Part 2 (Part 1 is below)
In my last post, I wrote of the importance of marriage, and suggested from the Scriptures some of the various facets of God’s purpose and design for marriage. Perhaps the single most specific chapter in the Bible that discusses singleness, marriage, divorce and remarriage, all in one place, is 1 Corinthians, chapter 7. For the purposes of this post, I have chosen not to attempt to explain the entire chapter as I tried to do in my LIFE class. Here in this brief version I merely want to touch on the aspects of this chapter that seem to me to be overlooked most often.
Paul the apostle begins that section of the letter by answering questions the Corinthian believers had asked of him. There was good reason for them to ask questions regarding marriage:
- Various false teachings had probably influenced the believers at Corinth to question guidelines for Christian marriage and sexual relationships. Some pre-Gnostic teaching had argued that all physical matter was bad, and therefore that all sexual activity—even within marriage—was wrong. (See 1 Timothy 4.1-5)
- Apparently several types of legally-recognized marriages (under Roman authority) existed at the time, including tent companionships for slaves, common law marriage, the sale of one's daughter to a prospective husband, and a nobility class type of marriage.
- Some people had become followers of Jesus and perhaps wondered what this new relationship meant with regard to their marriages.
Paul’s intent was to refocus the struggling believers with a radical concept for first century Greek-Roman culture: commitment, in lasting devotion, that ultimately reflects the glory of God. God’s word speaks frankly to us about sexual relationships and about God’s plan with regard to singleness, marriage, divorce and remarriage.
As seen in 1 Corinthians, chapter 7, what God desires from us is a lifetime of devotion.
1. A lifetime of marriage reflects a calling from God (vv. 17-24).
To understand what Paul is talking about in this section, we have to understand his idea of a calling. The word "calling" is often misused today, even if well intentioned. When Paul uses the term, he often speaks of a holistic approach—one that encompasses every area of our lives. So when Paul talks about his calling, he seems to imply his salvation, allegiance to God, and even specific ministry assignments which God has given him. Notice how he uses the term calling in the following sentences.
He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our own works but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Now, however, it has been revealed through the coming of our Savior Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and through the gospel has brought life and release from death into full view. For the sake of this gospel I was appointed to be a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
2 Timothy 1.9-11 (ISV)
So, when Paul talks about a calling in 1 Corinthians 7.17-24, we have to realize he probably means more than salvation alone, or even a vocation or career alone. In fact, it appears that he is talking about the whole person—all that God called you to be.
In this regard, it is a little bit easier to understand why he uses the illustrations of circumcision and slavery. Certainly, without having an understanding of the cultural context, these ideas might be confusing. But first century readers understood what Paul was talking about. He was speaking with reference to an individual's particular current status in life. He does not take the time to explain to non-Jews the perhaps confusing nature of circumcision, nor does he launch into an excursus on the social ills of the practice of slavery (although he makes sure to note that if a slave has the opportunity to be freed, he should happily take it!). He simply says for the point of this discussion, "as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk."
Paul is encouraging them not to be obsessed with changing their status. Instead, the point is, now that God has called you, live out your calling wherever you are in life. Twice he says (7.20, 7.24), each one should "remain in that calling in which he was called." And the immediate preceding context is that of staying married even in tough circumstances. God's goal for us is not that we would be absorbed in trying to change our status or condition or calling, but instead that we would grow with Him in whatever place we find ourselves.
So unless you are called to singleness, marriage is an aspect of our calling from God, and He desires that we would demonstrate to others—through the lifetime of devotion in marriage—our lifetime of devotion to Him. A lifetime of marriage reflects a calling from God.
2. A lifetime of singleness reflects a commitment to God (vv. 1-9; 25-40).
Paul has much to say about singleness in 1 Corinthians 7. He first speaks of singleness at the beginning of the chapter in terms of abstaining from sex. He says that abstaining from sex is good, but not so simple (vv. 1-2). It is certainly an honorable thing if you never marry and thus never have a sexual relationship with anyone; however it is not easy at all for human beings to keep their passions in check (see v. 9). He then says that abstaining from sex is a gift, but only for singles (vv. 3-9). Abstaining in singleness is so honorable that Paul even considers it a gift from God for those who possess it (including himself); however, for those who are married, sex within marriage is God’s design, and abstaining within marriage should be limited to reasons dealing with spiritual growth.
