1 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations2 with a woman." 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.Witherington gives good reasons for regarding the quoted remark in verse 1 as a slogan of some of the Corinthians, not Paul's own view:
The messages given at Delphi had three basic forms: commands, sanctions, or instructions to do something; predictions; and statements of past or present fact. The most common form was the sanctions, and one particular form of sanction that is especially interesting for our purposes began with "It is better and more good to do X (than Y)." For example, the oracle told the Heraclids on one occasion: "It is better to bury A1kemene in Megara." This should be compared to the "slogan" in 1 Cor. 7:1: "It is good for a man not to 'touch' a woman." I would suggest that at least some of the Corinthian Christians' slogans may have begun life as prophetic words or sanctions, cast in one of the traditional forms used at Delphi. (Witherington, Commentary on Corinthians, p. 277).
Among other slogans of Paul's addressees, Witherington lists the following:
- "Everything is permitted to me" (6:12; 10:23),
- "It is good for a man not to 'touch' a woman" (7:1),
- "All of us possess knowledge" (8:1),
- "No idol in the world really exists" (8:4),
- "Food will not bring us close to God" (8:8), and
- "There is no resurrection of the dead" (15:12).
If this is the slogan of some of the Corinthians, it could represent an attitude of extreme asceticism, motivated either
- by the suspicion that the coming of Jesus was imminent and that celibacy was a way of remaining "pure" for his arrival or
- by some other radical notion of the believer's "spirituality" which disdained earthly and physical acts such as sex.
But the "it is good that …" phraseology is also proper OT ethical language: Psa 54:6; 73:28; 92:1; 119:71; 147:1; Prov 24:13; Eccl 7:18. See also Philo Judaeus: "The whole-burnt-offering has no other one in view but God Himself alone, Whom it is good to honor" (On the Special Laws 1.1957).
But some scholars assume that these "slogans" reflect Paul's own words:
Likewise, in his pastoral counsel set out in 1 Corinthians, Paul often begins with statements that he and his addressees agree on - though, in this case, they seem to have interpreted the statements in one way and he in another. … In all of these instances Paul begins by seeking common ground and then moving on to explicate his own understanding" (Longenecker, Studies in Paul (2004), p. 119).
Verse 2 seems hardly a sufficient statement on the positive value of sex within marriage. Whether or not sexual immorality was occurring, married couples should enjoy regular sexual intercourse and not deny each other. This is the clear teaching of the Old Testament:
Verse 3 describes spouses satisfying their mates' sexual desires as a "duty". It is a duty, because each partner's body belongs to the other partner. And therefore withholding its use to the partner is like theft: "Do not deprive (mē apostereite) each other" (v. 5), using a Greek verb (apostereō) that can describe embezzling! This does not, of course, mean that marital sex should be performed only as a duty, that is, grudgingly. Rather it is a duty of love. It should be a privilege for a husband to give pleasure to his wife, and vice versa. The Jewish scholar Julie Galambush theorizes:
The only exception (in v. 5) to regular sexual intercourse is not really an exception, since both married partners must agree to forgo intercourse, and even then they must not resolve never to resume. It should be a temporary measure. The reason given in this example — to allow for a period of intense prayer — is only one example, and Paul certainly does not mean that there might not also be other legitimate reasons for a temporary abstinence. One partner might have recently undergone surgery or some other medical procedure which makes sexual intercourse either painful or inadvisable. Or both partners may have reached an age when sexual intercourse is no longer desirable by either one. The point is that believer should not regard marital sex as something necessary but somehow "dirty". It is a beautiful gift which God has given to humans and when used the way he intends, it increases the attachment and love existing between a married couple.
6 The "concession" Paul refers to is not that married believers should have regular sex, much less that believers should marry at all, but the concession to refrain from sex for a brief period by mutual consent. It is this which he allows, but does not command. Married couples can have intense periods of prayer without having to suspend sexual intercourse! The reference is to what precedes in v. 5, not to what follows in v. 7.
"Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love" (Proverbs 5:18-19).The biblical view of sex within marriage—both Old Testament and New—is free and robust. Marital sex is a wonderful gift of God that humans are to relish.
Verse 3 describes spouses satisfying their mates' sexual desires as a "duty". It is a duty, because each partner's body belongs to the other partner. And therefore withholding its use to the partner is like theft: "Do not deprive (mē apostereite) each other" (v. 5), using a Greek verb (apostereō) that can describe embezzling! This does not, of course, mean that marital sex should be performed only as a duty, that is, grudgingly. Rather it is a duty of love. It should be a privilege for a husband to give pleasure to his wife, and vice versa. The Jewish scholar Julie Galambush theorizes:
"Remarkably [Paul] writes that husbands and wives have rights over each other's bodies, perhaps alluding to rabbinic law requiring that husbands provide wives with not only food and clothing but also sex" (Galambush, The Reluctant Parting, p. 134f.).She may be right. Many of the ethical standards of Jesus and the community of his folllowers sprang from their Jewish roots. And those roots derived often from the Old Testament scriptures.
