Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER7

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

In this chapter he answers five questions of the Corinthians about the laws of matrimony, and about the counsel of virginity and celibacy—

i. The first question is whether matrimony and its use are lawful for a Christian, as being born again and sanctified. The answer is that they are lawful, and that, moreover, when either party demands his due, it ought to be given, and that therefore it is better to marry than to burn.

ii. The second is (ver10) concerning divorce, whether it is lawful, and S. Paul answers that it is not.

iii. The third is (ver12), If a believer have an unbelieving partner, can they continue to live together? He answers that they both can and ought, if the unbeliever consents to live in peace with the believer.

iv. The fourth is (ver17) whether a man's state is to be changed because of his faith; whether, e.g., a married person who was a slave when a heathen becomes free when a Christian, whether a Gentile becomes a Jew. He answers in the negative, and says that each should remain in his station.

v. The fifth is (ver25) whether at all events those who are converted to Christ as virgins ought to remain so. He replies that virginity is not enjoined on any as a precept, but that it is on all as a counsel, as being better than matrimony for six reasons:—

(a) Because of the present necessity, inasmuch as only a short time is given us for obtaining, not temporal but eternal gain: she that is a virgin is wholly intent in these things (ver26).

(b) Because he that is married is, as it were, bound to his wife with the wedding-bond, but the unmarried is free and unconstrained (ver27).

(c) Because the unmarried is free from the tribulation of the flesh which attacks the married (ver28).

(d) Because a virgin thinks only of what is pleasing to God, but one that is married has a heart divided between God and his wife (ver32).

(e) Because a virgin is holy in body and in soul, but the married not in body, and often not in soul (ver34).

(f) Because he that is unmarried gives his virgin an opportunity to serve God without interruption, whereas the married have a thousand hindrances to piety and devotion (ver35).

Verse 1.—Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me. In answer to the questions you have put to me about the rights, use, and end of matrimony and the single life, I answer that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Notice here from S. Anselm and Ambrose that certain false Apostles, in order to seem more holy, taught that marriage was to be despised, because of the words of Christ (S. Matthew 10:12), "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," which they interpreted as applying to all Christians, especially since the act of fornication, which had been so severely condemned by the Apostle in the preceding chapter, is physically the same as conjugal copulation. The Corinthians, therefore, asked S. Paul by letter whether Christians ought to be so chaste, and ought to be so much free for prayer, godliness, and purity as to be bound, even though married, to abstain altogether from intercourse with their wives.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. It is beautiful, exemplary, and excellent. The Greek here is καλὸν. So Theophylact. Good is not here the same as useful or expedient, as Erasmus turns it, but denotes that moral and spiritual good which of itself conduces to victory over passion, to piety, and salvation (cf. vers32 , 34 , 35). To touch a woman or to know is with the Hebrews a modest form of speech, denoting the act of conjugal copulation.

S. Jerome (lib.i. contra Jovin.) adds that the Apostle says touch, "because the very touching of a woman is dangerous, and to be avoided by every man." These are his words: "The Apostle does not say it is good not to have a wife, but "it is good not to touch a woman," as though there were danger in the touch, not to be escaped from by any one who should so touch her: being one who steals away the precious souls of men, and makes the hearts of youths to fly out of their control. Shall any one nurse a fire in his bosom and not be burnt? or walk upon hot coals and not suffer harm? In the same way, therefore, that he who touches fire is burnt, so when man and woman touch they feel its effect and perceive the difference between the sexes. The fables of the heathen relate that Mithras and Ericthonius, either on stone or in the earth, were generated by the mere heat of lust. Hence too Joseph fled from the Egyptian woman, because she wished to touch him; and as though he and been bitten by a mad dog and feared lest the poison should eat its way, he cast off the cloak that she had touched," Let men and youths take note of these words.

Cardinal Vitriaco, a wise and learned man, relates of S. Mary d"Oignies that she had so weakened and dried up her body by fastings that for several years she felt not even the first motions of lust, and that when a certain holy man clasped her hand in pure spiritual affection, and thus caused the motions of the flesh to arise, she, being ignorant of this, heard a voice from heaven which said, "Do not touch me," She did not understand it, but told it to another who did, and thenceforward she abstained from all such contact.