I believe that a part of what Paul is doing in this chapter is to raise the perceptions of the value of singleness—if that is in fact one's gift and calling. Later in the chapter, Paul outlines several arguments for staying single:
- Problems in the world (vv. 25-27)
- Difficulties of married life (v. 28)
- The passing nature of this life (vv. 29-31)
- Preoccupations in marriage (vv. 32-35)
- Problems with parental consent (vv. 36-38)
- The binding covenant of marriage (vv. 39-40)
So his point is not to minimize marriage, nor to minimize singleness. Instead, he elevates both, and encourages his readers to pursue whatever gift and calling God has given individually to each one. For most people, it seems, marriage is their calling. However, if one's gift happens to be singleness, Paul argues that he or she is able to be undistracted in devotion to the Lord. A lifetime of singleness reflects a commitment to God.
3. A lifetime of faithfulness reflects the compassion of God (vv. 8-16).
It is unfortunate that so many Christians miss the power of what Paul describes here. He encourages those who are married to stay married, and even specifically says that a believer who is married to a nonbeliever should remain married, because of the positive influence the believer may have on his or her spouse.
Paul could have been writing to a variety of situations that existed then and now. Perhaps there were some situations where believers had married nonbelievers. In other cases, perhaps two nonbelievers were married, and then one of the two came to faith in Christ. And there may have been still other situations where two believers married, and but later one of the two decided to abandon the faith.
From the way Paul answers their questions, it seems they were asking about reasons they thought might warrant their leaving their spouses. For example, in light of present difficulties (7.26), perhaps they wondered if they should no longer consider themselves married—except with respect to being "married to Christ." But Paul says they should consider their fidelity to their spouses in the highest regard. As long as the nonbeliever desires to remain married, he says, then the believing spouse should not pursue divorce, because he or she might be able to point the nonbelieving spouse to God. The bond of marriage is extremely important, and Paul is careful to remind his readers about the significance of faithfulness in that bond. In the letter to the Romans, look how he uses marriage to illustrate the principle of being "bound."
Don't you realize, brothers—for I am speaking to people who know the Law—that the Law can press its claims over a person only as long as he is alive? For a married woman is bound by the Law to her husband while he is living, but if her husband dies, she is released from the Law concerning her husband. So while her husband is living, she will be called an adulterer if she lives with another man. But if her husband dies, she is free from this Law, so that she is not an adulterer if she marries another man.
Romans 7.1-3 (ISV)
Faithfulness to one's nonbelieving spouse can serve as a huge—and perhaps primary—influence on that spouse to help keep them from further sin, and to help point them to the grace and compassion of the Savior. A lifetime of faithfulness reflects the compassion of God.
Ultimately, marriage was instituted and designed to show us, as we mentioned in the previous post, God's loving, permanent relationship with His chosen ones—those who would place their faith and trust in Him. To put it another way, marriage shows us the gospel. Notice this wonderful principle in the letter to the Ephesians:
…For we are parts of his body—of his flesh and of his bones. “That’s why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a great secret, but I am talking about Christ and the church. But each individual man among you must love his wife as he loves himself, and a wife must respect her husband.
Ephesians 5.30-33 (ISV)
Although it's never easy, a lifetime of devotion and faithfulness, whether in marriage or singleness, reflects the glory of God to a world that is watching.
11 comments:
I'm sorry...but that title makes me think of Smokey Robinson instead of Paul the Apostle.
What was Paul's surname anyway? Did they even have them back then? Or was it Paul Ben-[dad's name]?
Aww, come on, now...I didn't call it: I Second That Emotion.
