What is Paul's teaching on divorce in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11? Is there a difference between departing and divorcing and why does he say "but" in verse 11? Does that give permission to divorce as long as one is to remain unmarried or stating a condition for disobedience?"

First realize that Paul is dealing with specific situations, questions, and concerns of the Corinthian church. The situation that Paul
addresses in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 are as follows.

1. Should a Christian divorce his or her non-Christian spouse for a life of celibacy or to marry a Christian?
2. Are the children "unclean" if the Christian is married and has children by a non-Christian?
3. Should a Christian leave his or her non-Christian spouse?

The overall rule is that married people are not to be divorced. This is what Paul referred to when he said, "I command, yet not I but the Lord." Jesus taught us that God never intended for married people to divorce. They were to remain together always until death. One condition for divorce was fornication. In this case the bond was severed by the fornicating spouse, though divorce wasn't necessarily automatic. It only was grounds for divorce.

Let's look at the two words used in 1 Cor. 7:10 and 11. The first is the Greek word "chorizo" and it means to separate, leave, or depart. The word used in verse 11 is "aphiemi" and it means to send forth, or put away. It is also translated a number of times into the English word "forgive" (Forgive means to put forth or send away resentment). However, the two Greek words chorizo and aphiemi were used synonymously for the concept of divorce. Some suggest that the different words were used because of stylistic variations.

So Paul is instructing the wives not to divorce (leave) their husbands and the husbands not to put away or divorce their wives. Also note that in Palestine a wife could not divorce (put away) her husband. However the husband could put away (divorce) his wife. In Roman society the husband and wife could divorce each other respectively. If we consider that Paul would have been dealing with Jews and Greeks then it becomes more likely that he was just using a stylistic variation for the concept of divorce.

To answer your second question, Paul was not implying that a person could divorce their spouse if he or she remained unmarried. The fact is that some leave their spouse and doing so does not release them from the marriage covenant. To marry someone else would mean adultery. The word "but" is used to bring attention to the fact that a wife may still divorce her husband, though he states that such is not permitted in relation to the will of God or God's purpose for marriage. If a wife still decides to leave her husband then she is not to marry again. He wasn't condoning such but just dealing with an issue that did and does happen. The ultimate goal is that she would become reconciled to her husband. If she did marry someone else then she would be in sin (though leaving her husband would also be a sin).

Understand that Paul is dealing with the situation where a spouse becomes saved. What should he or she do since he or she is now married to a non-Christian. Is he or she unclean? Should he or she leave (divorce) his or her spouse? Those were the issues here. Paul states that divorce is not supposed to be an option so to speak. Jesus taught that we are not to divorced else we would commit fornication if we remarry. Paul uses Jesus teaching (Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-10) on that issue as the basis of his instruction.

Divorce is not God's plan for marriage and doing so would be sin because all unrighteousness (not in right standing or right relations with God) is sin. So if someone divorces his or her spouse then he or she is going out of the will of God. However, Paul points out that if the unbelieving spouse leaves you then you are no longer bound by the marriage covenant. There is nothing that could be done in such a case. We are not to take an active role in divorce...period. We are to take an active role in reconciliation not separation.

So again the words separate and divorce actually referred to the same concept, namely divorce. A wife was not to divorce her unbelieving husband and a husband was not to divorce his unbelieving wife. Of course two Christians were not to divorce each other. Separate has the connotation of leaving whereas divorce seems to have the connotation of sending your spouse away however they refer to the same principle of divorce.

Another thing that you should keep in mind is the difference in social standings of men and women. Women were considered inferior to men in the Jewish and especially the Greek (Greco Roman community). The Greeks were surely influenced by Plato's philosophy as it pertained to women. The Jewish culture also "looked down" on women so to speak. A woman could not legally divorce her husband but the husband could divorce his wife. A divorce was actually the process of giving the wife a certificate declaring the separation and sending her on her way. It's much different then what we think of today. A husband could divorce his wife for any reason, even for burning dinner. Jesus taught that they did that because of the hardness of their heart. God never intended for
divorce to be an option.

