One has to consider the reason why Paul taught the Corinthians about divorce, and yet there is no mention of it from him to any of the other churches. Also, divorce and remarriage are not mentioned in the council of Jerusalem where Paul and Barnabas attended to deal with the teaching of the false Judaizer apostles. Therefore Paul was dealing with a specific problem around the way many Corinthian men were divorcing their wives in order to live a more saintly single life. Therefore Paul was dealing with the inappropriate religious reason for the divorces that were happening.
The teaching of Jesus concerning divorce was directed to the ungodly, unconverted Pharisees who pressured Him into giving an answer to their questions. His teaching was not directed to converted Christian believers.
Therefore taking the teaching of Jesus and Paul out of their context, and ignoring their intention for giving the teaching, is actually stretching their teaching in ways that were not intended by either of them, and the inaccurate teaching by religious extremists tends to cause damage and harm to godly people who find themselves in circumstances that they cannot control.
Paul at the beginning of 1 Corinthians said who was addressing his letter to: 1) "Unto the church of God at Corinth...2) To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus...3) to them that are called to be saints...4) with all that in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours."
So his instructions were not just given to the Corinthians, but to every one in every place who call upon the name of the Lord...which would include saints in other churches...the Galatians, the Colossians, the Ephesians, and so forth.
The thing that concerns me probably the most, is that this commandment for the wife to not leave her husband is that he then later seems to condone it by saying '...but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried OR be reconciled to her husband.
So the two options she has was she could seemingly go ahead and live separated from her husband as long as she just didn't marry someone else. Think about that for a bit. God specifically said she is not to leave her husband, and then seems to allow her to do it anyway by just prohibiting her from getting married to someone else.
It seems to me he would of never left this option open for the woman to openly live in defiance of his plain commandment to not leave her husband. In other words by leaving this as a viable option, the woman can actually hold her husband 'hostage' because while she is apparently now free to live a separated life from her husband, he has no other option but to live in this condition of being married without living together and no recourse at all if she refuses to be reconciled to him.
But how did the woman get into this condition? It seems to me God himself has gave her this option because he gave her a choice: You can live separated from your husband, OR you can be reconciled to him. So all she has to do is choose to live separated from him while he suffers without living with her because she chose to break the plain commandment to not leave her husband.
I am looking for a better understanding of this, but it seems he would of not given her a choice like this by saying 'OR' be reconciled. It would seem like it would have said 'Let her not marry someone else, but 'MUST' be reconciled to her husband.
It seems the wife is given this latitude that she can leave for almost any reason she may come up with, which could include living in disobedience to her husband, and God seems to allow this as a viable option. There just seems to be something missing here.