John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 7

As he had spoken of fornication, he now appropriately proceeds to speak of marriage, which is the remedy for avoiding fornication. Now it appears that, notwithstanding the greatly scattered state of the Corinthian Church, they still retained some respect for Paul, since they consulted him on doubtful points. What their questions had been is uncertain, except insofar as we may infer them from his reply.

However, it is perfectly well known that immediately after the first rise of the Church, there crept into it, through Satan’s artifice, a superstition of such a kind that a large proportion of them, through a foolish admiration of celibacy, despised the sacred connection of marriage; indeed, many regarded it with abhorrence, as a profane thing. This contagion had perhaps spread among the Corinthians also; or at least there were people with idle inclinations who, by immoderately extolling celibacy, endeavored to alienate the minds of the pious from marriage. At the same time, as the Apostle treats of many other subjects, he intimates that he had been consulted on a variety of points. What is chiefly important is that we listen to his doctrine regarding each of them.

1. It is good for a man. The answer consists of two parts. In the first, he teaches that it would be good for everyone to abstain from connection with a woman, provided it was in his power to do so. In the second, he adds a correction to the effect that, as many cannot do this because of the weakness of their flesh, these individuals must not neglect the remedy that they have available, as appointed for them by the Lord.

Now we must observe what he means by the word good when he declares that it is good to abstain from marriage, so that we do not conclude, on the other hand, that the marriage connection is therefore evil—a mistake which Jerome made, not so much from ignorance, in my opinion, as from the heat of controversy.

For though that great man was endowed with distinguished qualities, he had, at the same time, one serious flaw: when disputing, he allowed himself to be carried away into great exaggerations, so that he did not remain within the bounds of truth. The inference he then draws is this: “It is good not to touch a woman; it is therefore wrong to do so.” Paul, however, does not use the word good here with a meaning that is opposed to what is evil or vicious, but simply points out what is expedient because of the many troubles, vexations, and anxieties that accompany married life.

Besides, we must always keep in view the limitation which he adds. Nothing further, therefore, can be drawn from Paul’s words than this—that it is indeed expedient and profitable for a man not to be bound to a wife, provided he is able to do otherwise.

Let us explain this by a comparison. If anyone were to say: “It would be good for a man not to eat, or to drink, or to sleep”—he would not by that condemn eating, or drinking, or sleeping, as things that were wrong. Rather, because the time devoted to these things is simply time taken from the soul, his meaning would be that we would be happier if we could be free from these hindrances and devote ourselves entirely to meditation on heavenly things. Hence, as there are in married life many impediments which keep a man entangled, it would for that reason be good not to be connected in marriage.

But here another question arises, for these words of Paul have some appearance of inconsistency with the words of the Lord in Genesis 2:18, where He declares that it is not good for a man to be without a wife. What the Lord there pronounces to be evil, Paul here declares to be good. I answer that insofar as a wife is a help to her husband, so as to make his life happy, that is in accordance with God’s institution; for in the beginning God appointed it so that the man without the woman was, as it were, but half a man and felt himself lacking special and necessary assistance, and the wife is, as it were, the completion of the man.

Sin afterwards entered to corrupt that institution of God; for instead of such a great blessing, a grievous punishment has been substituted, so that marriage is the source and cause of many miseries. Hence, whatever evil or inconvenience there is in marriage arises from the corruption of the divine institution.

Now, although meanwhile some remains of the original blessing still exist, so that a single life is often much more unhappy than married life, yet, as married persons are involved in many inconveniences, it is with good reason that Paul teaches that it would be good for a man to abstain.

In this way, the troubles that accompany marriage are not concealed; yet, at the same time, no support is given to those profane jests commonly popular and intended to discredit it, such as the following: that a wife is a necessary evil, and that a wife is one of the greatest evils.

For such sayings as these have come from Satan’s workshop and have a direct tendency to disgrace God’s holy institution, and further, to lead men to regard marriage with abhorrence, as if it were a deadly evil and pest.

The sum is this: that we must remember to distinguish between the pure ordinance of God and the punishment of sin, which came later. According to this distinction, it was in the beginning good for a man, without any exception, to be joined to a wife; and even now, it is good in such a way that there is meanwhile a mixture of bitter and sweet, because of the curse of God. To those, however, who do not have the gift of continence, it is a necessary and beneficial remedy according to what follows.

