Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:3
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
3. due benevolence ] The better supported reading is what is due, the debt.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Let the husband … – Let them not imagine that there is any virtue in bring separate from each other, as if they were in a state of celibacy – Doddridge. They are bound to each other; in every way they are to evince kindness, and to seek to promote the happiness and purity of each other. There is a great deal of delicacy used here by Paul, and his expression is removed as far as possible from the grossness of pagan writers. His meaning is plain; but instead of using a word to express it which would be indelicate and offensive, he uses one which is not indelicate in the slightest degree. The word which he uses eunoian, benevolence) denotes kindness, good-will, affection of mind. And by the use of the word due opheilomenen, he reminds them of the sacredness of their vow, and of the fact that in person, property, and in every respect, they belong to each other. It was necessary to give this direction, for the contrary might have been regarded as proper by many who would have supposed there was special virtue and merit in living separate from each other; as facts have shown that many have imbibed such an idea – and it was not possible to give the rule with more delicacy than Paul has done. Many mss., however, instead of due benevolence, read opheilen, a debt, or that which is owed; and this reading has been adopted by Griesbach in the text. Homer, with a delicacy not unlike the apostle Paul, uses the word filoteta, friendship, to express the same idea.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence] . Though our version is no translation of the original, yet few persons are at a loss for the meaning, and the context is sufficiently plain. Some have rendered the words, not unaptly, the matrimonial debt, or conjugal duty-that which a wife owes to her husband, and the husband to his wife; and which they must take care mutually to render, else alienation of affection will be the infallible consequence, and this in numberless instances has led to adulterous connections. In such cases the wife has to blame herself for the infidelity of her husband, and the husband for that of his wife. What miserable work has been made in the peace of families by a wife or a husband pretending to be wiser than the apostle, and too holy and spiritual to keep the commandments of God!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The word translated due benevolence, signifieth due goodwill or kindness, but from 1Co 7:5, it appeareth what the apostle meaneth: Moses, Exo 21:10, calleth it, the duty of marriage; both of them using a modest term in expressing the conjugal act, as we shall observe the Scripture always doing, when there is occasion to mention what men of profane hearts are ready to make a scoff at. The apostle maketh this the mutual duty both of husband and wife, under due circumstances, therefore useth the word render, which implieth the thing required to be an act of justice.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3, 4. The duty ofcohabitation on the part of the married.
due benevolenceTheoldest manuscripts read simply, “her due”; that is, theconjugal cohabitation due by the marriage contract (compare1Co 7:4).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence,…. The Syriac version renders it, , “due love”; and so the Arabic; and may include all the offices of love, tenderness, humanity, care, provision, and protection, which are to be performed by the husband to his wife; though it seems chiefly, if not solely, here to respect what is called, , Ex 21:10 “her marriage duty”, as distinct from food and raiment to be allowed her; and what is meant by it the Jewish doctors will tell us: one says t, it is
, “the use of the marriage bed”; and, says another u,
, “it is to lie with her”, according to the way of all the earth. And so the phrase here, “due benevolence”, is an euphemism, and designs the act of coition; which as it is an act of love and affection, a sign of mutual benevolence, so of justice; it is a due debt from divine ordination, and the matrimonial contract. The Jewish doctors have fixed and settled various canons w concerning the performance, of this conjugal debt: and the apostle may not be altogether without some view to the rules and customs which obtained in his own nation.
And, likewise also the wife unto the husband; she is not to refuse the use of the bed when required, unless there is some just impediment, otherwise she comes under the name of , a “rebellious wife”; concerning whom, and her punishment, the Jews x give the following rules:
“a woman that restrains her husband from the use of the bed, is called rebellious; and when they ask her why she rebels, if she says, because it is loathsome to me, and I cannot lie with him; then they oblige him to put her away directly, without her dowry; and she may not take any thing of her husband’s, not even her shoe strings, nor her hair lace; but what her husband did not give her she may take, and go away: and if she rebels against her husband, on purpose to afflict him, and she does to him so or so, and despises him, they send to her from the sanhedrim, and say to her, know thou, that if thou continuest in thy rebellion, thou shalt not prosper? and after that they publish her in the synagogues and schools four weeks, one after another, and say, such an one has rebelled against her husband; and after the publication, they send and say to her, if thou continuest in thy rebellion, thou wilt lose thy dowry; and they appoint her twelve months, and she has no sustenance from her husband all that time; and she goes out at the end of twelve months without her dowry, and returns everything that is her husband’s.”
