Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 7:1-9

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency. But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment. Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." — 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (ASV)

After rebuking the fornicator and those who upheld him, the Apostle now begins to discuss marriage. In this regard, he does three things:

1. He discusses those joined in matrimony.
2. He discusses virgins (1 Corinthians 7:25).
3. He discusses widows (1 Corinthians 7:39).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. He instructs those not joined in matrimony on whether to enter into it.
2. He clarifies what he had said (1 Corinthians 7:6).

Regarding this first instruction, he does two things:

1. He shows what is essentially good in this matter.
2. He shows what is necessary (1 Corinthians 7:2).

Concerning the first point, it should be noted that in their dislike for the fornication he had just spoken against, some people—whose zeal for God was not accompanied by wisdom—reached a point where they even condemned marriage. Therefore, it says in 1 Timothy 4:2–3: “Through the hypocrisy of liars who forbid marriage.” Because this seemed harsh to the Corinthian believers, they wrote to the Apostle about it.

Therefore, the Apostle answered: I have disapproved of things you do. Now concerning the matters about which you wrote, I answer in regard to matrimony: It is well for a man not to touch a woman.

In this matter, it should be noted that the woman was given to man as a help in procreation. The generative power differs from the nutritive power in that the latter serves a person in preserving them as an individual. For this reason, it is good for a person to take nourishment, because their life is preserved by it. But the generative power does not help in preserving the individual, but in preserving the species. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is good for a man to preserve himself as an individual by touching a woman.

First, regarding the soul, Augustine says in the Soliloquies: “Nothing so casts a man down from the citadel of his power as that contact of bodies without which a wife cannot be had.” Consequently, in Exodus 19:15 it says to the people about to receive the Law: “Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman.” And in 1 Samuel 21:4: “I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.”

Second, as to the body, a man subjects himself to a woman by marriage and makes himself a slave when he was a free man. This is the most bitter of all servitudes. For this reason, it says in Ecclesiastes 7:26: “I found more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets.”

Third, as to external things, a man must occupy himself with them when he has a wife and children to be fed. In contrast, it says in 2 Timothy 2:4: “No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him.”

Then, when he says, But because of fornication, he shows what is necessary in this matter. He addresses first, contracting marriage, and second, the use of the marriage once contracted (1 Corinthians 7:3).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that the act of the generative power is ordered toward the preservation of the species by the generation of offspring. Because the woman was given to the man as a helper in generation, the first need for touching a woman is for the procreation of children. Therefore, it says in Genesis 1:28: “And God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.’” But this need was directed to the formation of the human race, as long as the people of God needed to be multiplied by physical succession.

However, the Apostle, considering that the human race had now multiplied and that the people of God were now increased not by physical propagation but by the generation which is from water and the Holy Spirit, as it says in John 3:5, passed over this necessity for which marriage had been originally instituted as a function of nature. Instead, he proposed a second necessity, according to which it was instituted as a remedy for sin. For since carnal desire remains alive in believers even after baptism (although it does not rule), it impels people especially toward sexual acts on account of the intensity of their pleasure. And because it requires greater virtue to conquer this desire entirely than most people possess, according to Matthew 19:11, “Not all men can receive this saying,” it is necessary that this desire be in part yielded to and in part mastered. This happens when the act of generation is ordered by reason and a person is not totally mastered by the desire, but the desire is instead subjected to reason.

Natural reason teaches that a person should use the act of generation as it is suitable for the generation and upbringing of children. Among animals, it is found that in certain species the female alone is not sufficient for the training of the offspring, but the male takes care of the offspring with the female. For this, it is required that the male recognize its offspring. Therefore, in all such animals, like doves and pigeons, solicitude for the training of offspring is inspired by nature. For this reason, in such animals, sexual union is not random and indiscriminate, but a specific male is joined to a specific female, not one to another promiscuously, as happens in dogs and similar animals in which the female alone takes care of the offspring.

But above all in the human species, the male is required for the upbringing of the offspring, who are cared for not only regarding bodily nourishment but, to a greater degree, regarding the nourishment of the soul, as it says in Hebrews 12:9: “We have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them.” Consequently, natural reason dictates that in the human species, sexual union is not random and uncertain, but is by a specific man with a specific female, who have in fact made this arrangement through the law of matrimony.