S. Gregory (Dial. lib. iv. c11) relates how S. Ursinus, a presbyter, had lived in chastity separated from his wife, and when he was on his death-bed, drawing has last breath, his wife came near and put her ear to his mouth, to hear if he still breathed. He, still having a few minutes to live, on perceiving this, said with as much strength as he could summon, "Depart from me, woman—a spark still lingers in the embers; do not fan it into a flame." Well sung the poet:—

"Regulus by a glance, the Siren of Achelous with a song,

The Thessalian sage with gentle rubbing slays:

So with eyes, with hands, with song does woman burn,

And wield the three-forked light of angry Jove,"

S. Jerome rightly infers from this (lib. i. contra Jovin.) that it is an evil for a man to touch a woman. He does not say it is sinful, as Jovinian and others falsely alleged against him, but evil. For this touching is an act of concupiscence, and of the depraved pleasure of the flesh; but it is nevertheless excused by the good of wedlock, but is wholly removed by the good of the single life.

It may be urged from Gen, ii18 , where it is said that it is not good for a man to be alone, that it is therefore good to touch a woman. I answer that in Genesis, God is speaking of the good of the species, Paul of the individual; God in the time when the world was uninhabited, Paul when it is full; God of temporal good, Paul of the good of the eternal life of the Spirit. In this it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Verse 2.—Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife. Lest being unmarried, and unwilling to live a chaste life, he fall into fornication. Every man, say Melancthon and Bucer, must include the priest and the monk. I reply that every man means every man that is free, not bound by vow, disease, or old age: for such are incapable if matrimony. Laws and documents must be interpreted according to their subject-matter: they only apply to those capable of receiving them, not to those who are not. To him then who is free, and unbound, and can fulfil the requirements of matrimony, the apostle gives to precept, but advice and permission, that if he fears to fall into fornication he should marry a wife, or keep to her that he has already married, rather than fall into any danger of committing such a sin. So the Fathers whom I will quote at ver9 all agree in saying. This must be the Apostle's meaning, for otherwise he would contradict himself, for throughout the whole chapter he urges the life of chastity.

Moreover, the apostle is speaking primarily to the married alone, and not to the unmarried. To these latter he begins to speak in ver8 , Now I say to the unmarried and widows, where the adversative now marks the change. He says too here let every man have, not let every man marry, because he is speaking to those who already had wives. So S. Jerome (lib. i. contra Jovin.) says, "Let every man that is married have his own wife," i.e., continue to have her, not dismiss or repudiate her, but rather use her lawfully and chastely. The word have signifies not an inchoate but a continuous action. So 2 Timothy 1:13: "Hold fast the form of sound words," where the same word is used. So in S. Luke 19:26: Unto every one that hath (that uses his talent) shall be given; and from him that hath not (does not use), even that he hath shall be taken away from him; otherwise there cannot well be taken from a man what he has not. That this is the true meaning is evident from that follows in ver3.

Verse 3.—Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence. A modest paraphrase for the conjugal debt.

Verse 4.—The wife hath not power of her own body but the husband, She has not power, that is, over those members which distinguish woman from man, in so far as they serve for the conjugal act. Power she has not over them so as to contain at her own will or to have intercourse with another. That power belongs to the husband alone, and that for himself only, not for another. Cf. S. Augustine (contra Julian, lib. v.). The Greek is literally, has no right over her body, whether to contain or to hand it over to another.

Likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Hence it is clear that, though in the government of the family the wife should be subject and obedient to her husband, yet in the right of exacting and returning the marriage debt she is equal with her husband, has the same right over his body that he has over hers, and this from the marriage contract, in which each has given to the other the same power over the body, and received the same power over the other's body. The husband, therefore, is as much bound to render his wife, as the wife her husband, faithfulness and the marriage debt. This is taught at length in their expositions of this passage by Chrysostom. Theophylact, Œcumenius, Primasius, Anselm, and by S. Jerome (Cit32 , qu2 , cap. Apostolus), who says that husband and wife are declared to be equal in rights and duties. "When, therefore," says S. Chrysostom (Hom19), "a harlot comes and tempts you, say that your body is not your own but your wife"s. Similarly, let the wife say to any one who proposes to rob her of her chastity, "My body is not mine but my husband"s.""