This account, with a little variation, is also given by Maimonides y.
t Mosis Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, praecept. neg. 81. Sol. Jarchi in Exod. xxi. 10. u Maimon. Hilch. Isbot, c. 12. sect. 2. Vid. Aben Ezra in Exod. xxi. 10. w Vid. Misn. Cetubot, c. 5. sect. 6. & Mikvaot, c. 8. sect. 3. x Mosis Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 81. y Hilch. Ishot, c. 14. sect. 8, 9, 10. Vid. Misn. Cetubot, c. 5. sect. 7. & Maimon. & Bartenora in ib.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Render the due ( ). Marriage is not simply not wrong, but for many a duty. Both husband and wife have a mutual obligation to the other. “This dictum defends marital intercourse against rigorists, as that of ver. 1 commends celibacy against sensualists” (Findlay).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence. The husband (of every wife) is charged to give forth to his wife those affections and physical expressions of devotion desirable to satisfy her sexual needs.
2) And likewise also the wife unto the husband. (Greek homois de kai) in a like or similar manner also. (he gune to andre) the wife to her husband, is to give forth of herself to completely satisfy his physical sexual needs. Such physical and emotional devout giving of each other, as one in marriage, helps each (as one) to avoid fornication and maintain fidelity in marital vows.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3. 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?
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence.Rather, Let the husband render unto the wife her duesuch being the reading of the better MSS. In this verse the Apostle answers the scruples of those who already were married and who doubted whether they should continue so.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Due benevolence The best reading omits benevolence. Let each party, instead of an ascetic abstinence, render to the other the conjugal due.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Let the husband render to the wife her due, and likewise also the wife to the husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. And likewise the husband also does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.’
In view of this fact husband and wife have a responsibility to each other. They must satisfy each other. The woman has a responsibility to allow her husband to enjoy her body, and vice versa. Each ‘has authority over’ the other’s body, that is, has the right to be sexually satisfied from it. This is often forgotten by husbands (and in these days even by wives) who sometimes only consider their own pleasure. But here the husband is told that he must consider his wife’s needs as well. She has a right to be sexually satisfied from him. And vice versa.
In this Paul reveals his full appreciation of women. In Christ ‘there can be no male or female, we are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal 3:28). In other words they are not viewed differently in God’s eyes. They are accepted on equal terms, one is not superior to the other before God, although living to fulfil their functions. Paul’s view of a woman having equal sexual rights to a man should be seen as extremely enlightened. This does not however alter the fact that the woman is there as man’s support and helper. It rather is a reminder of the loving and responsive relationship that there should be between the two so that the man does not take advantage of his headship but rather recognises that it places him under a greater obligation to be reasonable and to show true love.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 7:3. Due benevolence What is due. Wells. Benevolence here signifies that complacency and compliance which every married couple ought to have for each other, with respect to their mutual satisfaction. Locke.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 7:3-4 . The occasion for this injunction, which otherwise might very well have been dispensed with, must have been given by the statement in the letter from Corinth of scruples having arisen on the point. See on 1Co 7:1 .
] the due in the matter (Rom 13:7 ), i.e. according to the context, as euphemistically expressed, the debitum tori . [1071] See 1Co 7:4 . The word does not occur at all in Greek writers; see Lobeck, a [1072] Phryn. p. 90. Nor does it in the LXX. and the Apocrypha.
. . . [1073] ] Explanatory of 1Co 7:3 . The wife has no power over her own body , namely, as regards cohabitation, but the husband has that power; likewise ( ) also, on the other hand , the converse holds, so that “neutri liceat alteri conjugale debitum poscenti denegare,” Estius. Corresponding statements of the Rabbins may be seen in Selden, uxor. Hebr. iii. 6, 7.
Bengel says happily respecting , that it forms with , an elegans paradoxon .
[1071] If we adopted the common reading . , we should not take it, with Grotius, al. , in the same sense as given above, but generally, with Calvin and others, as benevolentiam . For the expression for that special idea is not (not even in Philo, de Abr. p. 384), but (Homer), , . The author of the gloss, therefore, must either have misunderstood , or, understanding it rightly, have used a wrong expression to explain it. The reading in Chrysostom points to the former alternative.