Thus, therefore, matrimony has three goods.

1. The first is that it is a function of nature in the sense that it is ordered to the production and education of offspring; this is the good of offspring.
2. The second good is that it is a remedy for desire, which is restricted to a specific person; this good is called fidelity, which a man preserves toward his wife by not going to another woman, and similarly the wife toward the husband.
3. The third good is called the sacrament, inasmuch as it signifies the union of Christ and the Church, as it says in Ephesians 5:32: “This mystery [sacrament] is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

This, therefore, is what he says. It has been stated that it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because not all people are equipped for this good, each man, on account of the temptation to fornication, should have his own wife—that is, one designated for him—so as to avoid uncertain and promiscuous relationships, which pertain to fornication: “Rejoice in the wife of your youth” (Proverbs 5:18); “Why should you be infatuated, my son with a loose woman” (Proverbs 5:20).

Then, when he says the husband should give, he deals with the use of the marriage contract, concerning first, rendering the conjugal debt, and second, postponing the debt (1 Corinthians 7:5).

Regarding the first, he does two things. First, he states his proposition, saying: it has been stated that a man should have a wife and a wife her husband. The reason for this ‘having’ is that the man should give to his wife her conjugal rights, namely, with his own body through physical union, and likewise the wife to her husband, because in this matter they are judged equal. For this reason, the woman was not formed from the feet of the man as a servant, nor from the head as one ruling over her husband, but from the side as a companion, as it says in Genesis 2:21. Therefore, they must pay the debt to one another according to what it says in Romans 13:7: “Pay all of them their dues.”

Second, he assigns the reason for this debt, saying, for the wife does not rule over her own body—namely, in regard to the act of generation, as though she could by her own choice be continent or give herself to someone else—but the husband does. That is, he has power over her body for the use of physical union. Therefore, the wife must offer the husband the use of her body. Likewise the husband does not have rule over his own body, but the wife does. Therefore, he must offer the use of his body to his wife, unless a lawful impediment prevents it. For this reason, it says in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

Then, when he says, do not refuse [defraud] one another, he deals with postponing the debt to be rendered. First, he shows how the conjugal act should be postponed. In this regard, he teaches that one thing must be avoided, saying: do not refuse [defraud] one another, so that, for example, the husband wishes to abstain when the wife does not, or vice versa. The Apostle calls this fraud, because one is taking away what belongs to another—and this pertains to fraud no less in marriage than in other affairs, as it says in Proverbs 12:27: “The fraudulent man will not catch his prey.” This is because one who offers God his continence accompanied by that fraud does not gain merit for eternal life. For as Augustine says, God does not want such a gain compensated with such harm, where one of the spouses is continent against the will of the other, and the latter falls into dangerous temptations.

Three things must be observed in such a postponement.

1. It must be done with mutual consent. Therefore, he says, except perhaps by agreement. As it says in Sirach 25:1: “My soul takes pleasure in three things, and they are beautiful in the sight of the Lord and of men; agreement between brothers, friendship between neighbors, and a wife and a husband who live in harmony.”
2. It must be for a definite time. Therefore, he says, for a season, as it says in Ecclesiastes 3:5: “a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.”
3. It must be done for a suitable purpose, that is, for the sake of spiritual acts, for which continence makes one more suitable. Therefore, he adds, that you may devote yourselves to prayer, as it says in Joel 2:14: “A cereal offering and a drink offering for the LORD, your God.” Later he adds, “Let the bridegroom leave his room, and the bride her chamber” (Joel 2:16).

Next, he deals with the resumption of the conjugal act. First, he presents the teaching, saying, but then come together again, that is, so that you may render the debt to each other now that the time of prayer is finished. As it says in 1 Kings 8:66 that after celebrating the dedication of the feast: “They went to their homes joyful and glad of heart.”

