Notes on verses 10-16. Paul’s direction to Christians married to one another was like that of Jesus Himself (Mark 10:2–12): as a rule, no divorce (cf. Matt. 5:32). The difference in language between separate (chōristhēnai) on the part of the wife (1 Cor. 7:10) and divorce (aphienai) on the part of the husband (v. 11) was probably due to stylistic variation as the word translated “separate” (chōrizō) was commonly used in the vernacular as a term for divorce (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 899). When problems occurred in a Christian marriage, the resolution was to be sought in reconciliation (cf. Eph. 4:32), not in divorce. The rest referred to Christians who were married to non- Christians. Jesus, in the course of His ministry, never had addressed this issue (cf. vv. 10, 25). But Paul, with no less authority (cf. v. 25) did. Some divorces may have been initiated because of the command of Ezra to the Israelites in Jerusalem after the Exile (Ezra 10:11) to divorce themselves from pagan spouses. Paul affirmed that the same principle should operate in a believer-unbeliever marriage as in a marriage of two Christians: as a rule, no divorce. A Christian husband must not divorce (aphietō) an unbelieving wife, and a Christian wife must not divorce (aphietō) a non-Christian husband. Divorce was to be avoided because the Christian spouse was a channel of God’s grace in the marriage. Within the “one flesh” relationship the blessing of God which came to the Christian affected the family as a whole (cf. Jacob in Laban’s household [Gen. 30:27] and Joseph in Potiphar’s [Gen. 39:5]; also cf. Rom. 11:16). It is in this sense that the unbelieving spouse was sanctified and the children were holy. However, there were exceptions to the rule of no divorce. If the unbeliever insisted on a divorce, he was not to be denied (the word trans. leaves is chōrizetai, the verb used in v. 10). Should this occur, the Christian was not bound to maintain the marriage but was free to marry again (cf. v. 39). Paul did not say, as he did in verse 11, that the Christian in this case should “remain unmarried.” (However, some Bible students say that not being “bound” means the Christian is not obligated to prevent the divorce, but that it does not give freedom for remarriage.) The second part of this verse in which Paul affirmed that God had called Christians to live in peace could be understood as a separate sentence. The same conjunction (de, but) which introduced the exception at the beginning of this verse was repeated by Paul, probably to indicate another shift in thought and a return to the main point in this section, namely, the importance for the Christian spouse of preserving the marriage union and living “in peace” with the non-Christian. (For a similar digression in a discourse on the general rule of no divorce, see Matt. 19:9.) Paul’s point was that a Christian should strive to preserve the union and to keep the peace, but with the understanding that marriage is a mutual not a unilateral relationship. Paul then stated a second (cf. v. 14) and crucial reason why a Christian should stay married to a non-Christian. God might use the Christian mate as a channel of blessing (cf. v. 14), leading ultimately to the point where the unbelieving spouse would believe the message of the Cross and experience salvation (cf. 1 Peter 3:1–2). David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 518–519.