Paul had to deal with God's Way for marriage and what people actually did about marriage. He was clear that divorce is wrong (sin) and reconciliation is always the objective. He also had to give instruction on the situation where an unbelieving spouse leaves (usually the husband would leave the wife). Another thing to consider about early Christianity. Woman found freedom from the discrimination imposed on them by their surrounding cultures. So a woman would have felt that she was able to divorce her husband if she wanted to.

If a disciple divorces their spouse (not for adultery or abuse)who is also a disciple, and they refuse to repent of the sin of divorce what would God expect from both parties?

There are actually two aspects of your question. The first is what would God expect if a Christian divorces their Christian spouse? The second is what would God expect of two Christians that agree to divorce each other and do it?

The reason I distinguish those is that a Christian might do all he or she could do in order to save the marriage, but the spouse still pursues divorce. In such a case there is nothing that the dedicated spouse could do. He or she would have done all he or she could to save the marriage and reconcile things. In such a case he or she would simply have to go on with their life. In such a case he or she is free to marry another. They are no longer bound by the original marriage vow since he or she upheld it but the spouse did not resulting in a "one sided" divorce if you will. Note that in this case that the divorced spouse never agrees to the divorce except as the very last resort. Some would even hold out from signing the papers and stall hoping again for reconciliation. There comes a time when signing the papers is only a matter of course because the husband has already divorced his wife in his heart. In such a case I think you come to a point where you have to realize that it is over and fighting will do nothing to help.

On the other hand if both husband and wife agree to be divorced then sin is only perpetuated. I believe that God would expect those two to reconcile even after the divorce. People have actually done this too. At the very least they should confess their sin and repent. There are two situations here that we have to consider.

1. The divorced couple are not remarried
2. At least one of the divorced couple has remarried.

If the divorced couple have not remarried someone else then confessing their sin of divorcing, asking forgiveness, and then repenting mean nothing. How could they say that they have repented when they uphold the divorce. They should remarry. Of course they would have to reconcile their differences, which implies effort by at least one. Now if one person begins to reconcile the situation with the goal of remarrying her former spouse for example then well. For example she could begin a dialog, marriage counseling, or whatever in an effort to come back together. Prayerfully the husband for example would be receptive and move in the same direction towards reconciliation. If he does not and still upholds the divorce then we are right back in the former situation where one spouse does all she or he can in order to save the marriage except in this case the efforts are to restore the marriage. There comes a point where one has to accept the reality that this person will not come back together. Should she remarry? I believe that in such a case that she (or he) is no longer bound by the vow because at this point the vow was severed from the other side.

Now if one divorced person has already remarried then there is really nothing that could be done. The only thing that I know of that comes close to a situation like this is when returning Jewish exiles were expected to divorce their pagan wife after returning to their homeland from captivity or the like (Ezra chapters 9 and 10). In such a case, divorcing the current wife, which was unlawful with regards to the word of God, was the right thing to do in order to show "fruits worthy of repentance" so to speak. I'm not suggesting that a person should divorce their next spouse in order to return to the former because sin cannot cover another sin.

I think that in general that if two people are divorced from each other than they should still try to reconcile. God intended marriage to be a lifelong commitment and divorce shouldn't interfere with that if at all possible. So the two should do all they can in order to reconcile and remarry each other if at all possible.

On another note. I think divorce would be much less of an issue if marriage was much more an issue. By that I mean that we should put much more effort into the whole marriage process. I believe that people get married to quickly. They don't get a chance to know each other such as their passions, goals, objective, faith, lifestyle, etc. Because of this deficiency, people marry for the wrong reasons, namely infatuation. People go on dates for a while and conclude that they have found their mate. Dating does nothing to move towards marriage. We need to spend time courting and getting to know the other person, their family, friends, and associations. Only then will we have a more inside view of the person...the real person. There will of course be some idiosyncrasies discovered after marriage, but you will still know what's inside the person and have rightly committed to the marriage. So we should spend more time before marriage to ensure a good marriage and then divorce would be a moot point (assuming no long term deception was in place).

