Stirred up by the depraved minds of the false apostles, who in their hypocrisy were teaching that marriage ought to be rejected in order that they might appear to be holier than others, the Corinthians wrote to Paul to ask him about these things. Because they were unhappy about this teaching, they ignored everything else and concentrated exclusively on this.

This is Paul’s reply to those who had written to him about this subject. He forbade fornication because it was against the law, but he allowed marriage as being holy and an antidote to fornication. However, he praised chastity as more perfect still.

The Corinthians were asking Paul whether it was right for lawfully married Christians, once they were baptized, to enjoy sexual relations with each other. Paul answered by praising chastity, condemning fornication and allowing conjugal relations.

You have given up your wife, to whom you are bound. This is a big step you have taken. You are not abusing her, you say, but claiming that you can be chaste and live more purely. But look how your poor wife is being destroyed as a result, because she is unable to endure your purity! You should sleep with your wife, not for your sake but for hers.

People who want to be promiscuous argue that God commanded us to have sexual relations, so that the earth would be filled with human beings. But God is quite capable of making humans out of the earth, as he did at the beginning, so this is no excuse.

Some people think that this was written primarily for priests, but judging from what follows, this cannot be right. If he had meant it only for priests, he would have said so, but throughout this [chapter] he speaks of persons in general. Paul permits marriage as a concession, but the very fact that it is designed to avoid fornication shows that he is really trying to encourage virginity.

Husband and wife must submit to one another in this matter, since the two of them are one flesh and one will, according to the law of nature.

Human laws demand that women be chaste and if they are not they are punished for it, but they do not demand the same from men. Since it was men who made the laws, they did not make themselves equal with woman but allowed themselves extra indulgence. The holy apostle, however, inspired by divine grace, was the first one who made the law of chastity apply to men as well.

If this is so, a man should be able to refrain from exercising his authority [to receive his spouse’s body]. And isn’t a woman capable of doing likewise?

The wife does not have power over her own body but is both the servant and the mistress of the husband. If you reject this, you have offended God. But if you want to withdraw yourself sexually, it should only be with your husband’s permission, and then only for a short time. In other parts of Scripture the husband is given certain prerogatives in marriage, but not here. Where chastity is concerned, husband and wife have equal rights.

The mysteries of marriage ought to be performed with holiness, deliberately and without disorderly passions.

Great evils spring from this sort of continence, if it is overdone. Adulteries, fornications and the destruction of families have often resulted from this. If a married man commits fornication, how much more will he do so if his wife denies herself to him? Unless there is mutual consent, continence in this case is really a form of theft.

According to this, if he had wished to practice continence but you had not, he would have been obliged to give in to you, and God would have given him credit for continence for not refusing intercourse out of consideration for your weakness, not his own, in order to prevent you from committing adultery. How much better would it have been for you, for whom subjection was more appropriate, to yield to his will in rendering him the debt, since God would have taken account of your intention to observe continence, which you gave up in order to save your husband from destruction.

It is not arduous and difficult for faithful married people to do for a few days what holy widows have undertaken and which holy virgins do throughout their lives. So let devotion be kindled and self-gratification be checked.

If a woman stays away from her husband, she will make him angry, and vice versa. That is why Paul insists that it must be by mutual consent.

No one should be forced to do something unlawful on the ground that he is forbidden to do what is lawful. It is up to each person to discern which path to follow.

Marriage is a spiritual gift, but not if it is contracted with unbelievers. The Spirit of God is not given to dwell in those who are not believers.

Paul often puts himself forward as an example when he is talking about difficult subjects. Here is another case in point.

Paul’s intention is to avoid fornication, not to put hindrances in the way of those seeking a higher way of life.

Paul comforts those who are married by saying that marriage is a gift of God.

And even he who withholds himself from his wife often makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires, even though he does so under the appearance of greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires than he who, for other reason than fornication, has sent her away—for poisoning or murder or any of the most grievous sins. But as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seems to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Savior.

Paul states that continence is better, but he does not attempt to pressure those who cannot attain to it. He recognizes how strong the pull of concupiscence is and says that if it leads to a lot of violence and burning desire, then it is better to put an end to that, rather than be corrupted by immorality.

We must not understand these words to mean that widows are not unmarried because they once embraced the married state. Widows are unmarried, but not all unmarried are widows. That is why Paul makes a distinction here.

Such a person [who cannot exercise self-control] is not sinning against the covenant [by marrying], but neither is he fulfilling the highest purpose of the gospel ethic.

Why do you acknowledge that there is a necessary remedy for lust yet contradict me when I say that lust is a disease? If you recognize the remedy, then recognize the disease as well.