:)
I have a question. Concerning 1 Cor. 7 you wrote, "[Paul] says that abstaining from sex is good, but not so simple (vv. 1-2)..."
My translation says "it is good not to marry a woman". The actual greek word (haptomai) can be translated:
1) to fasten one's self to, adhere to, cling to
a) to touch
b) of carnal intercourse with a women or cohabitation
c) of levitical practice of having no fellowship with heathen practices. Things not to be touched appear to be both women and certain kinds of food, so celibacy and abstinence of certain kinds of food and drink are recommended.
d) to touch, assail anyone
How can you be sure that the correct translation is "to have sex with" in that verse? Or are you not sure? Perhaps "to marry" is the correct translation (as in "cling to" in the bonds of marriage... leave your father and mother and "cling to" your wife).
I'm wondering because lately I've been studying whether or not sex before marriage is necessarily a sin. Let me make clear that I am just studying this topic, I haven't taken one position or another. I was raised very conservative (all alcohol is sinful, kissing a girl is a sin, etc.) and have since learned that some of the things I was taught are not biblical... and in fact are destructive if followed. So now I'm questioning everything afresh.
If it is not a sin to have sex before marriage, then your translation does damage to the actual intent of Paul... he may have been referring to marriage, not necessarily just sex. And marriage is much more then sex, of course.
I see many places in the Scriptures that refer to certain sex as a sin. Homosexuality, Prostitution, Adultery, Sex with Animals, etc. Never once do I see sex before marriage called a sin (between two virgins). If it were as terrible as the modern Church makes it out to be, then you would think it would be all throughout the Scriptures, as the other sexual sins I've mentioned are. Certainly I don't see that in the New Testament. In the Old Testament I see where it commands virgins who are "caught" having sex to become married. But considering the punishment for things like adultery and such was death... that doesn't seem like much of a punishment at all.
And what's more, that is the old testament. We are no longer under the Law, for we have no problems wearing clothes made of differing fibers, eating "unclean food", and doing all sorts of other formerly "forbidden" things. The commands against adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, etc. are all repeated in the New Testaement. I don't see anything in the New Testament about two people who are unwed having intercourse (especially in the course of a courtship/dating experience).
Basically, I'm wondering where in the New Testament it is taught that two unwed people having sex is a sin. I understand that marriage is the goal of dating and sex, but I'm not sure where it is taught that if two people had sex while they were dating, that is a sin. Again, .... I'm investigating this as far as New Testament teaching only is concerned. Perhaps you can lend some insight.
Anonymous, I appreciate your reading the article and posting honest questions. I am happy to respond and explain, but currently I am away visiting family, and your questions deserve thoughtful answers. (I can think of three or four short answers that won't suffice, because they might prompt immediate further questions.)
I plan to try to answer your questions as best I can soon, so you can subscribe to the comments on this post or check again later.
Thanks.
If I may, I'd like to lend my two cents on premarital sex.
Intercourse is the most intimate act two people can share together. Both people are totally exposed to one another - physically and emotionally. It takes a high level of trust to make one's self so vulnerable to another, that the only true way it can work is within the bounds of marriage, where the two people love one another more than they love themselves, and they're not doing it just to get off, but to express their deep and intimate mutual love. Love encompasses more than just a hormonal reaction - it's having known the person, knowing their quirks, their strengths, their weaknesses; having seen them on good days and bad days and loving them when they're most unlovable. Plus, the idea is to get a child out of it eventually, and the best way for a child to be raised is with two parents who love one another and who love the child.
Ultimately, it's a reflection of the intimacy we share with God as believers. After all, there is not an inch, not an atom or thought of our beings which are not familiar to God. The problem is, we don't know him, and that's what we spend our lives doing - getting to know him, and consequently, loving him more. When one reaches newer and deeper understandings of God's love, the result is a feeling that's better than the feeling one gets from sex. I can't speak to the experience of doing it with a wife, but I know what I'm talking about otherwise.
For the chapter and verse, I'll wait for Mike to make his response, should he deem this comment as appropriate for posting.
