I Corinthians 7:10 · Bible study
1 Corinthians 7:10 Commentary: Not I, but the Lord
Greek · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore 1 Corinthians 7:10: Paul's charge 'not I, but the Lord' on marriage.
Research Summary
- Meaning: Paul delivers the Lord’s own command that a wife must not separate from her husband, marriage is not to be broken.
- Key words: παραγγέλλω (command, a military-like order); χωρισθῆναι (be separated, passive infinitive, the wife is not to cause the separation).
- Main debate: Does this forbid all separation, or are exceptions allowed for adultery (Matthew 19:9) or desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15)?
- Theological theme: The indissoluble nature of marriage as a covenant instituted by God, reaffirmed by Christ, and binding on believers.
- Best use: Teaching on biblical marriage, divorce, and the authority of Christ over the church’s practices.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
WEB World English Bible 2000
But to the married I command—not I, but the Lord—that the wife not leave her husband
KJV King James Version 1769
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
ASV American Standard Version 1901
But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and to the married I announce--not I, but the Lord--let not a wife separate from a husband:
Darby Darby Bible 1890
But to the married I enjoin, not I, but the Lord, Let not wife be separated from husband;
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commandeth that the wife depart not from her husband.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Mas á los que están juntos en matrimonio, denuncio, no yo, sino el Señor: Que la mujer no se aparte del marido;
Porém aos casados eu mando, não eu, mas o Senhor, que a mulher não se separe do marido.
A ceux qui sont mariés, j’ ordonne, non pas moi, mais le Seigneur, que la femme ne se sépare point de son mari
Den Ehelichen aber gebiete nicht ich, sondern der HERR, daß sich das Weib nicht scheide von dem Manne;
Doch den getrouwden gebiede niet ik, maar de Heere, dat de vrouw van den man niet scheide.
Ma ai coniugi ordino non io ma il Signore, che la moglie non si separi dal marito,
Tym zasię, którzy są w stanie małżeńskim, rozkazuję nie ja, ale Pan, mówiąc: Żeby się żona od męża nie odłączała.
А вступившим в брак не я повелеваю, а Господь: жене не разводиться с мужем, —
至於 那已經嫁娶的，我吩咐他們；其實不 是我吩咐，乃 是主吩咐說：妻子 不 可離開 丈夫，
But to the married I give orders, though not I but the Lord, that the wife may not go away from her husband
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · I Corinthians 7:10
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Paul introduces this command with weight: “not I, but the Lord.” He is not issuing a private opinion but tracing the rule back to Jesus Christ himself. Vincent points to Christ’s declarations on divorce in Matthew 5:31, 32 and 19:3, 12. The apostle’s readers already had the Lord’s words; Paul simply reiterates them. The verb χωρισθῆναι (to be separated) is a passive infinitive, the wife is not to let herself be separated from her husband (Clarke, Gill). This forbids a formal divorce or a voluntary departure. Barnes highlights that the Greek and Roman laws allowed a wife to initiate divorce, and Paul is closing that door for Christians. Calvin notes that while Paul does not explicitly state the adultery exception (as in Matthew 19:9), he likely assumed it, choosing not to reopen Christ’s teaching in detail. The Cambridge Bible adds that Paul is addressing voluntary separations, not the dissolution of a marriage already broken by sexual immorality. So the consensus holds: marriage, by the Lord’s command, is not to be broken by the wife’s departure, though the exact boundaries of that command remain a subject of careful pastoral debate.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Absolute prohibition: The plain text says ‘not’ – separation is forbidden. Later verses (v.11) show that even after separation, remarriage is not permitted except to the original spouse.
- Exception for adultery assumed: Calvin and many in the Reformed tradition argue Paul knowingly built on Christ's teaching (Matthew 19:9) and did not intend to overturn the exceptive clause.
- Exception for desertion by unbeliever: Verse 15 permits the brother or sister to accept the departure of an unbelieving spouse. Some extend this principle to other forms of abandonment.
