<p>7:11 <em>But should she depart- </em>This is a classic case of an ideal being stated, but a less than ideal situation being accepted. This theme is found throughout Corinthians, and it is hard for legalistic or literalistic minds to accept. Although God joins together man and wife, He allows His work to be undone in that He concedes to separation, even when there has been no adultery (1 Cor. 7:11). Prov. 21:9; 25:24 almost seem to encourage it, by saying that it is better for a spiritual man to dwell in a corner of the housetop than to share a house in common (LKK <em>koinos</em>) with his contentious wife. The same word occurs in Mal. 2:14 LXX in describing a man&rsquo;s wife as his &ldquo;companion&rdquo; (<em>koinonos</em>). Throughout the Spirit's teaching concerning marriage in 1 Cor. 7, there is constantly this feature of setting an ideal standard, but accepting a lower one. This is demonstrated by the several occurrences of the word &quot;But...&quot; in the passage:<br />- It is better not to marry: &quot;<em>But and if</em> thou marry, thou hast not sinned&quot; (v.28). <br />- The same &quot;but and if&quot; occurs in vv. 10,11: &quot;Let not the wife depart from her husband: <em>but and if</em> she depart...&quot;. Separation is, therefore, tolerated by God as a concession to human weakness, even though it is a way of life which inevitably involves an ongoing breach of commandments. <br />- It is better for widows not to remarry; but if they do, this is acceptable (1 Cor. 7:39,40; 1 Tim. 5:11)<br />- This same 'two standards' principle is seen elsewhere within 1 Cor. Meat offered to idols was just ordinary meat, but Paul. like God, makes concessions for those with a weak conscience concerning this (1 Cor. 8). See on 1 Cor. 9:12; 14:28; 12:31.</p><p><em>Let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband, </em><i>and the husband should not leave his wife</i>- To be an unmarried woman was very difficult in first century society. Paul is asking a lot here. The command to be &quot;reconciled&quot; indicates that Paul saw right through the argument being presented- that due to a desire to serve the Lord on a higher level, believers were refusing to have sex with their partners or even leaving or divorcing them. And, as is clear from chapter 6 and the talk of <em>porneia</em> in this chapter 7, they were using church prostitutes to meet their sexual needs. But Paul perceived that the real problem was the usual raft of human issues which come between marital partners, and their lack of reconciliation was their real reason for ending the relationship. The word for 'reconcile' is used almost exclusively in Corinthians, and Paul will later write of how &quot;the ministry of reconciliation&quot; is fundamental to the Gospel. We are reconciled to God in Christ, we must seek to reconcile others, and the Corinthians needed to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18-20). We can assume that their lack of reconciliation with God was underlying their lack of reconciliation with each other, both within their marriages and within the church as a whole. It is simply so that division is a work of the flesh. Division and lack of reconciliation, both between believers and within marriages, can be so easily spiritually justified- apparently; but Paul is insisting that reconciliation with God will have its fruit in reconciliation with each other, and will come to full term in &quot;the unity of the Spirit&quot;. But they refused to allow the Spirit to work (3:1) and so they lacked that unity of the Spirit.</p>