Anyway, in short I would say that someone that has been divorced and has not married should seek to reconcile the differences with their former spouse assuming he or she has not married again as well. If the other person has married then pray for forgiveness, accept forgiveness, and move on. You are free to marry, but sin no more. Seek marriage according to God's way and avoid the divorce issue altogether.

"If one party does not want the divorce and has done everything to reconcile but the other party goes through with the divorce anyway how then can we over the scripture in first Cor. 7, which states we are to remain unmarried unless we reconcile? Doesn't that apply to both parties? Even if the divorcing believer refuses to pursue reconciliation? Will not the other not be bound to a life of singleness. Or should church discipline outlined in the Bible be enacted?"

The short answer is that it does not apply to both parties. Also notice that you have identified the complexity of this issue by revealing a contradiction in principle. Consider the following.

1. The Scriptures do not say that a divorced person is really still married to the person that divorced him or her
2. Therefore, If a divorced person were single then how could she still be bound to the person that divorced her.
3. Therefore being single and the victim of a divorce, then she is no longer married and free to marry another

Do you see how complex it could get. That's pretty interesting actually as I never thought of it like this. The problem is complicated and becomes increasingly complex when we try to use the scriptures as a rule book. It will never cover all that a human might do or all situations that might occur. Therefore, it is far better and effective to look at the spirit and intent of the word of God and even the OT law to know the mind of God and pursue his will that way. That way the scriptures can be applied to all aspects of life and even to those situations that are not specifically covered in the Scriptures, which are very many.

Notice carefully what Paul says here.

"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife."

Notice that there are no guidelines to the divorced spouse, only the divorcing spouse. If the wife departs (divorces her husband) then let her remain unmarried else she should be reconciled. The same applies to the husband. Nothing is said about the spouse that was divorced.

Now we have to be careful not to treat these scriptures as "law" because doing so would quickly go outside of love, which is the basis of all the law anyway. Jesus told us in Matthew 19:3-9 that God never intended for a husband and wife to divorce. However, the Israelites divorced anyway. That is human nature at work. Also, note that God never gave a law that stated, "thou shalt not divorce." What did happen, as Jesus eluded to in Matthew 19, was to regulate the divorces that were occurring and would occur. This was to protect those involved especially the woman. God could have simply stated in the Mosaic law that Divorces were prohibited.

However, instead the law dictated that divorces were prohibited in certain situations and permitted in certain situations (Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 19:8). But again, God never proclaimed in the law that "Thou shalt not divorce." That is certain and it seems reasonable to me at least in my thinking. Imagine how many murders might have taken place to get out of a marriage. God surely knows the heart of man and this to me demonstrates that wisdom.

So again we have the general guideline that divorce is not what God intended. Then again, God didn't intend for us to murder, steal, fornicate, disobey, etc. See how complex it could get really quickly, Tom? Anyway, today divorces still happen. It would be unloving and senseless for an individual to be held to a marriage in which he or she was divorced after doing all he or she could to reconcile. In such a case the divorce was not intended by that person but yet he or she was still divorced. So what would be the point of holding him or her to a marriage in which was dissolved by the other party? Keeping in mind that God never gave a law that stated, "Thou shalt not divorce." It's important to remember that.

Also notice what Paul did not say. He did not say that a person that is divorced is really still married. He couldn't say that because God didn't. To me that would degrade the sanctity of marriage because then marriage would simply be a binding agreement. In such a case, divorce would be totally plausible because marriage would merely be a legal arrangement that could be terminated. Marriage is the commitment of a man and a woman above and beyond the law. The marriage relationship even transcends love and is therefore based on commitment. Therefore, if the husband is no longer committed (or perhaps never was) but the wife remains committed then how can she commit to something if it has ended. How can she remain committed to the marriage if she is divorced? She can continue to pursue reconciliation even after the marriage. That would be the ideal case and the best she could do in regards to commitment.

