Section 1

After correcting the three gravest charges against them—first, the division of the Church; second, the case of the man who had committed sexual immorality; and third, the case of the greedy man—Paul now adopts a gentler tone. In between, he gives exhortation and counsel about marriage and virginity, giving his hearers some relief from the more severe subjects. In the Second Epistle he does the opposite: he begins with gentler matters and ends with the more painful ones. Here too, after completing his discussion of virginity, he returns again to sharper rebuke. He does not arrange everything in a single sequence, but varies his discourse in both directions as the occasion and the needs of the matters before him require.

For this reason he says, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me.” They had written to him asking whether one ought to abstain from one’s wife or not. In answering them and giving instruction about marriage, he also introduces the subject of virginity: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” If, he says, you are seeking what is good and greatly superior, it is better not to have relations with a woman at all; but if you are seeking what is safe and helps your weakness, then live in marriage.

Since it was likely—as still happens now—that the husband might desire abstinence while the wife did not, or the reverse, see how he speaks about both. Some say that this teaching was addressed to priests. But, judging from what follows, I would not say that this is so, because he would not then have stated his counsel universally. If he were writing these things only to priests, he would have said, “It is good for the teacher not to touch a woman.” Instead he states it generally: “It is good for a man,” not merely for a priest. Again: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” He did not say, “You who are a priest and teacher,” but spoke without qualification; and his whole argument continues in this way.

When he says, “Because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife,” the very reason he gives for this concession leads them toward self-control.

“Let the husband give his wife what is due to her; likewise also the wife to her husband.” What is this “due” thing? “The wife does not have authority over her own body.” She is both servant and mistress of her husband. If you withdraw from the service that belongs to you, you have offended God. But if you wish to abstain, let it be when your husband permits it, even if only for a short time. This is why Paul called the matter a debt: to show that neither spouse is master of himself or herself, but each is bound in service to the other.

So when you see a prostitute trying to entice you, say, “My body is not mine, but my wife’s.” Let the wife say the same to those who wish to break through her chastity: “My body is not mine, but my husband’s.” And if husband or wife does not have authority even over his or her own body, much less over possessions. Hear this, all you who have husbands and all you who have wives: if you ought not to regard even your body as your own, much less your money.

Elsewhere, both in the New Testament and the Old, great precedence is given to the husband: “Your turning shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Paul too makes a distinction when he writes, “Husbands, love your wives,” and, “Let the wife see that she reverence her husband.” But here there is no longer greater and lesser; there is one authority. Why? Because he is speaking about chastity. In other matters, he says, let the husband have precedence; but where chastity is concerned, not so. “The husband does not have authority over his own body,” nor does the wife. Here there is great equality of honor and no advantage of one over the other.

“Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by mutual consent.” What does this mean? Let not the wife practice abstinence when her husband is unwilling, nor the husband when his wife does not consent. Why? Because great evils are born from this kind of abstinence. Adulteries, sexual immoralities, and the ruin of households have often arisen from it. For if men commit sexual immorality even when they have their own wives, much more may they do so if you deprive them of this consolation.

He rightly says, “Do not deprive,” just as above he called it a “debt,” to show how binding the claim is. For one spouse to practice abstinence against the will of the other is deprivation; with the other’s consent, it is not. If you persuade me and then take something that belongs to me, I do not say that I have been deprived. The one who deprives is the one who takes from another unwillingly and by force. Many women do this, committing a sin greater than the righteousness they seek, becoming responsible in this way for their husband’s sexual misconduct, and tearing everything apart.

Harmony must be valued above everything, because it is more important than all else. If you wish, let us test this in an actual case. Suppose there are a wife and husband, and the wife practices abstinence though her husband does not wish it. What then if, because of this, he commits sexual immorality? Or even if he does not, what if he is distressed and agitated, burns with desire, quarrels, and causes his wife countless troubles? What profit is there in her fasting and abstinence if love has been torn apart? None. For how many insults, how many troubles, how much conflict must arise from this?