Let the husband render her due to the wife, and in like manner the wife to the husband.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
The wife has not authority over her own body, but the husband in like manner also the husband has not authority over his own body, but the wife.
Paul is answering the Corinthians' questions about marriage, and here his answer reaches its sharpest point: neither partner owns himself or herself alone. That raises two questions — what a married person gives up, and why Paul says it twice, of the wife and then of the husband.
The verse rests on something already settled: two people have become one. The claim on the body follows from that, and so does the end of any right to act alone.
Each owes the other consideration to the fullest degree, in a relationship where the two who were two are now one... If we are in the relationship, we are bound to be true to its claims. Being married cannot go together with independence from each other in anything that belongs to it.
Authority here is power over yourself. Marriage ends it from the moment the union is formed, and the loss concerns the body.
For this reason then, every man should have his own wife. Once the union is formed, he no longer has power over himself. As to the body, the husband belongs to his wife, and the wife to her husband.
Paul states the claim of the wife, then turns it round and states it of the husband. Neither keeps a private reserve.
Verses 3 to 5 insist that both wife and husband must show full consideration of each other, as the marriage bond requires. They are one flesh. Neither the husband alone nor the wife alone has power over his own or her own body, to bear fruit. They are united, and must not ignore this sacred relationship... What matters is proper consideration of each other, and that neither one defrauds the other of his or her proper rights in marriage.
Some treat going without marriage as the higher path. A verse that ties husband and wife to each other's bodies cuts that idea off at the root.
Christianity does not set aside the order of nature. It does correct the abuses by which fallen man may have corrupted these relationships. Every man is free to have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, and this is a legitimate way to avoid the temptation to unholiness. So the false claim to higher spirituality, made by insisting on a life of self-denial, stands completely condemned.
The order Paul upholds goes back to creation. The same writer shows where the single life fits inside it.
When Adam was made, the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." And so He built the woman out of the man... The apostle was the last person to weaken the order of nature... He is in full agreement with his Master, who defended God's original institution from creation, though He also held that the unmarried state is better, where a person has the power to be wholly for the Lord and His things. But it is not so with every believer. All cannot receive it, only those to whom it has been given. If anyone is able, let him receive it. But if he boasts, he is in danger of dishonouring the Lord more than those he despises.
The verse says a husband and wife belong to each other. It does not say they belong only to each other. One writer speaks straight to a married couple.
You belong to each other now for as long as life lasts. You are to know the joy of holding each other as your own. But before you knew each other, you belonged to the Lord Jesus your Saviour, and you will not deny Him that joy. His claim must always stand first... He has given you to each other. Yet He has not surrendered His rights in you, and He cannot; they are the rights of your God and your Redeemer. Put His claim first and you will not lose your own happiness. You will sanctify it, make it last, and guard it from the selfishness we are all prone to, which can only spoil it.
- One flesh — the two are no longer two. The claim on the body rests on that union.
- One surrender — from the moment of union, a person no longer has power over himself. The husband's body belongs to his wife, and the wife's to her husband.
- One rule, both ways — Paul says it twice on purpose. Neither partner alone holds power over his or her own body, and neither may defraud the other of a proper right.
- One order honoured — Christianity does not set aside the order of nature. It condemns any claim to higher spirituality through self-denial, and boasting in the single life dishonours the Lord.
- One prior owner — the Lord gave you to each other, but He never surrendered His rights in you. Put His claim first, and it guards the marriage from selfishness.
Defraud not one another, unless, it may be, by consent for a time, that ye may devote yourselves to prayer, and again be together, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.
Paul has just said that in marriage each partner's body belongs to the other, and here he applies it. The verse has raised questions ever since: is abstinence holier than union, how long may a couple part, and why is Satan named here?
The instruction assumes a marriage that is actually being lived. One writer treats verses 3–5 as a model of plain spiritual wisdom, and reads them as a warning against the merely nominal marriage:
No one should mock God in any of His arrangements. If His children marry, let the marriage be real, and not in form and name only.
The reason no partner may simply decide alone is that the relationship rules out that kind of independence. Kelly draws it out from the ownership language of the previous verse:
The married estate is inconsistent with independence of each other in all that pertains to it… It is the sure mark of the enemy when grace is twisted into contempt for the least or lowest of God's arrangements. If we are in the relationship, we are bound to be true to its claims.
The exception is hedged on three sides: both must agree, it must be limited, and it must be for prayer. Each fence matters, and one commentator notes how easily the exception could be turned into the rule:
Married Christians may think it good to part for a while. They may want to seek God more earnestly in persevering and abundant prayer, and for some definite spiritual purpose. Then let it be only for a while. Keep such exceptions clearly distinct from the rule.
The positive side is that the pause exists to make room for something. It is not self-denial for its own sake, but for undistracted prayer:
He indicates that the natural desires associated with marriage are not to be lightly denied, except in connection with burdens and exercises where both need to be involved in prayer and fasting… Even necessary food is given up so that prayer may be made without distraction. This shows what a powerful activity prayer is when we seek to gain the resources available from God.
Commentators differ over whether "fasting" belongs in the verse at all. Some keep the older reading of "fasting and prayer"; others follow a text that reads only "that you may devote yourselves to prayer," listing this among phrases the oldest manuscripts do not support:
1 Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit, which are God's;" 1 Cor. 7:5, "fasting and;" 1 Cor. 10:28, "for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof."