But to avoid fornication. He now commands that those who are liable to the vice of incontinence should resort to the remedy. For though it may seem that the statement is universal, it should, nevertheless, be restricted to those who feel themselves compelled by necessity. Regarding this, everyone must judge for himself.

Whatever difficulty, therefore, is perceived to be in marriage, let all who cannot resist the promptings of their flesh know that this commandment has been prescribed for them by the Lord. But it is asked—“Is this the only reason for entering into matrimony, so that we may cure incontinence?” I answer that this is not Paul’s meaning; for as for those who have the gift of abstinence from marriage, he leaves them at liberty, while he commands others to guard against their weakness by marrying.

The sum is this: that the question is not about the reasons for which marriage has been instituted, but about the persons for whom it is necessary. For if we look to the first institution, it could not be a remedy for a disease which did not yet exist, but was appointed for begetting offspring; but after the fall, this second purpose was added.

This passage is also opposed to (τολυγαμία) polygamy. For the Apostle desires that every woman have her own husband (1 Corinthians 7:2), implying that the obligation is mutual. The man, therefore, who has once pledged his faithfulness to a woman as his wife, must not separate from her, as is clearly done in the case of taking an additional wife.

The husband to the wife. He now prescribes the rules to be observed in the marriage connection, or he teaches what is the duty of husband and wife. And in the first place, he lays down a general doctrine as to mutual benevolence — that the husband love his wife, and the wife her husband; for as to the interpretation which others give to the expression due benevolence — duty of marriage — I do not know how far it is suitable.

The reason that inclines them to this view is that it is immediately added, The husband has not power of his own body, etc.; but it will suit better to regard that as an inference drawn from the preceding statement. Husband and wife, therefore, are bound to mutual benevolence: hence it follows that they have, neither the one nor the other, the power of their own body.

But it may be asked, why the Apostle here puts them upon a level, instead of requiring from the wife obedience and subjection. I answer that it was not his intention to treat of all their duties, but simply of the mutual obligation as to the marriage bed.

In other things, therefore, husband and wife differ, both as to duty and as to authority; in this respect, the condition of both is alike — as to the maintaining of conjugal fidelity. For this reason, also, polygamy (τολυγαμία) is again condemned; for if this is an invariable condition of marriage that the husband surrenders the power of his own body and gives it up to his wife, how could he afterwards connect himself with another, as if he were free?

Defraud ye not one the other Profane persons might think that Paul does not act with sufficient modesty in speaking in this way about the intercourse of a husband with his wife, or at least that it was unbecoming the dignity of an Apostle. If, however, we consider the reasons that influenced him, we will find that he was under the necessity of speaking about these things.

In the first place, he knew how much influence a false appearance of sanctity has in deceiving devout minds, as we ourselves know by experience. For Satan dazzles us with an appearance of what is right, so that we may be led to imagine that we are polluted by intercourse with our wives, and abandoning our calling, may think of pursuing another kind of life.

Furthermore, he knew how prone everyone is to self-love and devoted to his own gratification. As a result, a husband, once his desire has been gratified, treats his wife not merely with neglect but even with disdain; and there are few who do not sometimes feel this disdain for their wives creeping in on them.

It is for these reasons that he discusses so carefully the mutual obligations of married life. “If at any time it occurs to married persons to desire an unmarried life, as if it were holier, or if they are tempted by irregular desires, let them remember that they are bound by a mutual connection.” The husband is but one half of his body, and so also is the wife.

Therefore, they do not have freedom of choice but must instead restrain themselves with such thoughts as these: “Because the one needed help from the other, the Lord has connected us together, so that we may assist each other.” Let each then be helpful to the other's need, and let neither of them act as if at his or her own disposal.

Unless by mutual consent He requires mutual consent, in the first place, because the issue is not about the continence of one merely, but of two; and besides, he immediately adds two other exceptions. The first is, that it be done only for a time, as perpetual continence is not in their power, lest, if they should venture to make an attempt beyond their power, they might fall to Satan’s stratagems.

The second is, that they do not abstain from conjugal intercourse on the grounds that abstinence is in itself a good and holy work, or as if it were worship of God, but so that they may be free for better activities. Now although Paul had taken such pains to guard this, yet Satan prevailed to such an extent as to drive many to unlawful divorce, out of a corrupt desire for an unmarried life.