Verse 5.—Defraud ye not one the other. By denying the marriage debt. The words and to fasting, though in the Greek, are wanting in the Latin. Hence Nicholas I., in his answers to the questions if the Bulgarians (c50), writes to them that, throughout the forty days of Lent, they should not come at their wives. But this is a matter of counsel.

And come together again. From this Peter Martyr and the Magdeburgians conclude that it is not lawful for married persons to vow perpetual continence by mutual consent. But the answer to this is that the Apostle is not prescribing but permitting the marriage act.

Verse 6.—But I speak this by permission and not of commandment.

1. I permit the act of copulation by way of indulgence: I do not prescribe it. Nay, S. Augustine (Enchirid. c78) takes it: "I say this by way of pardon." The Greek word denotes forgiveness, and hence S. Augustine gathers that it is a venial sin to have sexual connection, not for the sake of children but for carnal pleasure, and to avoid the temptations of Satan; for pardon is given to what is sinful. So too indulgence is given in what concerns sin, or at all events a lesser good, as S. Thomas has rightly observed.

2. That there is no precept given here is also evident, because the Apostle permits married people to contain for a time, that they may give themselves to fasting and to prayer; therefore, if they agree to devote their whole life to fasting and to prayer, he permits them to contain themselves for life.

3. He says come together, and gives the reason, "that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency;" i.e., that there may be no danger of your falling into adultery, or other acts of impurity, because of your incontinency. Therefore, when the cause does not exist, viz., the danger of incontinency, as it does not exist in those who have sufficient high-mindedness to curb it and tame it, he permits them to be continent for life.

4. He says in ver7 , "I would that all men were even as I myself," i.e., not chaste in some way or other, but altogether continent, unmarried, nay, virgin souls, even as I, who am unmarried. So Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Anselm, Chrysostom, Œcumenius and Epiphanius (Hæres78), S. Jerome ( Ruth 1:13. It is better to marry than to burn, unless, that is, you are already wedded to Christ by a vow. Cf. S. Ambrose (ad Virg. Laps.c. v.). for to those who are bound by a vow of chastity, and are professed, as well as for husbands, it is better to burn and commit fornication than to marry a second time. For such marriage would be a permanent sacrilege or adultery, which is worse than fornication, or some momentary sacrilege; just as it is better to sin than to be in a constant state of sin, and to sin from obstinacy and contempt. But it is best of all neither to marry, nor to burn, but to contain, as Ambrose says; and this can be done by all tho have professed chastity, as was said in the last note, no matter how grievously they may be tempted. The Apostle going it so in his sore temptation, as many other saints have done, and especially he to whom the devils exclaimed, when they were overcome by him and put to confusion through the resistance he made to their temptation: "Thou hast conquered, hast conquered, for thou hast been in the fire and not been burnt."

Burn here does not denote to be on fire, or to be tempted by the heat of lust, but to be injured and overcome by it, to yield and consent to it. For it is not he that feels the heat of the fire that is sain to be burnt by it, but he that is injured and scorched by it. So Virgil sings of Dido, who had been overcome by love for neas (n468): "The ill-starred Dido burns and wanders frantically about the city." Cf. also Sirach 23:22. The Apostle is giving the reason why he wishes the incontinent and weak to marry, viz., lest they should burn, i.e., commit fornication; others, who are combatants of great soul, he wishes to contain. In other words, let those who do not contain marry, for it is better to marry than to burn. So Theodoret, Ambrose, Anselm, S. Thomas, Augustine (de Sancta Virgen, c74), Jerome (Apolog. pro Lib. contra Jovin.). "It is better," says S. Jerome, "to marry a husband than to commit fornication." And S. Ambrose says: "To burn is to be at the mercy of the desires; for when the will consents to the heat of the flesh it burns. To suffer the desires and not be overcome by them is the part of an illustrious and perfect man."

