John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 7:11

"(but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife." — 1 Corinthians 7:11 (ASV)

But if she depart—that this is not to be understood of those who have been put away for adultery is evident from the punishment that followed in that case, for it was a capital crime even by the Roman laws, and almost by the common law of nations.

But as husbands frequently divorced their wives—either because their personalities were not congenial, because their personal appearance did not please them, or because of some offense—and as wives, too, sometimes deserted their husbands on account of their cruelty or excessively harsh and dishonorable treatment, he says that marriage is not dissolved by divorces or dissensions of that nature.

For it is an agreement consecrated by the name of God, which does not stand or fall according to human inclination, so as to be made void whenever we may choose.

The sum is this: other contracts, as they depend on mere human inclination, are similarly dissolved by that same inclination.

But those who are connected by marriage are no longer free, so as to be at liberty, if they change their mind, to break in pieces the pledge, (as the expression is), and each go elsewhere in quest of a new connection. For if the rights of nature cannot be dissolved, much less can this bond, which, as we have already said, is preferred above the principal tie of nature.

But as to his commanding the wife who is separated from her husband to remain unmarried, he does not mean by this that separation is allowable, nor does he give permission to the wife to live apart from her husband.

But if she has been expelled from the house or has been put away, she must not think that even in that case she is set free from his power, for it is not in the power of a husband to dissolve marriage.

He does not, therefore, give permission here for wives to withdraw of their own accord from their husbands, or to live away from their husband’s household as if they were in a state of widowhood. Instead, he declares that even those who are not received by their husbands continue to be bound, so that they cannot take other husbands.

But what if a wife is wanton, or otherwise incontinent? Would it not be inhuman to refuse her the remedy when she is constantly burning with desire? I answer that when we are prompted by the infirmity of our flesh, we must have recourse to the remedy. After which, it is the Lord’s part to bridle and restrain our affections by his Spirit, though matters should not succeed according to our desire.

For if a wife should fall into a protracted illness, the husband would, nevertheless, not be justified in going to seek another wife. Similarly, if a husband should, after marriage, begin to suffer from some illness, it would not be allowable for his wife to change her marital state.

The sum is this—God having prescribed lawful marriage as a remedy for our incontinence, let us make use of it, that we may not, by tempting him, pay the penalty of our rashness. Having discharged this duty, let us hope that he will give us aid should matters go contrary to our expectations.