The husband, leaving his wife, fled to the desert so that he might please God better by living as a monk. The wife, against her husband’s will, put on the veil — the badge of celibacy. Meanwhile, they did not consider that by violating their marriage commitment they broke the Lord’s covenant, and by loosening the marriage tie, they cast off the Lord’s yoke.

This vice, it is true, was corrected to some extent by the ancient canons, for they prohibited a husband from leaving his wife against her will on the pretext of continence, and likewise a wife from refusing her husband the use of her body. In this, however, they erred — that they permitted both to live together in perpetual celibacy, as if it were lawful for people to decree anything that is contrary to the Spirit of God.

Paul expressly commands that married persons do not defraud each other, except for a time. The bishops give permission to cease the use of marriage forever. Who does not see the obvious contradiction? Therefore, let no one be surprised that we take the liberty to dissent on this point from the ancients, who, it is evident, deviated from the clear statements of the word of God.

That ye may have leisure for fasting and prayer. We must note that Paul does not speak here of every kind of fasting, or every kind of prayer. That sobriety and temperance, which ought to be habitual for Christians, is a kind of fasting. Prayer, too, ought to be not merely daily, but even continual.

He speaks, however, of that kind of fasting which is a solemn expression of penitence, with the aim of averting God’s anger, or by which believers prepare themselves for prayer when they are undertaking some important business. Similarly, the kind of prayer that he speaks of is such as requires a more intense devotion of the mind.

For it sometimes happens that we need (setting aside everything else) to fast and pray; such as when any calamity is impending, if it appears to be a visitation of God’s wrath; or when we are involved in any difficult matter, or when we have something of great importance to do, as, for example, the ordaining of pastors. Now the Apostle appropriately connects these two things, because fasting is a preparation for prayer, as Christ also connects them, when he says,

This kind of devils goeth not out but by fasting and prayer. (Matthew 17:21).

When, therefore, Paul says, that ye may be at leisure, the meaning is that, having freed ourselves from all hindrances, we may apply ourselves to this one thing.

Now if anyone objects that the use of the marriage bed is an evil thing because it hinders prayer, the answer is easy: it is not on that account worse than food and drink, by which fasting is hindered. But it is the responsibility of believers to consider wisely when it is time to eat and drink, and when to fast. It is also part of the same wisdom to have intercourse with their wives when it is appropriate, and to refrain from that intercourse when they are called to be engaged otherwise.

And come together again, that Satan tempt you not Here he presents the reason, ignorance of which caused the ancients to fall into error by rashly and inconsiderately approving a vow of perpetual continence.

For they reasoned in this manner: “If it is good for married persons sometimes to impose upon themselves for a time a voluntary continence with mutual consent, then, if they impose this upon themselves forever, it will be so much the better.” But they did not consider how much danger this involved, for we give Satan an opportunity to oppress us when we attempt anything beyond the measure of our weakness.

“But we must resist Satan.” What if arms and shield are lacking? “They must be sought from the Lord,” they say. But we will in vain implore the Lord to assist us in a rash attempt.

We must, therefore, carefully observe the clause — for your incontinency: for we are exposed to Satan’s temptations as a consequence of the weakness of our flesh. If we wish to shut them out and keep them back, it is fitting for us to oppose them with the remedy with which the Lord has provided us. Therefore, those who give up the use of the marriage bed act rashly. It is as if they had made an agreement with God for perpetual strength.

By permission. So that they might not, by taking their stand on such a precept as he had prescribed, unduly loosen the restraints of lust, he adds a limitation: he had written these things because of their weakness, so that they may remember that marriage is a remedy for unchastity, lest they should excessively abuse its advantage, so as to gratify their desire by every means—indeed, without measure or modesty.

He also intends to counter the objections of the wicked, so that no one might be able to object in this way: “What! Are you afraid that husbands and wives will not of their own accord be sufficiently inclined to carnal delight that you prompt them to it?” For even the Papists, those little saints, are offended by this doctrine, and would gladly dispute with Paul, on the grounds that he encourages married persons to maintain mutual cohabitation and does not allow them to turn to a life of celibacy.