It may be objected that S. Cyprian ( John 3:5, that "except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It is therefore untrue that any one not born of water, but merely of believing parents, can enter into the kingdom of God.

Verse 15.—But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. If the unbeliever seek for a dissolution of the marriage, or will not live with his partner without doing injury to God, by endeavouring to draw her way to unbelief or to some wickedness, or by uttering blasphemy against God, or Christ, or the faith, then, as Sanchez lays down from the common consent of the Doctors of the Church (vol. ii. disp74), he by so acting is rightly regarded to wish for a separation; then let the unbeliever depart from the unbelieving, because it is better, says S. Chrysostom, to be divorced from one's husband than from God.

Observe that the Apostle in this case allows a separation, not only a toro but also a vinculo; and therefore the believer may contract another marriage, this being a concession made by Christ in favour of the faith; otherwise a Christian man or woman would be subject to slavery. For it is a grievous slavery to be bound in matrimony to an unbeliever, so as not to be able to marry another, and to be bound to live a life of celibacy, even if the unbeliever depart. So S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c13), S. Thomas, and S. Ambrose, who says: "The marriage obedience is not owing to him who scoffs at the Author of marriage, but in such case remarriage is lawful."

Further, many doctors, cited by Henriquez (de Matrim. lib. xi. c8), amongst whom is S. Augustine (de Adulter. Conjug. lib. i. c. xix.), gather from this verse and from verse12that the believer whose unbelieving partner is not willing to be converted, even though he may be willing to live with her without injury to God, has by this very fact a right to enter upon a new marriage. But S. Paul and the Canonical decrees (cap. quanto, cap. Gaudemus, tit, de Divort, and cap. Si Infidelis28 , qu2) only deal with the case where the unbeliever wishes to depart, or where he is a blasphemer against the faith. And, therefore, other doctors, cited by Henriquez, think that in this case it is lawful for the believer to marry again. And this opinion is the more sound not only for the reason given above, but also because the Fathers who support the first opinion rely on glosses on the various capitula, which are merely glosses of Orleans, and if anything darken the text.

Moreover, no gloss by itself can be the foundation of a right, or of a new law. Since, therefore, it is agreed that the marriage of unbelievers is true marriage, and that it is not dissolved by the conversion of either party, because there is no law of God or of the Church to dissolve it, it follows that they must hold to their contract, which by its very nature is indissoluble. This is strengthened by the consideration that each party possesses good faith; therefore it cannot set aside, unless it is agreed that either or both have no right to this marriage, or that one loses his right through the conversion of the other. This, however, is not agreed on, but is highly doubtful. In matters of doubt the position of the possessor is the stronger, and he ought not to be ousted from it because of any doubt that may arise.

Nevertheless, Sanchez adds (disp74 , Numbers 9) that it is lawful for the believer to marry again, because it is now forbidden by the Church to live with an unbeliever who will not be converted, because of the danger of perversion which exists nearly always. The unbeliever is then looked upon as having departed, because he refuses to live with the believer in a lawful and proper manner. But Sanchez means that the Church now forbids in general a believer to continue to live with an unbeliever. But this is denied by Navarrus and others; for though the Fourth Council of Toledo forbids a believer to live with an unbeliever if he is a Jew, this was done merely because of the obstinate tenacity of the Jews to their creed. Neither here nor elsewhere is marriage with a heathen forbidden.

