Does 1 Cor. 7:10-11 Give Permission

for Married Couples to Separate?

By David J. Riggs

Some brethren insist that 1 Cor. 7:10-11 gives married couples permissions to separate. Those verses say, "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." (KJV)

Thus, the Lord very plainly says that a wife is not to depart from her husband. Paul was showing that the Lord had already commanded such during His personal ministry. He said, "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt. 19:6). The same word "chorizo" (put asunder, separate, depart) is used in both Matt. 19:6 and 1 Cor. 7:10-11.

Please let me ask a very simple but important question: "If 1 Cor. 7:10-11 is giving permission for the wife to depart, upon what conditions can she depart?" If her husband does not take out the garbage, can she depart? If he does not constantly say, "I love you" can she depart. If he spends money on himself rather than her, can she depart? The only reason for departing which the Lord gave was: "except for fornication" (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). No one has the right to devise other conditions for departing which the Lord did not give.

Some say that verse 11 of 1 Cor. 7 gives the wife permission to depart. It does no such thing. It only shows what to do if there is a separation. In other words, it is the Lord's will that they do not depart, but if they do depart, they are to either to be reconciled or remain unmarried. A father may say to his teenager, "You cannot wreck the family car, but if you do wreck it, here's what you need to do." Since he gave instruction on what to do if he wrecked the car, does that give the teenager permission to wreck the car? Certainly not! Likewise, it is against the Lord's will (sinful) for them to depart to begin with. If and when some do depart, they are not to compound their sins; e.g., by remarrying. Thus, the verse is not giving permission to separate without sinning, but is showing that one is not to make matters worse if they do separate.

I have heard both Carrol Sutton and Wendell Wiser, two of the most loved and respected defenders of the faith in the brotherhood, use 1 John 2:1-2 as a parallel to 1 Cor. 7:10-11. Those verses says, "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." The parallel is obvious. God commanded: "A wife is not to depart from her husband" and "These things I write to you that you may not sin." Since God added further instructions, it does not give liberty in either case. In other words, since God added, "if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband," it does not give her permission to depart, any more than "if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father" gives one permission to sin.

The action of separation (by means of legal action or whatever) violates several other divine principles: (1) The sacred marriage covenant made before God and man ("till death do us part," etc.) has been broken. (Mal. 2:14-16; James 5:12). (2) It destroys one's influence and/or example. (1 Tim. 5:14; Titus 2:3-8). For example, if one Christian couple can separate without sinning, why can't all Christians couples separate without sinning? (3) It is a disregard for the Christian principle of doing good for evil. (Rom. 12:14,17,21; 1 Pet 3:9; Matt. 5:44). (4) It promotes adultery. (Matt. 5:31-32). One or both of the separated parties may commit adultery. (5) Action has been taken which brings about disobedience to a host of commands. For example, they are to love each other (Eph. 5:25; Titus 2:4), they are to have sex relations (1 Cor. 7:2-5), the wife is to submit to her husband (Eph. 5:23-24; 1 Pet. 3:1-5), the husband is to be the head of his wife and dwell with her with understanding (1 Pet. 3:7), etc.

Some ask, "If the husband is abusing his wife is that grounds for separation?" Certainly, if there is legitimate physical abuse from the husband, the wife could use law enforcement to punish and/or correct the evil behavior (Rom. 13:1-7). However, the wife could not use the law to form a separation or divorce unless for fornication (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Please let me ask a simple question: "Could a wife kill her husband in order to stop his abuse?" If she killed her husband, it certainly would stop his abuse of her. One will say, "She cannot kill her husband to stop abuse because it is sinful." I answer: "Likewise, she cannot use the law to form a separation, because it is sinful."

To those who claim that a married couple can separate and/or divorce because of abuse, we ask them to please explain what that abuse might be. If a wife burns the toast, is that abuse and grounds for separation? If in a heated argument, the husband and wife exchange a few blows, is that grounds for separation? If a husband does not help the wife in bringing up their children in the training and admonition of the Lord, is that abuse and grounds for separation? My point here is obvious. No one has the authority to determines what type of abuse is suitable grounds for separation. Again, the only grounds God gave is fornication. The problem is that many have placed themselves in the position of God. They have set themselves up as God, to make decisions in the place of God.

Let all married couples strive to make their marriage pleasing to God rather than twisting the Scriptures to allow a separation. "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt. 19:6).