Second, he assigns a reason for this teaching. He does not say this as though it were necessary for salvation, but to avoid danger. Therefore, he adds, lest Satan tempt you, that is, lest he subvert you with his temptation, as it says in 1 Thessalonians 3:5: “For fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and that our labor would be in vain.” Satan’s temptation should not be feared by the strong, about whom it says in 1 John 2:14: “I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.” But he should be feared by the weak. Therefore, he says, through lack of self-control, that is, on account of a proneness to incontinence, as a result of which the devil overcomes a person by tempting, and he is inclined to tempt, as it says in 1 Peter 5:8: “the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour.”

Then, when he says, I say this, he tells in what sense the above doctrine should be taken. First, he explains what has been said; second, he assigns a reason (1 Corinthians 7:7); and third, he clarifies what he had said (1 Corinthians 7:8).

First, therefore, he says: I have said that each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband; furthermore, after practicing continence for a time, they should return once more to each other. I say this by way of concession, that is, to spare your weakness, not of command, namely, as though it were necessary for your salvation. For certain things must be conceded to subjects on account of their weakness, and they should not be compelled by commanding what is good. As Ezekiel 34:4 says against some prelates: “With force and harshness you have ruled them, so they were scattered.”

But the Apostle seems to be speaking in an unsuitable manner, for concessions are concerned only with sin. Therefore, by the fact that the Apostle says he is speaking by way of concession, he seems to suggest that marriage is a sin. This can be answered in two ways. One way is to take the concession as permission. But there are two kinds of permission. One is concerned with a lesser evil, as in Matthew 19:8: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives,” that is, to avoid the murder of one’s wife, to which they were prone. Such a permission is not found in the New Testament on account of its perfection, according to Hebrews 6:1: “Let us go on to perfection.” Another permission is about a lesser good, namely, when a person is not compelled by precept to a greater good. This is the sense in which the Apostle makes a concession here: he permits matrimony, which is a lesser good than virginity, which is not commanded and is a greater good.

In another way, concession can be taken as regarding guilt, as Isaiah 26:15 says: “But thou hast increased the nation, O LORD, thou hast increased the nation.” In this sense, concession refers to the conjugal act, insofar as it has venial guilt attached to it along with the good of matrimony, without which it would be a mortal sin.

Therefore, it should be noted that the conjugal act can be understood in three ways.

1. Sometimes it is meritorious and without any mortal or venial sin, as when it is directed to the good of procreating and educating a child for the worship of God, for then it is an act of religion. Or when it is performed for the sake of rendering the debt, it is an act of justice. Every virtuous act is meritorious if it is performed with charity.
2. Sometimes it is accompanied by venial sin, namely, when one is excited to the matrimonial act by concupiscence, which nevertheless stays within the limits of the marriage, so that he is content with his wife only.
3. Sometimes it is performed with mortal sin, as when concupiscence is carried beyond the limits of the marriage; for example, when the husband approaches his wife with the idea that he would just as gladly or more gladly approach another woman.

In the first way, therefore, the act of marriage requires no concession. In the second way, it obtains a concession, inasmuch as someone consenting to concupiscence toward his wife is not guilty of mortal sin. In the third way, there is absolutely no concession.

Then, when he says, I wish, he assigns the reason for what he has said: first, why he does not speak as commanding, and second, why he speaks by way of concession (1 Corinthians 7:7b).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that no wise person commands something when he would rather have the opposite done. Therefore, the Apostle does not command that people contract marriage or make use of a marriage already contracted, because he wishes instead that people be continent. This is what he says: I wish that all men were as I myself am, that is, continent as I am. He says likewise in Acts 26:29: “I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am.”

But there seems to be an objection to this, because if all people practiced continence, as the Apostle did, generation would cease. As a result, the number of the elect would never be fulfilled, and this is against God’s arrangement. Some say that it had been revealed to the Apostle that if all people were saved by practicing continence as he did, it would be sufficient to fill up the number of the elect. But this rests on no authority.