Moreover, the Council of Toledo was merely local, and this same canon has been differently interpreted by different authors, as Sanchez says (disp73 , Numbers 6). And in truth it would be hard and a just cause of offence if, in India, China, and Japan, when the faith is first preached, Christians should be compelled to put away the wives that they had married when unbelievers, or if wives should be compelled to leave their husbands who were unwilling to be converted to Christianity, especially when they were in high position; for occasion would be taken from thence to exterminate Christians and their faith. The case is different in Spain and amongst Christians, where the Church might, without causing scandal, enact this, either by a general law (which as a matter of fact does not exist, as I have said), or by use and custom, by forbidding individuals in particular to remain in marriage with one that was not a believer, because of the danger of perversion. Such a precept it would be the duty of the believer to obey, and therefore it would not be he that was in fault, but the unbeliever, who, by refusing to live in marriage, according to the law binding on the believing partner and the precept of the Church, becomes the cause of the separation. By so acting, the unbeliever will be reckoned to wish for separation, and consequently it would be lawful for the believer to contract another marriage, as Sanchez learnedly argues. For example, Queen Csar, wife of the King of the Persians in the time of the Emperor Mauritius, fled secretly to Constantinople, and was there converted and baptized. When her husband requested her to return, she refused to do so unless he became a Christian. He when went to Constantinople and was there baptized, and assisted out of the font by Augustus, and having received his wife again, he returned joyfully to his home. This happened about the year593 , as Baronius related on the authority of Paul the Deacon and Gregory of Tours. All that has been said must be clearly understood to refer to matrimony contracted when both partied are unbelievers, followed by the conversion of one and the refusal of the other to be converted; for matrimony contracted by an unbeliever with a believer has been declared null and void by the Church since the time of S. Paul and thence it is that difference of faith is a barrier to matrimony. This was the reason why Theresa, sister of Adelphonsus, King of Lige, refused to marry Abdallah, King of the Arabs, unless he adopted the Christian faith. This he promised, but falsely. Therefore on the arrival of Theresa he forced her, in spite of her struggles; but being smitten by God with a sore disease, he was unable to be cured without sending back Theresa to her brother. This is told by Roderic, Vazus, and Baronius (A. D983).

S. Eurosia too, daughter of the King of Bohemia, having been taken prisoner by the King of the Moors, chose death rather than marriage with him; and while she was patiently awaiting the sword of the executioner, she heard an angel saying, "Come, my elect, the spouse of Christ, receive the crown which the Lord hath prepared for you, and the gift that your prayers shall be heard as often as the faithful call upon you for help against rain or any storm whatsoever." Having heard these words, her arms and legs having been lopped off, she gave up the ghost, being renowned for her miracles, as Lucius Marinus Siculus related (de Rebus Hispan, lib. v.).

But God hath called us unto peace. Peace of conscience with God, and of agreement with men. Therefore, on our part, let us not depart from unbelieving husbands, but live with them as peacefully as we can. Secondly, and more fitly, peace here stands for that rest and tranquil life to which the Apostle is urging the married believer. Such a life in separation and solitude is to be preferred to marriage with an unbeliever who wishes to depart, and who is perpetually provoking the believer to quarrel, and disturbing his peace. This better agrees with the mention of departure which has gone just before these words, and of which I shall have more to say.

Verse 16.—For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? If we take the first meaning of "peace" given above, the sense will be: Live in peace as far as you can, O believer, with your unbelieving partner, for you know not the good that he may derive thence: perhaps by living with him you will convert him and save him. So Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm, Theophylact, and others, If we take the second meaning of peace, the sense will be still better. Peace is the gift of Christ; to this have we been called by Christ, not to unhappy and quarrelsome slavery. If, therefore, the unbeliever seeks by quarrels, abuse, by threats against the faith and against his faithful partner, to drive her away, let her depart and live peacefully, and give up all hope of his conversion. For what ground of hope is there of one that is a heathen, blasphemous, and quarrelsome? Therefore, what do you know, or whence do you hope to save him?

Verse 17.— But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. I have said this much about the marriage of an unbeliever with a believer, and about separation and divorce, if the unbeliever seek for it, and about living together in peace; but I do not wish to be understood to mean that a divorce is to be sought for, or that peace is to be broken, merely through lust and a desire to change one's state, as, e.g., that a believer, because he is a believer and called to Christian liberty, may desire and find an excuse for changing his servile condition into one of freedom, his position as a Gentile into that if a Jew. I ordain, therefore, that each one of the faithful, whether he be a Jew or a Gentile, bond or free, maintain the state and condition which the Lord has given him, and which he had before he became a believer. Let each one walk in his own line; let him be content with that, and live as becometh a Christian; let him not grow restless to change his state because of his Christianity, and so cause the Gentiles to stumble.

This seems to be the answer to a fourth question put to Paul by the Corinthian