The command does not end with the parting. It ends with the return, and a long separation opens a door:
Let them come together again. Otherwise a long separation from the habits of married life could give the father of lies a chance to plant doubts in either of them about the holiness of what God ordains. In marriage, abstinence is not a virtue, but it can easily become a snare.
The clause about self-control is usually read as a warning about sexual failure. Darby reads it differently — the preposition points to a temptation aimed at a heart that has over-reached:
If, by mutual consent, they separated for a while so that they might give themselves to prayer and to spiritual exercises, the bond was to be acknowledged again at once, in case the heart, not governing itself, should give Satan occasion to come in and distress the soul, and destroy its confidence in God and in His love — in case he should tempt with distressing doubts (it is for, not by lack of self-control) a heart that aimed at too much, and failed.
He connects the same clause with the enemy's "flaming darts," and insists the pain involved is not pleasure but agony:
This is the force of the passage in Corinthians, in case Satan tempt you for your lack of self-control. The evil was there, the failure of self-control was assumed; the temptation was Satan's power over the soul, which was the result… There is no pleasure in despair. The flesh finds its pleasure in satisfying its desires, but there is no craving for despair — it is like a consuming fire in the soul.
The next verse guards this counsel from being made into law. The concession is not Paul apologising for writing without inspiration:
No compulsion was laid on the saints as to the advice given in verse 5; but he recommends this to them. He was inspired to speak in this way. The mistake lies in the sense of the Lord's permission to him to write, whereas he means that it was not compulsory on them, but left to their discretion before the Lord.
- Owed — what a husband and wife withhold is not their own; marriage leaves no room for acting alone in what belongs to both.
- Agreed — only mutual consent opens the door out, never one partner's private choice to be more spiritual.
- Timed — the pause is short and made for undistracted prayer; the exception must never become the rule.
- Reunited — coming back together is part of the command; a long separation lets doubts grow about the holiness of what God ordained.
- Guarded — abstinence in marriage is no virtue, and it can become a snare. Satan's target is a heart that aimed at more than it could hold.
But this I say, as consenting [to], not as commanding [it].
Paul is answering a letter from the Corinthians about marriage. He has just advised husbands and wives about parting for a time by agreement, and now he pauses to label that advice.
Commentators differ over what "this" points back to. One reading ties it to the advice of the verse just before:
The apostle means that he speaks here not as commanding but as conceding. He laid no compulsion on the saints about the advice given in verse 5; he recommends it to them. He was inspired to speak this way. The advice was not compulsory on them; it was for their discretion before the Lord.
Others reach further back, to his direction in verse 2 that each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband:
He had said that every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. Now he is careful to explain that he is not giving a command. He speaks as consenting to the married state. His own wish is that all should be as he himself, free from these relationships. But he recognises that it is not given of God for all to remain unmarried, and where it is not given it is "better to marry."
Older translations read "by permission." That wording can mislead. It sounds as if God permitted Paul to write this, as if part of the letter carried less authority than the rest:
"Concession" may be less open to misunderstanding than "permission," which could suggest permission on the Lord's part.
The concession runs toward the Corinthians, not toward Paul.
A command settles a question for every believer. Counsel leaves the choice open:
These words seem to relate mainly to the verse just before. They are of great interest, because they show the difference between an apostle's counsel and an apostle's command. The latter should bind every Christian conscience. The former binds no one, though the godly will not lightly disregard it. The counsel of an inspired apostle can never be wrong, but it may not apply in every case. When he speaks about what is best in practical Christian life, he holds a position of the highest authority as a spiritual guide. But his voice there is not the commandment of the Lord.
Freedom from obligation is not an invitation to shrug the advice off. Consider who is giving it:
As we read it, let us remember who is speaking. Here is a man willing to give up what is lawful for himself, so that he may do what is most fitting and please the Lord with joy. It would hardly seem wise to belittle the advice of such a man. Could we ourselves give better?
Does a concession mean this part of the letter is less than inspired? Not at all:
All through, the apostle insists on the difference between advice and the command of God. Advice is what one Christian may give another, and he was more able than anyone to give it. God inspired all of this, of course — the advice as well as the command... The advice was inspired, but it was advice. Inspiration did not change its character in that respect. It does not lower our thought of inspiration to see it as just advice, which is what he himself calls it.
The gaps here are deliberate. Where the Lord gives no command, He is growing something in the believer:
In the New Testament we have, thank God, many plain commandments of the Lord. They cover all the major matters of life and service. But there are many smaller matters where the Lord has given no definite instructions... These omissions are not by oversight but on purpose. The Lord plainly means to leave many things to the prayerful exercise of His saints. They must search the Scriptures to find what pleases Him... This is so that they may grow spiritually and have "their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil."
- Concession — Paul concedes what he has just said to the Corinthians. He does not impose it. The matter rests with their own discretion before the Lord.
- Not permission for Paul — the older wording "by permission" sounds as if God allowed him to write it. The concession runs toward his readers, not toward him.
- Counsel, not command — a command binds every Christian conscience. Counsel binds no one. Yet inspired counsel is never wrong — it just may not fit every case.
- Inspired all the same — God inspired the advice, and it stayed advice. Inspiration does not turn every sentence into a commandment.
- Left open on purpose — where the Lord gives no direct instruction, He trains His people to search the Scriptures and discern what pleases Him.