By permission That they might not, by taking their stand upon a precept of the kind that he had prescribed, loosen unduly the restraints of lust, [1] he adds a limitation -- that he had written these things on account of their infirmity -- that they may bear in mind that marriage is a remedy for unchastity, lest they should inordinately abuse the advantage of it, so as to gratify their desire by every means; nay more, without measure or modesty. He has it also in view to meet the cavils of the wicked, that no one might have it in his power to object in this way: "What! are you afraid that husbands and wives will not of their own accord be sufficiently inclined to carnal delight that you prompt them to it?" For even the Papists, those little saints, [2] are offended with this doctrine, and would gladly have a contest with Paul, on the ground of his keeping married persons in mutual cohabitation, and not allowing them to turn aside to a life of celibacy. He assigns, then, a reason for his doctrine, and declares, that he had not recommended connubial intercourse to married persons with the view of alluring them to delight, or as though he took pleasure in commanding it, but had considered what was required by the infirmity of those that he is addressing. Foolish zealots [3] for celibacy make a wrong use of both clauses of this verse; for as Paul says that he speaks by permission, they infer from this, that there is therefore something wrong in conjugal intercourse, for where there is need of pardon, [4] there must be sin. Farther, from his saying that he speaks not by commandment, they infer, that it is, therefore, a holier thing to leave off the use of marriage and turn to celibacy. To the former, I answer, that as there is, I acknowledge, an inordinate excess in all human affections, I do not deny that there is as to this matter an irregularity, (ataxia,) [5] which, I allow, is vicious. [6] Nay more, this affection, I allow, is beyond others violent, and next to brutish. But, on the other hand, I also maintain, that whatever there is of vice or baseness, is so covered over by the honorableness of marriage, that it ceases to be a vice, or at least is not reckoned a fault by God, as Augustine elegantly discourses in his book "On the advantage of Marriage," and frequently in other places. You may then take it briefly thus: [7] conjugal intercourse is a thing that is pure, honorable and holy, because it is a pure institution of God: the immoderate desire with which persons burn is a fault arising from the corruption of nature; but in the case of believers marriage is a veil, by which that fault is covered over, so that it no longer appears in the sight of God. To the second I answer: as the term commandment is properly applied to those things which relate to the duties of righteousness, and things in themselves pleasing to God, Paul on this account says that he does not speak by commandment He has, however, sufficiently shown previously, that the remedy, which he had enjoined, must necessarily be made use of.

Footnotes

1 - "Leurs affections desordonnees;" -- "Their inordinate affections."

2 - "Les hypocrites qui veulent estre estimez de petis saincts;" -- "Hypocrites, who wish to be regarded as little saints."

3 - "Les sots et indiscrets zelateurs;" -- "Foolish and inconsiderate zealots."

4 - "Ou permission et pardon ha lieu;" -- "Where permission and pardon have place."

5 - The term ataxia is used by our author in the Harmony (volume 1) to mean disorder, as contrasted with the orderly condition of the kingdom of God It contains an allusion to the disorderly conduct of soldiers, who quit their ranks It is used in this sense by Thucydides (7:43.) -- Ed

6 - "Vn appetit desmesure, lequel ie concede estre vicieux;" -- "An immoderate desire, which, I allow, is vicious."

7 - "Pour resolution done de ce poinet en peu de paroles, disons en ceste sorte;" -- "For a solution, then, of this point in a few words, let us express it in this way."