[1072] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1073] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
Ver. 3. Let the husband, &c. ] Let them be chaste between themselves, and beware both of excess and defect. Chastity is a man’s honour,1Th 4:51Th 4:5 . And modesty is the best preserver of nuptial chastity. Marriage as well as meats must be sanctified by the word and prayer. God must be sent for to bless this physic to the soul. Raging lust is a great enemy to conjugal love.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3, 4 .] The duty of cohabitation incumbent on the married . This point was in all probability raised in the letter of the Corinthians. The Apostle’s command is a legitimate following out of above.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
3. ] ‘ debitum tori ’. The rec. was perhaps an euphemism (we have also the varieties, , Chrysostom once: . in the ms. 40) for the same thing. Meyer will not concede this, but thinks it arose from a mistaken interpretation of as meaning merely ‘ benevolentia :’ thinking that not , but would be the word in the other case. But some of the later examples in Wetst. seem to bear out this meaning of .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 7:3-4 . Within the bonds of wedlock, “the due” should be yielded (1Co 7:3 ) by each for the satisfaction and according to the rights of the other (1Co 7:4 ). This dictum defends marital intercourse against rigorists, as that of 1Co 7:1 commends celibacy against sensualists. The word guards, both positively and negatively, the (Heb 13:4 ); what is due to one alone must be given to one alone ( , ). The gloss of the T.R., as old as the Syriac Version, is a piece of mistaken delicacy. The precise repetition of corrects the onesidedness of common sentiment and of public law, both Greek and Jewish: she is as much the mistress of his person, as he the master of hers. (= ) implies moral power, authority ( cf. 1Co 6:12 ). , “elegans paradoxon” (Bg [1008] ) his (her) own is not his (her) own.
[1008] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
benevolence. Greek. eunoia. Only here and Eph 6:7; but instead of “due benevolence”, all the texts read “the debt”, Greek. opheile, which Occurs elsewhere only in Mat 18:32. Rom 13:7.
also the wife = the wife also.
3, 4.] The duty of cohabitation incumbent on the married. This point was in all probability raised in the letter of the Corinthians. The Apostles command is a legitimate following out of above.
1Co 7:3. , what is due [due benevolence, Engl. Vers.]) This is explained in the next verse. Gataker shows, that the same duty was called by the Greeks , by the poets . The reading of this passage, due benevolence, , is a spurious paraphrase.[56] [ is the native (genuine) and simple reading.-Not. crit.]
[56] is the reading of ABCDG Vulg. fg Memph. Orig. Cypr. of Rec. Text is the reading of both the Syriac Versions, but of none other of the oldest authorities.-ED.
1Co 7:3
1Co 7:3
Let the husband render unto the wife her due:-After their marriage, the husband must satisfy the wife in her desires, lest she be tempted to do wrong with other men.
and likewise also the wife unto the husband.-The wife must please the husband in his desires lest he be tempted to seek unlawful gratification of his passions with other women.
Exo 21:10, 1Pe 3:7
Reciprocal: 1Co 7:33 – how
1Co 7:3. Since the primary object of marriage (aside from reproduction) is to give lawful gratification of sexual desires, the husband and wife should cooperate with each other to that end.
1Co 7:3. Let the husband render unto the wife her due,[1] etc.
[1] The received reading, due benevolence, has hardly any authority.
Observe here, 1. That matrimonial conversation, or the husband’s and wife’s performing towards each other all the duties of marriage which they promised, is an act of justice, which they owe to one another: this is intimated in the word render, and consequently to deny the same is injustice and fraud: Defraud not one another. Marriage takes away from persons that power which they had over themselves and their own bodies, and transfers it in some sort to the person they are married to.
Yet observe, 2. That persons in a married state may, and in some cases ought, (namely, for religious ends and purposes,) by mutual consent to abstain from a conjugal duty for some time: Defraud not one another, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer.
Observe, 3. The apostle lays no obligation upon any single persons to take upon them a vow for a single life, nor doth he direct married persons to those perpetual divorces from the marriage-bed, which the papists practise, under pretence of religion: for the apostle admits of no perpetual separation between husband and wife, upon any pretence whatever: no, not that they may give themselves to prayer and fasting; but only permits it for a time, upon condition that they come together again. So far was this holy man from laying a snare upon the consciences of any persons, either in a single or married state.
1Co 7:3-4. Let the husband Where this relation is commenced; render unto the wife, , the due benevolence That is, the conjugal duty, the duty resulting from the nature of the marriage- covenant. Or, let not married persons fancy that there is any perfection in living with each other as if they were unmarried. The wife hath not power over her own body Namely, in this respect, but by the marriage- covenant hath transferred it to her husband. And likewise the husband hath not power over his own body; but it is, as it were, the property of the wife, their engagements being mutual; so that, on every occasion, conscience obliges them to remain appropriated to each other. The right of the wife to her husbands body, being here represented as precisely the same with the husbands right to her body, it excludes the husband from simultaneous polygamy; otherwise the right of the husband to his wifes body would not exclude her from being married to another, during her husbands lifetime. Besides, the direction, (1Co 7:2,) let every woman have her own husband, plainly leads to the same conclusion. The right of the wife to her husbands body is a perfect right, being founded on the ends of marriage, namely, the procreation of children, their proper education, and the prevention of fornication. But these ends would, in a great measure, be frustrated, if the wife had not an exclusive right to her husbands person. Macknight.