What is clear: The command itself is clear: a wife is not to separate from her husband, and this is the Lord's own instruction, not merely the apostle's advice.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Origin of the command | Paul is citing the Lord Jesus, not his own opinion. The command comes from Christ's teaching (Matthew 5:32; 19:9). | Some (e.g., Calvin) see this as Paul deliberately not repeating Christ's exceptive clause, leaving it assumed; others (e.g., Cambridge Bible) distinguish voluntary separations from divorces for sexual sin. |
| Whether separation is ever permitted | The default Christian position is no separation: a wife must not depart from her husband. | Views differ on whether physical abuse, desertion by an unbeliever (v.15), or adultery provide just cause. Paul does not state exceptions here, but later verses and Jesus’ teaching are used to define boundaries. |
| The role of the wife | Paul specifically addresses the wife’s initiative to leave, reflecting Greco-Roman legal realities where women could divorce. | Some commentators (e.g., Barnes) emphasize that Paul is forbidding formal legal divorce, not just moving out. Others see it as a broader prohibition of any willful dissolution. |
| Application to the husband | Verse 11b applies the same standard to the husband: he must not put away his wife. | Different traditions apply this equally; there is no debate that the command is mutual. |
Historical & Cultural Context
First-century Corinth sat at a crossroads of Jewish and Greco-Roman legal traditions concerning marriage and divorce. Jewish practice, as Clarke documents, had grown remarkably lenient: a woman could “depart” from her husband simply by declaring before elders that she had been deceived into marriage, and the couple could part by mutual consent and remarry others. Such flexibility stood in open tension with Genesis 2:24, where a man and wife become “one flesh”, a bond stronger than a parent-child tie. Greek and Roman law was even more permissive: a wife could divorce her husband without specific cause, and the process was handled before magistrates, not the religious community (Barnes, citing Grotius).
The Corinthian church faced acute pressures. Persecution and social upheaval led some believers to wonder whether they should separate from spouses, especially if those spouses remained pagans (Barnes). An ascetic reaction against the city’s rampant sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:12, 20) may have convinced some that marriage itself was a handicap to holiness (Lange). Others questioned whether a believer could remain yoked to an unbeliever at all. Paul is thus answering real questions: “Should we dissolve these marriages? Is separation allowed?” He grounds his reply not in local custom but in the Lord’s own decree. The cultural backdrop shows how countercultural Paul’s command was: in a world where divorce was easy and often expected, the Christian household was to be marked by permanence.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for 1 Corinthians 7:10. The verse reads consistently across the major manuscript families. The Greek wording χωρισθῆναι (aorist passive infinitive) is stable, and the phrase “not I, but the Lord” appears without variation in the critical texts. The discussion among commentators does not turn on a textual issue.
Reception History
The early church, represented by figures such as John Chrysostom (referenced in the Cambridge Bible), understood this verse as forbidding voluntary separation while recognizing that adultery already dissolved the marriage bond. During the Reformation, Calvin emphasized the indissoluble nature of the tie, noting that Paul assumes Christ's exceptive clause without restating it. Later Wesleyan commentators like Adam Clarke used the verse to contrast Christian marriage with the lax divorce practices of ancient Judaism. In modern reception, the verse is cited by traditions that hold to lifelong marriage, with ongoing pastoral discussions about how to apply it in cases of abuse, abandonment, or irretrievable breakdown, always seeking to honor both the Lord's command and the safety of vulnerable spouses.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Authority Behind the Command: Paul insists he speaks not on his own authority but “the Lord’s.” This is a direct appeal to Jesus’ teaching (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12). Preach the weight of Christ’s words over our preferences.
- The Command Itself: “A wife must not separate from her husband.” The passive infinitive underscores that she is not to cause separation. This is a clear prohibition against initiating divorce or willful departure.
- The Pastoral Application: Paul knows life is messy. He adds verse 11: “if she departs, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled.” The command is absolute, but grace meets failure. The door remains open for reconciliation.
Five-point outline
- Paul distinguishes his counsel from Christ’s command (v.10a). He takes no credit; he passes on what the Lord already said.
- The wife is not to initiate separation (v.10b). The verb χωρισθῆναι implies legal or formal separation, not merely moving out.
- If separation occurs, she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled (v.11a). No remarriage is permitted; the goal is restoration.
- The same command applies to the husband (v.11b). Paul balances the instruction, showing mutual obligation.
- This foundation governs the following discussion of mixed marriages (vv.12, 16). The default position is to stay, not to leave.
Illustration hooks
- The torn contract: A one-year lease for an apartment can be broken with a penalty. Marriage is more like a mortgage, breaking it costs more than you think.
- The referee and the rulebook: Paul acts like a referee who points to the rulebook written by the Commissioner. He doesn’t make up rules; he enforces what Christ already laid down.
- The burning house: Sometimes separation feels like running from a fire. But Paul says: stay, because Christ is in the house with you. His presence makes staying possible.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does this command apply even if my spouse is abusive? (Pastoral note: later verses address the unbelieving spouse’s desertion; safety is never commanded at the cost of life.)