The only exception (in v. 5) to regular sexual intercourse is not really an exception, since both married partners must agree to forgo intercourse, and even then they must not resolve never to resume. It should be a temporary measure. The reason given in this example — to allow for a period of intense prayer — is only one example, and Paul certainly does not mean that there might not also be other legitimate reasons for a temporary abstinence. One partner might have recently undergone surgery or some other medical procedure which makes sexual intercourse either painful or inadvisable. Or both partners may have reached an age when sexual intercourse is no longer desirable by either one. The point is that believer should not regard marital sex as something necessary but somehow "dirty". It is a beautiful gift which God has given to humans and when used the way he intends, it increases the attachment and love existing between a married couple.
6 The "concession" Paul refers to is not that married believers should have regular sex, much less that believers should marry at all, but the concession to refrain from sex for a brief period by mutual consent. It is this which he allows, but does not command. Married couples can have intense periods of prayer without having to suspend sexual intercourse! The reference is to what precedes in v. 5, not to what follows in v. 7.
It is not clear in what way Paul could wish that all believers were like himself in regard to sexual matters (v. 7). Some think this means he could wish all were unmarried. But—unless this just means that he believed Jesus would return very soon, making new marriages inadvisable—this contradicts what he writes elsewhere in his letters (Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; 1Ti 3:2,12; 5:14) where he spoke strongly in favor of the married state.
12 -16 is said to be "I, not the Lord [Jesus]". But this does not mean that Jesus' own recorded words were opposed to Paul's advice here. It mere means that Paul is being very conscientious here to inform his converts that he has no tradition of an actual statement by Jesus that addresses their specific situation, namely, marriages in which only one of the two partners is a believer. In Paul's mind—and quite likely this would have been Jesus' view as well—this is a different situation, and one that requires some modification of the strict view just articulated in verses 10-11. There, the believers who separate should not marry others. But in the case of a believer whose unbelieving partner initiates divorce, the believer is not obligated to remain unmarried (v. 15 "is not bound [to the unbeliever, and may therefore marry another without committing adultery in God's eyes]").
But if the unbelieving partner is willing to remain married, the believing partner should not seek a divorce. It is the believer's mission to seek to bring the unbelieving partner to faith. But the goal is that the believing partner might by his/her loving conduct win the unbelieving partner to faith. This is certainly the emphasis of St. Peter in his open letter to Christians:
Another very interesting point is that Paul considers the believing partner's influence on the marriage to be a sanctifying one (v. 14). This does not mean that the unbelieving partner does not need also to come to faith in order to be saved, for otherwise Paul would not have added (v. 16): "how do you know whether you will save your [spouse]?" Apparently the "sanctifying" means that the unbelieving spouse is in a very advantageous position. He or she has a spouse who believes and can show him/her Christ in a way that embraces all aspects of daily life and that mirrors the love of Jesus within the intimate marriage bond. Persons without believing spouses are not so fortunate!
Is this your situation now? Are you either married to a believer and are contemplating taking the step of faith yourself, or are you a believer with a presently non-believing spouse? If your situation is the former, then why don't you let your believing spouse help you to find what he/she already has and enjoys? Your marriage can be even more happy, if you both enjoy a faith-relationship with Jesus.
And if the situation is the latter, make sure that you do not nag your spouse. And he/she is hard to live with, ask God to help you not to take offense, but to show amazing patience and forgiveness. And look for times when he/she is not otherwise occupied to have quiet talks about the advantages of knowing Jesus personally.
Of course, if you are currently suffering real physical abuse—beatings, for example—you should not allow it to continue. If that occurs, you must take steps to contact the police and take refuge in centers designed to protect victims of spousal beating. Christian love needs to be wise as well as forgiving. You do not help your spouse, if you acquiesce to being beaten.
References
1. For example, Dunn, Unity & Diversity (1977), 67: "At the same time [Paul] has no compunction about adding what appears to be his own interpretation to the received formula ('For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes'- 11.26). Moreover he specifically designates the source of the Last Supper tradition as 'the Lord'. This seems to mean not so much that the earthly Jesus was the original source of the tradition, but rather that Paul understood the present, exalted Jesus to be the immediate source of the historical formula - that is to say, that it was authoritative not because it was a tradition but because it was received and accepted on the direct authority of the exalted one (cf. and note the present tense in I Cor. 7. l0). Here again evidently we are back with the idea of 'pneumatic tradition', tradition which is authoritative because of its immediate inspiration and its direct relevance."