Consequently, it can be said that the Apostle wished all people to be continent because he wished this for certain individuals, but he did not wish that all would be continent at the same time. Or it can be said, and this is better, that he wished all people to be continent in his antecedent will, as it says in 1 Timothy 2:4 that God “desires all men to be saved.” But he did not wish it in his consequent will, by which God wills to save certain persons (the predestined) and to damn others (the reprobate), as it says in Malachi 1:2-3: “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.” The antecedent will is concerned with that which, considered absolutely, is better (such as all people being saved or continent). But the consequent will is concerned with that which is better considering the circumstances of persons and events, and according to this, God wills to damn some, and the Apostle wishes some to be united in marriage.

Then, when he says, but each, he tells the reason why he permitted marriage as a concession. It is because not everyone has received from God so much virtue as to be able to practice total continence, as the Lord himself said: “Not all men can receive this saying... He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:11–12). This is what he says: I should wish that all were continent, but each has his own gift from God, that is, in a definite measure. One has a gift of one kind, for example, to serve God in virginity, and another has a gift of another kind, say, to serve God in marriage. As it says in Matthew 25:15: “To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, each according to his ability.” And in Wisdom 8:21: “But I perceived that I would not possess wisdom unless God gave her to me—and it was a mark of insight to know whose gift she was.”

Then, when he says, to the unmarried, he explains what he had said obscurely. First, as to his statement, I wish all were as I myself, this is because it is absolutely better. Therefore, he says, to the unmarried—that is, virgins—and the widows I say by way of explanation that it is good for them to remain single as I do, for it says in Wisdom 4:1: “Blessed is the chaste generation with glory.”

Second, as to his statement, but each one has his own gift, it is as if to say: not everyone has received from God the gift of continence. Therefore, he says, if they cannot exercise self-control—that is, if they have not yet received this gift—they should marry, that is, be joined in matrimony: “I would have younger widows marry” (1 Timothy 5:14). Then he gives the reason, saying, it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion, that is, to be overcome by concupiscence.

For concupiscence is a harmful heat. Therefore, one assailed by concupiscence is warmed but not burned, unless he is overcome by it and destroys the water of grace. As Job 31:12 says: “A fire which consumes unto Abaddon, and it would burn to the root all my increase.” It should be noted that the Apostle uses a helpful comparison here, for it is good to marry, although it is a lesser good. But to be burned is an evil. Therefore, it is better—that is, more tolerable—that a person should have the lesser good than incur the evil of incontinence. This is what he said above: to avoid fornication each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband (1 Corinthians 7:2); and later: lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control (1 Corinthians 7:5).

After presenting teachings about the contract of marriage, the Apostle now instructs those who are already married that they must not dissolve the marriage. First, he teaches those already joined in marriage to continue in it. Second, he gives them a useful teaching regarding all the states or conditions of humanity (1 Corinthians 7:20).

Regarding the first point, he does two things. First, he deals with the indissolubility of marriage as it applies to those who share the same faith. Second, he addresses cases where there is a difference in religion (1 Corinthians 7:12). Concerning the first of these, he again does two things. First, he lays down a precept about the indissolubility of marriage. Second, he teaches what should be done when the marriage is broken by separation (1 Corinthians 7:11).

Therefore, he first says that he has told the unmarried—that is, virgins and widows—that it is better for them to remain as they are. However, for the married, the same condition does not apply. For to them I give this charge—and not I, by my own authority, but the Lord—who commands, What God has joined together, let no man put asunder (Matthew 19:6). I command, I say, that the wife should not separate from her husband. The exception for fornication, which Christ made, is not mentioned here because it is well known. The Lord made this the sole exception. He commands that all other troubles be patiently endured for the sake of the marriage covenant: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery (Matthew 19:9). According to a gloss from Augustine, what is said here is understood to apply to a marriage where both partners are believers.

But if she does separate—that is, on account of fornication—she must remain unmarried as long as her husband is alive. This is because although the marriage is dissolved regarding cohabitation, it is not dissolved regarding the bond. Alternatively, she should be reconciled to her husband, particularly if he is not able to remain celibate. Likewise, the husband should not divorce his wife, except for the reason of fornication. A similar rule applies to both the man and the woman. Therefore, it is necessary to apply what was said about the wife to the husband as well: namely, that if he divorces her completely, he should not marry another but be reconciled to his wife.