- What if we have already separated? Is there hope for remarriage?
- Why does Paul focus on the wife here? Does the husband get a pass? (V.11b shows the same binding applies to him.)
Leading a Discussion
Read 1 Corinthians 7:10 together with Matthew 5:31, 32 and 19:3, 9. Notice how Paul directly echoes Jesus. This passage sits in the middle of a longer discussion about marriage, singleness, and mixed marriages. Use these questions to explore its meaning and apply it wisely.
Discussion questions
- What does Paul mean by “not I, but the Lord”? How does this change the force of his words?
- Why did the Corinthian believers need this command? What cultural pressures made leaving a spouse seem reasonable? (See the supplied excerpts from Clarke and Barnes.)
- The verb “be separated” (χωρισθῆναι) is passive. What does that suggest about the wife’s active role? How does this fit with Paul’s later permission for an unbelieving spouse to leave (v.15)?
- Does this command forbid any separation, even temporary or for reasons of safety? How does the rest of Scripture and church tradition help us answer that?
- If a wife has already left, what options does Paul give her (v.11)? What does that tell us about the permanence of marriage?
- How does this command challenge modern Christian attitudes toward divorce and commitment?
- In what concrete ways can our small group support couples who are struggling and tempted to separate?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Jeremiah 3:20 | “Surely as a wife treacherously departs from her husband, so you have dealt treacherously with me, house of Israel,” says Yahweh. |
| Malachi 2:14 | Yet you say, ‘Why?’ Because Yahweh has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant. |
| Malachi 2:16 | One who hates and divorces”, says Yahweh, the God of Israel, “covers his garment with violence!” says Yahweh of Armies. “Therefore pay attention to your spirit, that you don’t be unfaithful. |
| Matthew 5:32 | but I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery. |
| Matthew 19:3 | Pharisees came to him, testing him and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” |
| Matthew 19:9 | I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery.” |
| Mark 10:11 | He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. |
| Mark 10:12 | If a woman herself divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke stresses that Paul is not offering his own opinion but conveying the Lord's direct command against divorce. He contrasts this with the loose Jewish customs of his day, where women could easily obtain divorces and both parties could remarry, a practice Christ and the apostle firmly oppose as a violation of God's original design for marriage.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes clarifies that Paul's instruction here is not merely advice but a solemn divine command from Christ himself. He argues that even in marriages between a believer and a pagan, the bond remains inviolable and formal divorce is forbidden. This directly counters any notion that persecution or religious difference justifies separation.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin notes that Paul forbids divorce without mentioning the exception Christ made for adultery. He explains this as a deliberate choice: Paul gives only a general principle in passing and intended the Corinthians to consult Christ's own teaching for the full rule. The command rests on marriage's indissoluble bond from Genesis.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentary stresses that Paul writes as an inspired vessel of the Holy Spirit, not as a private individual offering personal advice. It clarifies that "depart" means voluntary separation, not divorce on grounds of adultery, which Christ already addressed. Such separations contradict Christ's command and are allowed only in rare circumstances.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
Paul insists the command for a wife not to leave her husband comes from the Lord, not from his own human opinion. The Geneva note emphasizes that his instruction carries divine authority, making it binding for believers.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill stresses that Paul is not imposing his own rule but delivering Christ's direct command to married couples. He notes that while Jewish tradition did not allow wives to leave their husbands, this practice had crept in from Gentile customs, so Paul explicitly forbids it. The command applies equally to both spouses.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB notes that Paul draws a clear line: in this case he speaks on the direct authority of Christ himself, not merely on his own inspired apostolic authority. The command forbids the wife from separating from her husband, and the same prohibition likely applies to either side.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry highlights that Paul clarifies two different levels of authority: Christ directly commanded believers not to divorce, but Paul himself, not the Lord, addresses the case of mixed marriages. Still, the principle holds: believers should remain with an unbelieving spouse who is willing to stay, because the marriage is sanctified through the believing partner.
Vincent's Word Studies Evangelical 1887
Vincent clarifies that Paul's phrase "Not I, but the Lord" does not mark a distinction between inspired and uninspired teaching. Instead, Paul simply means his readers already had Christ's own words on divorce, so they had no need to ask Paul for further instruction on that matter.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley stresses that Paul is not offering his own opinion here. Instead, he points directly to Christ's explicit command in Matthew's Gospel as the sole authority. Paul's instruction to believers is simply the Lord's own words, not a personal judgment.