But I speak this by permission - It is not quite certain whether the word "this" (τοῦτο touto), in this verse, refers to what precedes, or to what follows. On this commentators are divided. The more natural and obvious interpretation would be to refer it to the preceding statement. I am inclined to think that the mare natural construction is the true one. and that Paul refers to what he had said in 1-Corinthians 7:5. Most recent commentators, as Macknight and Rosenmuller, however, suppose it refers to what follows, and appeal to similar places in Joel 1:2; Psalm 49:2; 1-Corinthians 10:23. Calvin supposes it refers to what was said in 1-Corinthians 7:1.
By permission - συγγνώμην sungnōmēn. This word means "indulgence," or "permission," and stands opposed to that which is expressly enjoined; compare 1-Corinthians 7:25. "I am 'allowed' to say this; I have no express command on the subject; I give it as my opinion; I do not speak it directly under the influence of divine inspiration;" see 1-Corinthians 7:10, 1-Corinthians 7:25, 1-Corinthians 7:40. Paul here does not claim to be under inspiration in these directions which he specifics. But this is no argument against his inspiration in general, but rather the contrary. For:
(1) It shows that he was an honest man, and was disposed to state the exact truth. An impostor, pretending to inspiration, would have claimed to have been always inspired. Who ever heard of a pretender to divine inspiration admitting that in any thing he was not under divine guidance? Did Mahomet ever do this? Do impostors now ever do it?
(2) it shows that in other cases, where no exception is made, he claimed to be inspired. These few exceptions, which he expressly makes, prove that in everywhere else he claimed to be under the influence of inspiration.
(3) we are to suppose, therefore, that in all his writings where he makes no express exceptions, (and the exceptions are very few in number,) Paul claimed to be inspired. Macknight, however, and some others, understand this as mere adVice, as an inspired man, though not as a command,
Not of commandment - Not by express instruction from the Lord; see 1-Corinthians 7:25. I do not claim in this to be under the influence of inspiration; and my counsel here may be regarded, or not, as you may be able to receive it.

I speak this by permission, etc. - It was a constant custom of the more conscientious rabbins, to make a difference between the things which they enjoined on their own judgment, and those which they built on the authority of the law. Thus Rabbi Tancum: "The washing of hands before meat is in our own power; washing after meat is commanded." In relation to this point Dr. Lightfoot produces some examples from the Jewish writers: "The man is commanded concerning begetting and multiplying, but not the woman. And when does the man come under this command? From the age of sixteen or seventeen years; but, if he exceeds twenty years without marrying, behold he violates and renders an affirmative precept vain. The Gemara says: It is forbidden a man to be without a wife; because it is written, It is not good for man to be alone. And whosoever gives not himself to generation and multiplying is all one with a murderer: he is as though he diminished from the image of God, etc." We may understand the apostle here as saying that the directions already given were from his own judgment, and not from any Divine inspiration; and we may take it for granted that where he does not make this observation he is writing under the immediate afflatus of the Holy Spirit.

(5) But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment.
(5) Fifthly he teaches that marriage is not necessary for all men, but for those who do not have the gift of continency, and this gift is by a special grace of God.

But I speak this by permission,.... Referring either to what he had said before, though not to all; not to 1-Corinthians 7:2 that for the avoiding of fornication, every man should make use of his own wife, and every woman of her own husband; since this is not by permission, but by command, Genesis 2:24 that carnal copulation should be between one man and one woman in a married state; nor to 1-Corinthians 7:3 for that married persons ought to render due benevolence to, and not defraud each other, having a power over each other's bodies, is a precept, and not a permission, Exodus 21:10 but to 1-Corinthians 7:5 their parting for a time, and coming together again: it is not an absolute command of God that they should separate for a time, on account of fasting and prayer, but if they thought fit to do so by agreement, they might; nor was there any positive precept for their coming together again directly, after such service was over. The apostle said this,
not of commandment; but, consulting their good, gives this advice, lest Satan should be busy with them, and draw them into sin; but if they had the gift of continence, they might continue apart longer; there was no precise time fixed by God, nor did the apostle pretend to fix any: or it may refer to what follows after, that he would have all men be as he was; though he laid no injunction, but left them to their liberty; unless it can be thought to regard marriage in general, and to be said in opposition to a Jewish notion, which makes marriage a "command";
"a man, they say (f), is bound to this command at seventeen years of age, and if he passes twenty and does not marry, he transgresses, and makes void an affirmative precept;''
but the apostle puts it as a matter of choice, and not of obligation.
(f) Maimon. Hilch, Isbot, c. 15. sect. 2.

by permission . . . not of commandment--not by God's permission to me to say it: but, "by way of permission to you, not as a commandment." "This" refers to the directions, 1-Corinthians 7:2-5.

But I say this - Concerning your separating for a time and coming together again. Perhaps he refers also to 1-Corinthians 7:2.