2. The literal "not touch a woman" is a Jewish idiom in Paul's day for "have sexual intercourse with a woman". The Corinthians whose slogan this was applied it even to sexual intercourse between married partners, an extreme ascetic viewpoint.
10 The NIV Study Bible note's interpretation of the command of Jesus as originating from a tradition about Jesus' earthly teaching is to be preferred to the view of others that Paul here claims a revelation from the ascended Jesus.1
Verse 10-11 have to do with marriages in which both partners are believers. Paul understood Jesus' own words about divorce to refer to such marriages.12 -16 is said to be "I, not the Lord [Jesus]". But this does not mean that Jesus' own recorded words were opposed to Paul's advice here. It mere means that Paul is being very conscientious here to inform his converts that he has no tradition of an actual statement by Jesus that addresses their specific situation, namely, marriages in which only one of the two partners is a believer. In Paul's mind—and quite likely this would have been Jesus' view as well—this is a different situation, and one that requires some modification of the strict view just articulated in verses 10-11. There, the believers who separate should not marry others. But in the case of a believer whose unbelieving partner initiates divorce, the believer is not obligated to remain unmarried (v. 15 "is not bound [to the unbeliever, and may therefore marry another without committing adultery in God's eyes]").
But if the unbelieving partner is willing to remain married, the believing partner should not seek a divorce. It is the believer's mission to seek to bring the unbelieving partner to faith. But the goal is that the believing partner might by his/her loving conduct win the unbelieving partner to faith. This is certainly the emphasis of St. Peter in his open letter to Christians:
[Christian] wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. (1 Peter 3:1-4)It is interesting that Peter's example is a believing wife, not a husband. Perhaps this reflects how many women were early on attracted to the Christian gospel. That Peter suggests the wife's appeal can be "without words" does not mean that the believing spouse never should verbalize his/her faith to the partner, but that there should never be nagging and criticizing, but rather a loving concern for the spouse, which of course includes gentle teaching about Jesus coupled with considerate behavior.
Another very interesting point is that Paul considers the believing partner's influence on the marriage to be a sanctifying one (v. 14). This does not mean that the unbelieving partner does not need also to come to faith in order to be saved, for otherwise Paul would not have added (v. 16): "how do you know whether you will save your [spouse]?" Apparently the "sanctifying" means that the unbelieving spouse is in a very advantageous position. He or she has a spouse who believes and can show him/her Christ in a way that embraces all aspects of daily life and that mirrors the love of Jesus within the intimate marriage bond. Persons without believing spouses are not so fortunate!
Is this your situation now? Are you either married to a believer and are contemplating taking the step of faith yourself, or are you a believer with a presently non-believing spouse? If your situation is the former, then why don't you let your believing spouse help you to find what he/she already has and enjoys? Your marriage can be even more happy, if you both enjoy a faith-relationship with Jesus.
And if the situation is the latter, make sure that you do not nag your spouse. And he/she is hard to live with, ask God to help you not to take offense, but to show amazing patience and forgiveness. And look for times when he/she is not otherwise occupied to have quiet talks about the advantages of knowing Jesus personally.
Of course, if you are currently suffering real physical abuse—beatings, for example—you should not allow it to continue. If that occurs, you must take steps to contact the police and take refuge in centers designed to protect victims of spousal beating. Christian love needs to be wise as well as forgiving. You do not help your spouse, if you acquiesce to being beaten.
References
1. For example, Dunn, Unity & Diversity (1977), 67: "At the same time [Paul] has no compunction about adding what appears to be his own interpretation to the received formula ('For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes'- 11.26). Moreover he specifically designates the source of the Last Supper tradition as 'the Lord'. This seems to mean not so much that the earthly Jesus was the original source of the tradition, but rather that Paul understood the present, exalted Jesus to be the immediate source of the historical formula - that is to say, that it was authoritative not because it was a tradition but because it was received and accepted on the direct authority of the exalted one (cf. and note the present tense in I Cor. 7. l0). Here again evidently we are back with the idea of 'pneumatic tradition', tradition which is authoritative because of its immediate inspiration and its direct relevance."
2. The literal "not touch a woman" is a Jewish idiom in Paul's day for "have sexual intercourse with a woman". The Corinthians whose slogan this was applied it even to sexual intercourse between married partners, an extreme ascetic viewpoint.
No comments:
Post a Comment