New Thoughts: (11/23/15-11/24/15)
If we are to arrive at a proper understanding of Paul’s instruction here, we must first resolve a few questions satisfactorily. The first question that we ought to consider is whether Paul is quoting what the Corinthians wrote in verse 1, or jumping straight to his answer. If this were a shorter missive, I might incline towards accepting that he went straight to the answer. In that setting, we might suppose there had only been the one question and therefore there was no particular need for indicating the topic being discussed. However, this letter is lengthy, and covers a wide range of topics, albeit there is a connecting thread that runs throughout.
Paul has been addressing matters of sexual sin already – in this case, those that the Corinthians hadn’t seen fit to question or address. That they skipped past so egregious a sin to the rather trivial (and likely prideful) matter of celibacy did not speak well of them. Paul, however, is not rebuking them for that lapse. While he addresses the more important matter first, he also turns his attention to the question (or questions) they did present. It appears that there was much to discuss, and as such, it would be quite reasonable to suppose that Paul is identifying the specific question he intends to address next. Thus, we might read this as saying, “You wrote asking whether ‘it is good for a man not to touch a woman.’” I’m following the NASB rather directly in that portion representing the likely quotation from their letter.
But, there is a second question that needs to be considered here. Given Paul’s fairly direct turning of his attention to matters of marriage and celibacy, is that what the question was about? Is it, as the NIV and others indicate, that they propose that it is good for men not to marry? That is certainly one way to take the point. However, Thayer’s informs me that the term Paul has used here, haptesthai, is a term more suggestive of unlawful intercourse; that is to say, sex outside of marriage. This would provide something of a natural linkage to the preceding subject matter.
Let me explore a possibility here. What if Paul is not in fact quoting the subject of their question? What if this is indeed the beginning of his answer? Consider: He has been addressing matters of sexual sin. He has listed several particular sins in this category, including amongst them prostitution, homosexuality, and adultery (1Co 6:9). As his answer takes shape in verse 2, he turns back to that term, porneia, which encompasses all of the above matters. He does so as giving cause for granting or encouraging the legal outlet which God has provided for our sexual urges, which is marriage.
Now, take that flow of thought, which before and after this introduction of their having written with questions. The thread of Paul’s thinking hasn’t really shifted course, has it? He’s still considering immoralities. That being the case, and given the shade of meaning present in haptesthai, it could well be that the second half of verse 1 is indeed the beginning of an answer, rather than a restating of the question. If that is the case, one could posit that the question may have involved the acceptability of visiting with prostitutes. If it is the case that Paul intends to indicate ‘unlawful intercourse’, and given the cultural propensities of the Corinthians, would it be so shocking to suppose they were at least half convinced that such practices were acceptable? After all, if eating meat offered to idols was acceptable, since those idols were no gods, couldn’t one argue that sex with the temple prostitutes was likewise acceptable? Maybe that fellow from Nevada was right when he said God told him to open a brothel.
But, Paul’s answer removes all doubt. No! it is not alright. There are two legitimate options: Marriage or celibacy. Both have their blessings. It is clear, given what follows, that Paul actually considers celibacy the greater good, and this is understandable. Celibacy leaves one free of any entangling conflict of interest between what is right for the relationship at home and what is a priority in service to God. Paul, who notes his own celibacy in recommending this (1Co 7:8), would not have been so free to travel and plant churches had he a wife to care for. Her needs would necessarily set some limits on his abilities to simply go where the Spirit led. Now, in saying that, we must consider that Peter, although we hear nothing of his wife after the earliest parts of the Gospel, was a married man, and yet found himself able to fulfill his duties as an Apostle. Those duties were not so different from Paul’s, though the territory covered may have been different.
I’m not sure I have yet resolved this question to any great satisfaction. If the Corinthians were proposing celibacy as somehow more godly or more praiseworthy, and to the degree that they were advising their married members to abstain, then Paul’s words – a concession by his own statement (1Co 7:6) – come as an agreement in part. The whole then reads as, “Yes, celibacy is a fine thing. But, if you’re married, it’s neither binding on you, nor advisable for you.” If, on the other hand, the question is in regards to pursuing sexual gratification with the professionals, the answer is far different. If you can’t contain your vessel, get married. Better to be celibate, but that’s not for everybody. If it’s not for you, then marry, that your release may be sanctified.
I cannot, as some would suppose, find Paul advocating that the entire church be celibate. For one, such a church would soon find itself utterly depopulated, as we can see from myriad examples both in the church and in civil society. Failure to reproduce is rather literally a dead end. Quite apart from that, we find him elsewhere pointing to marriage as a great mystery, in that it represents the relationship of Christ and His church. Add to this that the practice is very clearly instituted by God, and that, at the very start. How, then, can it be supposed that God, through His apostle, would advocate against it? As we proceed into the remainder of chapter 7, I dare say we must keep the whole of Scripture, and the whole of Paul’s teaching on matters of marriage, in view, lest we find ourselves wandering after some over-amplified misreading of Paul’s intention.
