation which is a consequence of your sin. But because you have repented, you are no longer living in sin even though you must live with the consequences of that sin.
Brother Greer also has a problem with my explanation of Luke 18:28-30. The context of these verses is that becoming a disciple would bring many hardships upon them. Certainly divorcing the woman you love because it is an unlawful marriage would be a hardship. My explanation is in perfect harmony with the context. I did not say that this was the only explanation. I said that it was a possible explanation. (MH)