He therefore assigns a reason for his doctrine and declares that he had not recommended marital intercourse to married persons with the aim of luring them to delight, or as though he took pleasure in commanding it, but had considered what was required by the weakness of those he is addressing.

Foolish zealots for celibacy misuse both clauses of this verse. For since Paul says that he speaks by permission, they infer from this that there is therefore something wrong in marital intercourse, for where there is need of pardon, there must be sin. Furthermore, from his saying that he speaks not by commandment, they infer that it is therefore a holier thing to cease the use of marriage and turn to celibacy.

To the former, I answer that, as I acknowledge there is an immoderate excess in all human affections, I do not deny that in this matter there is an irregularity (ἀταξία), which, I admit, is sinful. Indeed, this affection, I admit, is more violent than others, and almost brutish.

But, on the other hand, I also maintain that whatever vice or baseness there is, is so covered over by the honorableness of marriage, that it ceases to be a vice, or at least is not considered a fault by God, as Augustine elegantly discusses in his book “On the Advantage of Marriage,” and frequently in other places.

You may then understand it briefly thus: marital intercourse is a thing that is pure, honorable, and holy, because it is a pure institution of God. The immoderate desire with which persons burn is a fault arising from the corruption of nature; but in the case of believers, marriage is a veil by which that fault is covered, so that it no longer appears in the sight of God.

To the second I answer: since the term commandment is properly applied to those things that relate to the duties of righteousness and things in themselves pleasing to God, Paul on this account says that he does not speak by commandment; he has, however, sufficiently shown previously that the remedy, which he had prescribed, must necessarily be used.

For I should wish, that all. This is connected with the explanation of the previous statement; for he clearly indicates what is the more suitable way, but he wishes everyone to consider what has been given to him. Why, then, did he, a little earlier, speak not by way of commandment? It is for this reason: he does not want to compel them to marry, but rather desires that they might be free from that necessity. However, since this is not an option for everyone, he takes human weakness into account.

If this passage had been properly considered, the perverse superstition connected with the desire for celibacy, which is the root and cause of great evils, would never have become established in the world. Paul here expressly declares that not everyone has a free choice in this matter, because virginity is a special gift that is not conferred on all indiscriminately. Nor does he teach any doctrine different from what Christ Himself does, when He says that all men are not capable of receiving this saying. (Matthew 19:11). Paul, therefore, is here an interpreter of our Lord's words when he says that this ability—that of living without marriage—has not been given to all.

What, in the meantime, has been done? Everyone, without any regard to his power, has, according to his liking, vowed perpetual continence. Nor has the error in this matter been confined to common and uneducated people; for even the most eminent teachers, devoting themselves completely to praising virginity and forgetting human weakness, have overlooked this admonition of Paul—or rather, of Christ Himself. Jerome, blinded by a zeal of some unknown kind, does not simply fall, but rushes headlong into false views.

Virginity, I acknowledge, is an excellent gift; but keep in mind that it is a gift. Learn, moreover, from the words of Christ and Paul, that it is not common to all but is given only to a few. Therefore, guard against rashly dedicating what is not in your own power, and what you will not obtain as a gift if, forgetting your calling, you aspire beyond your limits.

At the same time, the ancients also erred in their estimation of virginity, for they praise it highly as if it were the most excellent of all virtues and wanted it to be regarded as an act of worship to God. This itself is a dangerous error; and another follows—that, after celibacy began to be so highly esteemed, many, competing with each other, rashly vowed perpetual continence, while scarcely one in a hundred of them was endowed with the power and gift.

From this, too, a third error sprang up—that the ministers of the Church were forbidden to marry, as a way of life unbefitting the holiness of their order. As for those who, despising marriage, rashly vowed perpetual continence, God punished their presumption, first, by the secret flames of lust, and then afterwards, by horrible acts of filthiness.

When the ministers of the churches were prohibited from lawful marriage, the consequence of this tyranny was that the Church was deprived of many good and faithful ministers; for pious and prudent men would not trap themselves in this way. Eventually, after a long period, lusts, which had previously been suppressed, emitted their abominable odor. It was considered a small matter for those for whom it would have been a capital crime to have a wife to maintain concubines (that is, prostitutes) with impunity; but no house was safe from the priests' impurities. Even that was considered a small matter, for monstrous enormities sprang up, which it would be better to bury in eternal oblivion than to mention as examples.