Before I go on, let me just consider one possibility that could lead us to see this as a question in regard to marriage. Consider Exodus 19:15. The people of Israel were preparing to meet with God. What instruction was given them through Moses? “Be ready of the third day; do not go near a woman.” Now, given the powerful associations that come to mind with mention of the third day, and given the repeated commands for sexual abstinence as a part of the process of sanctification required for priestly service, or more exactly, for entering into the immediate presence of God, it would not take any great stretch of imagination to find these prideful Corinthians making abstinence a point of pride. Why, if this is the case, and I am now the temple of the Holy Spirit, surely I do well to be utterly celibate! I might (God forbid!) even make it a point of pride. Yes, brothers and sisters! See how I have advanced in the things of the Spirit! Though married, I have ceased to avail myself of the legitimate enjoyments of married life. One could well understand how others might question such a practice, and – if this is indeed the question – Paul’s answer must have been some comfort to these lesser mortals.
In fairness, I could see either question as being that which Paul answers. I am inclined to stay with the idea that it is illicit sex that remains in view, and not celibacy within marriage. This has, as I noted, been the subject leading into this statement, and it is also the basis upon which Paul rests his answer: “Because of immoralities.” Yet, there is this focus on what practices should prevail within the bonds of marriage.
When I came to the Weymouth translation of verse 2, I found myself really questioning whether they were not reading something into Paul’s statement that was not there. Let me quote. “But because there is so much fornication every man should have a wife of his own, and every woman should have a husband.” Is that really what Paul is trying to say? Is this a commendation of marriage as the preferred state? Go get married because of the risk of fornication otherwise? That hardly seems to comport with the general Biblical discussion of marriage. Neither, I must say, does it appear to jibe with what follows. “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I would that all men were celibate like I am” (1Co 7:6-7). We can debate the strength of Paul’s sentiment on that subject in the next study, but it would certainly be strong enough to counter the idea that he thinks everybody should go out and grab a partner at earliest convenience.
It seems pretty clear that his instruction concerns relations within marriage, doesn’t it? Yes, it may be a fine thing to be celibate. Indeed, I am, and I commend it to all who have the gift of maintaining that state in holiness. But, if you’re married already? No! To be celibate within the bonds of marriage would be to act the thief. It would be inviting sin, if not in yourself then in your partner. The marriage relationship is something holy. The benefits of celibacy don’t change that fact. The marriage relationship is an earthly representation of Christ and His church. Don’t belittle it. Don’t despise it. By no means make of it an opportunity for sin, as you would do by what you propose!
Understand, then, that in verse 2, this idea of ‘having’ your own wife or your own husband is not a matter of going out and finding one to marry. It assumes marriage as a pre-existing condition for what is stated. That ‘having’ that Paul is concerned with here is what we commonly refer to as conjugal rights or conjugal duties. There’s a reason why this was part of marriage as God commanded. It is the very essence of establishing that one flesh relationship which He commends within marriage, and which He condemns in the employing of prostitutes. You are supposed to become one with your spouse. Your bodies are designed with this in mind. Your physical processes are so fashioned as to make this one flesh relationship something far more than a spiritualization of marriage. It is a physical reality. Your bodies, your chemical processes, are so joined together as to create something of a dependency upon one another. It’s truly rather fascinating to discover that science finds this to be the case.
This message permeates the passage at hand. Sex is for marriage, and in a very real sense, marriage is for sex. It is not some onerous duty that one performs begrudgingly. It oughtn’t to be, at any rate. Neither is it to be an act of dominance by either partner. Sex is not to be made a weapon within the marriage relationship. In fairness, it is not to be made a weapon outside of that relationship, either, but that’s a different matter.
For all that Paul gets written down as a misogynistic male, the picture he paints of marriage both here and elsewhere is starkly egalitarian. Neither of you, he says, have authority over your own body. You belong to one another. The husband has right of rule over the wife’s body, and the wife has right of rule over the husband’s. Notice where that leads. It is not permitted for the husband to seek his pleasure without regard for hers. Likewise, it is no good for her to take her pleasure and give none in return. You are for each other. You belong to each other. You submit to each other. As in the church, so in the home: You don’t lord it over one another, you serve one another.
In that same vein, there is the direct injunction against the weaponization of sex. There is much afoot these days of the power of women who refuse their husbands. If we just say no, they shall buckle under to our demands. Indeed, that power is in their hands, and quite probably more so than could be said of men trying the same tactic. But, Paul rejects this ploy. “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement.” It’s not right. Indeed, the term he uses is not so benign as one might think, given the translation of ‘depriving’. It’s outright theft. You are robbing your partner of their legal due, their legal possession.