However, Ambrose, in his commentary on this passage, seems to say something to the contrary. He states that the same rules do not apply to the man as to the woman, because it is lawful for the husband to marry another, for the inferior partner does not have the same rights under this law as the superior. But the Master says that this was added by a forger and should not be upheld at all.

It should be noted here that there are seven cases in which a husband cannot divorce his wife on account of fornication.

1. When he himself has prostituted her.
2. When he has committed fornication with another woman.
3. When he has given her the opportunity for fornication, such as by being unwilling to render the marital debt.
4. When she, having probable certainty that her husband was dead, married another.
5. When she has been sexually assaulted by him.
6. When she has had relations with another man who she believed was her husband.
7. When she has been clearly caught in adultery but is kept by her husband.

Then, when he says, To the rest I say, he addresses the inseparability of marriage between people of different religions, where one partner is a believer. He lays out his teaching in three parts:

1. He says that the believer should not divorce an unbelieving spouse who is willing to continue living together without blaspheming the Creator.
2. If the unbeliever does not wish to live together, the believer is not bound to follow but can marry another (1 Corinthians 7:15).
3. Unless the unbeliever leaves first, the believer should patiently remain in the marriage (1 Corinthians 7:16).

Regarding the first point, he gives an admonition and then the reason for it (1 Corinthians 7:14). In giving the admonition, he first speaks generally to men and women, then specifically to men (1 Corinthians 7:12b), and thirdly, specifically to women (1 Corinthians 7:13).

He says, therefore, To the rest—that is, where not both partners are believers, but one is a believer and the other an unbeliever—I say (I, not the Lord). This is given by way of counsel and not of command. This is as if to say: "I say this from the Lord, even though He did not speak it with His own lips." This is what I say: if any brother, a believer, is converted to the faith while already married. This is understood to apply to those who married as unbelievers, not to those who entered a mixed-faith marriage from the start, for in that case, there was no valid marriage, and they would have to be separated, as was done in Ezra 9–10. If a brother, I say, has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him without insulting the Creator, he should not divorce her. According to a gloss, this is counsel, not a command, so that if one does the contrary, he is not a transgressor.

Then, when he speaks particularly to women, he says that likewise, if a believing wife has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her without insulting the Creator, she should not divorce him. For if he were unwilling to live with her without insulting the name of Christ, the believer should divorce him, because, as a gloss says, "insulting the Creator dissolves a marriage," and she may marry again. If this is the case, I say, she should not divorce him. This is counsel, not a command. For while it is lawful for the unbeliever to divorce the believer, at that time it was not expedient.

Then, when he says, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, he gives the reason for the previous admonition. He does this in three parts: first, he proposes an example; second, the danger (1 Corinthians 7:14b); and third, the fruit (1 Corinthians 7:14c).

Regarding the first part, he gives the example of an unbelieving husband and, second, of an unbelieving wife (1 Corinthians 7:14). He says, therefore, that the husband is consecrated through his wife. This is as if to say: the believing wife should not divorce her unbelieving spouse if he is willing to live with her, because he is sanctified through her. This can be understood in two ways. First, the husband who is not a believer is sometimes sanctified by his believing wife, meaning it sometimes happens that one is converted to the faith by the other. This has likely happened before, as when Sisinnius was converted to the faith in Rome by Theodora during the time of Clement. Likewise, the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband, namely, by his admonition and teaching.

Alternatively, it can be read this way: the believer should not divorce the unbeliever because the husband is sanctified by the wife. This means, according to Augustine, that the believer does not become unclean by living with or being united to the unbelieving spouse, but instead preserves true modesty.

Then, when he says, else were your children unclean, this is also understood in two ways: first, concerning children yet to be born, and second, concerning children already born. The first interpretation is this: otherwise, if you separate and both have relations with other people, your children born from such unions would be unclean—that is, illegitimate—because they would not be born of a lawful union. The second interpretation is this: otherwise, if you separate, your children who are already born would be unclean, meaning they would remain in unbelief, following the unbelieving parent. But now, if you remain together, they are holy—that is, they are set apart as Christians.