However, there comes a point in a person's life where one realizes that reconciliation will not happen. One realizes that the person never really was committed, they have already remarried, they have gone out of contact, or whatever. From my experiences as a pastor dealing with marital problems and issues, I can tell you for sure that a person reaches the realization that the two will not get back together. At that time they will have to accept things the way they are. That's reality. The scriptures give us no guidelines for this particular situation, which is why it is very dangerous to look at Paul's writings as the law for marriages. Paul did what I am doing, namely taking the teachings of Jesus Christ and applying them to a situation that was not specifically accounted for in the scripture. That is fortunate because many of us would be rule book Christians instead of seeking the Spirit of the scriptures, namely love.

I know people that have been divorced and fought vehemently for their marriages. Some were reconciled even after the husband had a baby by another woman and moved in with that woman or vice versa. However, others ended in divorce. You still fight for your marriage even after the divorce but again there comes a time when you have to move on--when you must move on.

I will also say that a Christian would hardly be adamant towards divorcing his or her spouse. A Christian, who is a follower of Christ, would be hard pressed to pursue divorce if the spouse is trying to reconcile. That goes directly against the "law of love" so to speak and definitely against the will and purpose of God for marriage. So I would question the "Christian" status of that person. There are many professed Christians but few in reality (Matthew 7:13-14). So I would wonder how a real Christian would pursue divorce over and above a spouse trying his or her best to reconcile. That seems a contradiction to me and another reason why we can't use the rule book disposition when dealing with people. It didn't work in the OT so why would we think it would be effective now? It won't. The law (letter of) will only bring death, but Jesus Christ through the love of God would bring life.

So here again we see how it would be implausible to hold someone in bondage to a marriage that was cut from under her after all her efforts (vice versa). The marriage was severed by the other party and has reached the point of no return. This is true especially if the divorcing spouse moves on. Sometimes the divorcing spouse may become violent and extremely offended by the advances of the former spouse still attempting to reconcile. This could cause great harm.

We also have to consider the original motive for the divorcing spouse. Perhaps he or she really wasn't committed to the marriage in the first place. Perhaps he or she really wanted something else and realized that he or she wasn't going to get it and decided to pursue divorce even to the extent of fabricating things to justify it (seen that before). We can't hold the innocent loving spouse to such a union, which actually didn't exist in the first place. I could tell you horror stories of people who entered marriage only to find that the spouse only married for ulterior motives. That is not marriage. That is a legal arrangement. That is deception. Far be it to have a marriage based on deception. It's destined to fail if nothing changes. This is another reason that we cannot use the scriptures as the law to abide by. We abide by the word of God and the word of God on marriage is that God did not intend for us to be divorced. We therefore should not pursue divorce. If a married person divorces his or her spouse then he or she should not remarry. This says nothing about the divorced spouse, which the scriptures are silent about. After all, he or she has been released by the divorcing spouse though reconciliation could still take place and in some cases has.

So you see how complicated it could get when we try to cover all situations with rules derived from scripture. I believe that divorce should not be an option. For me it is never an option, though I don't have a bad marriage. Two Christians should never pursue divorce...period. However, if one insists and divorces his or her Christian spouse then I believe the divorced spouse is released from that union, but still may and perhaps should continue to seek reconciliation. I don't think it would be to the benefit of a divorced spouse to hold her or him to a marriage that was severed from the other side. The Bible doesn't say to do that so how can we?

One more point. I know this is getting long. Sorry. If we took marriage more seriously then divorce would be much less an issue. I believe people get married to quickly as it is. We don't take the time to get to know the other person. We respond emotionally and succumb to infatuation instead of really getting to know the person and decide if we really want to marry that person. Many times people marry the façade not the person. So we need to learn what marriage really is and that way we wouldn't have to deal with divorce and the need for marriage counseling to restore a marriage would go down drastically. That's my two cents on that.