Now, let us understand that this is not the sum-total teaching on marriage, nor is sex the be all and end all of marriage. There is a principal in play here that should apply more widely. Your spouse has authority over you, and you have a sworn duty to serve your spouse. It’s mutual. It’s not a thing to be held like a bludgeon. It’s a joyful service. It is the very model of your relationship to Christ. Let us be clear: You do not have authority over Christ. But, He is pleased to serve you nonetheless. And you, in your turn, being truly under His authority, are yet serving Him not out of a leaden sense of obligation, but out of joyful pleasure in doing so. Marriage should model this. Your goal in marriage is not to model the one in authority, for you are both of you wedded to Christ. Your goal is to model that joyful submission to His authority, the pleasure of serving a loving Lord.
The Message actually captures this thought rather nicely. “Marriage is not a place to ‘stand up for your rights.’ Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out.” There is, I think, nothing quite so wonderful in all the earth than a marriage pursued in godly order. Granted, we all tend to pursue that godly order imperfectly. Yet, with time and effort, we find this married life truly grows on us. There is indeed joy to be had in bringing pleasure, or even simply relief, to our spouse. If I can lessen the burden of my wife, I am pleased to do so, and I marvel at her willingness to do so on my behalf. Yes, we have our varied duties. Our household is perhaps a bit more traditional in its arrangements than many today. In other respects, it is most thoroughly non-traditional. I go to the workplace, and Jan keeps house – amongst many things. But, she does not choose to go out into the workforce, and I am not inclined to suggest she should. On the other hand, she is far more inclined towards outdoor activities than I am, so there’s a less common exchange of duties there. She will take up yardwork more readily than I. I find laundry rather less burdensome than she. She cooks, I’ll clean up. She likes meals by the fireplace on occasion, I’d just as soon remain in the dining room. But, we accommodate, we adjust. To some, it may seem we merely put up with one another, but it is not so. We cherish one another, care for one another, look out for one another.
To be married, and to live that marriage as one ought, is to discover the beauty of mutual submission, of joyful service. It is to discover a depth of pleasure that goes far beyond the pleasures of sex, which are great indeed. It does not leave these behind. But, I dare say it finds – perhaps to the surprise of both partners – that there are wonders far more wonderful to be had together. Just being together is intoxicating in itself. To sit together on the couch; to be reading in the same room; to walk hand in hand: All of these bring such depth of joy as can hardly be imagined by younger couples. It is a marvel. It is God’s order. It oughtn’t to surprise us to discover His order so marvelously good, yet it does. And what a pleasant surprise!
I recall, as I noted in my preparations, that older couple who informed us of what would develop, of how the love and the mutual joy in one another’s company would only grow. I could not imagine that possible. We were young and in love. We knew how these things go, or so we thought. That first flush of passion cools over time. The newness wears off, surely. Don’t we all find, like the church in Ephesus, that we have lost our first love (Rev 2:4)? But, that’s not it! No, you haven’t lost your first love. Love has matured. Love has discovered there’s more to be had than that physical rush. There’s more to love than passion. There are depths to be plumbed that youth dreams not of.
I must recognize that the same holds true in the life of faith. The new believer has passion. There is that fervor we all see, we all recall as having been our own at one time. They just can’t wait to get out there and tell everybody. And the old-timers look on and chuckle. They’ll mellow with time. It’s true, but if you tell them this, they will only be frustrated, and the more determined that they shall not grow cool as you have. But, it’s not a growing cool. It’s growing. It’s discovering depths that go beyond passion and fervor. It’s finding deep currents in the soul where the Spirit has taken hold. It’s becoming, dare I say it, serious about the joy that is in us.
Marriage is indeed a most holy institution. It is a most wonderful experience. How sad it must be for this generation which has, suffering the consequences of the foolishness of prior generations, found itself almost completely discounting that wonder. What a terrible loss for them. It is not for celibacy that they have forsaken the unique joys of wedded life. No, it’s for wantonness and harlotries of every abominable sort. Marriage has become so cheapened in the eyes of the world as to be less than worthless. It is found burdensome, too constricting to contemplate. And yet, there is in reality nothing so liberating. How sad that we have failed to impart this wisdom to ourselves, let alone to our youth.
God, forgive us. Grant that we might recover our sense of the wonder of this institution You established for our great good. Grant that we might yet reverse the tide of societal influence, and impart to our youth – Your youth – the great joy that is to be had in this committed life of mutual submission and service. Help us to model it in our own relationships both in marriage and in the Church. Help us, Lord, to model Your love for all those whom You have called.