Vv. 3-5. Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent, for a time, that ye may give yourselves to prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
The reading of the T. R., due benevolence, is a paraphrase substituted for Paul’s real words, the debt, with the view of avoiding what might be offensive in the latter in public reading. This verse confirms us in the idea that among some of the Corinthians there existed an exaggerated spiritualistic tendency, which threatened to injure conjugal relations, and thereby holiness of life.
Vv. 4. This verse justifies the direction given in the preceding. By the conjugal bond, each spouse acquires a right over the person of the other. Consequently each alienates a portion of personal independence. Hence precisely the of celibacy.
Vv. 5. In this verse there is reproduced the direction given in 1Co 7:3, but in a negative form: Defraud not, to exclude expressly the contrary opinion, and at the same time to limit this prohibition, nevertheless under certain conditions fitted to remove the danger of the restriction. The interruption of the conjugal relations authorized by the apostle may take place on three conditions: 1. mutual consent; 2. temporary duration; 3. the aim of securing spiritual meditation; and the particle , unless it is, by which Paul authorizes the exception, is immediately determined by two restrictions, one of which gives it a purely contingent or doubtful () character, the other a limited () character. To prayer T. R. adds fasting; but this is an interpolation arising from later ecclesiastical usages.
The reading or , in the Byz. documents, instead of , is due to the same cause as the variant of 1Co 7:3.
Among the Jews, also, it was customary to prepare by temporary separation for acts of particular solemnity (Exo 19:15; 1Sa 21:4; comp. Jos 7:13, etc.). The spirit, by asserting its dominion over the senses, becomes more conscious of its own proper life, and by this concentration on itself, opens more profoundly to the communications of the higher world.
All these restrictions are suggested to the apostle by a double fear; on the one hand, the natural incontinence of his readers ( from , one who is not master of himself), and on the other, the working of Satan, who fans carnal desires with his breath, and thus brings about from the smallest occasion the cause of a fall. These occasions were frequent at Corinth; there was one especially, of which the apostle will afterwards speak, participation in idolatrous banquets.
Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
3. Let the husband give to the wife that which is due, and also likewise the wife to her husband.
Verse 3
The meaning of the passage is, that they are not to nullify the marriage tie by living in separation.
1Co 7:3-5. The emphatic repetition, and in like manner also, gives to husband and wife exactly equal marriage rights, which the other is bound to pay. This equal right is made very prominent by the repetitions of 1Co 7:2-4. It culminates in 1Co 7:4, which states a truth which lies at the base of the injunction of 1Co 7:3, and is the essential principle of monogamy.
Do not defraud; keeps before us the obligation, that which is due, 1Co 7:3.
Except perhaps etc.: an exception to his prohibition of separation, which Paul hesitatingly allows, on condition that it be by mutual consent, and only for a definite time.
Season: 1Co 7:29; 1Co 4:5; 2Co 6:2; 2Co 8:18; Rom 5:6, etc.: not mere length of time, but a portion of time looked upon as an opportunity of doing something.
Have leisure for prayer; suggests the excellent custom of occasionally setting apart a period of some days for special devotional exercises. During such periods, for unremitting attention to spiritual matters, separation may perhaps be desirable.
And may again come together: an integral part of the purpose to separate. So careful is Paul lest a temporary separation become permanent.
Lest Satan tempt etc.: object to be avoided by making reunion a part of the purpose to separate, viz. that Satan should make their want-of-self-control an occasion for tempting them to sin.
Your; points to a special weakness of the readers. Therefore Paul fixes narrow limits to the allowed separation. This careful warning implies some real need for it; and suggests either that the matter was mentioned in the letter from Corinth, or that separation was inculcated by some in the church.
To fasting and: certainly spurious, as is the same word in Act 10:30, probably in Mat 17:21, and not unlikely in Mar 9:29. These various readings affect materially the teaching of Scripture about fasting.
7:3 {2} Let the husband render unto the wife {c} due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
(2) Secondly, he shows that the parties married must with singular affection entirely love one another.
(c) The word “due” contains all types of benevolence, though he speaks more of one sort than of the other, in that which follows.
In view of the temptation to commit fornication, each partner in marriage needs to fulfill his or her sexual duty to the spouse. Part of the responsibility of marriage is to meet the various needs of the partner (Gen 2:18), including sexual needs.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)