Clifford,
Basically my predicament is similar to how I was, for instance, taught growing up that Jesus made grape juice, not wine as we understand it. I was essentially taught (by the president of the Southern Baptist Convention at the time) that wine in the Bible was grape juice (whenever a good person drank it) and was the Devil's alcohol (whenever a bad person drank it).
Then, as I got older, I began to try to think outside of the tradition I was raised in. Realizing that man-made traditions can pop up in any denomination... I made an effort to focus on the Scripture alone. The Scriptures are very, very clear on certain things. I came to realize that the Bible would probably be clear if there was such a distinction between "good wine" and "bad wine". But there is never that moral distinction between any "types" of wine. We are instructed not to become addicted to it and not to become drunk on it (which Proverbs describes as being like on a ship on the high seas, unable to walk straight). However, those are instructions you would expect concerning wine that *does* have alcohol in it. Paul would never say, "Don't become addicted to Welch’s grape juice, and don't get drunk on it."
The Bible praises wine, and warns against its abuse. So there is blessing to come from wine, but also curses if you abuse it. I was deprived of the blessings of wine for much of my life because of a legalistic, traditional (and un-biblical) prohibition against wine. The President of the SBC had good intentions, I'm sure (to make sure no one abuses wine), but the Scriptures simply don't demand prohibition... they recognize blessings in addition to recommending moderation and/or restraint.
I am wondering if I was taught similarly concerning pre-marital sex. As I read the Bible... I would think it would make it clear what types of sex are wrong. And as I've said above, I just don't really see a clear warning about sex before marriage (not nearly as clear as adultery, orgies, homosexuality, etc.). Given how common sex before marriage has been throughout time, you would think you would see that all over the place. We hear about the sinfulness of "pre-marital sex" in our churches every month if not every week, but I don't see that word appearing in the New Testament even once. "Fornication" is said to be a sin by the Scriptures... but why should I believe the person who tells me that the word "fornication" refers to pre-marital sex? (Especially when it is the same person who told me I'm sinning if I have a glass of wine with a friend at dinner!) Essentially "fornication" is defined as "sexual sin" or "sinful sex" in the Greek dictionary. So many things are made clear to be sexual sins in the New Testament (orgies, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.). All those sins have there own word... but there is no word for "pre-marital sex". I find that odd.
I understand the logic that, "Love encompasses more than just a hormonal reaction." But sex is so much more then just a hormonal reaction. Sex can be debased and perverted to where people just try to "get off". But even outside marriage, in the confines of a monogamous dating relationship which has, as its goal, to find out if the couple is compatible for marriage, sex can be a very loving, intimate act. Pre-marital sex is not always just "hormonal".
Sex is such a huge part of marriage. We date to find out if we are compatible for marriage... we spend time together, talk, eat, play, pray, worship, etc... but we are told to never have sex. If you take Joshua Harris' advice we shouldn't even kiss! Isn't that an as important (if not more important) part of marriage then playing, talking, etc? There *are* people who don't necessarily get along well as marriage partners (they just aren't attracted to the other persons talking habits, or recreational habits, or spirituality, etc.). In my experience (and from talking to others) there are also people who don't necessarily get along well sexually either. They may not like how the other person kisses, or other sexually intimate behaviors. The church I grew up in would have you find that out *after* marrying the person. Perhaps God's word has another plan.
I'm not saying people should just have sex to decide if they should marry each other... but perhaps couples should be more open to sexual experimentation and types of sexual intimacy (and yes, perhaps even responsible intercourse) as part of the courting process. I haven't decided if this is what I believe yet... but I am honestly and diligently trying to search the Scriptures to find out.
There are as many logical reasons for why pre-marital sex is a good idea as there are for why it is a bad idea. I can honestly understand the points coming from both sides of the issue. But what I’m looking for are the biblical reasons... chapters, verses, that sort of thing.
Anonymous, I apologize it took a few days to be able to respond.
I have an excellent article that I want to point you to, but first let me make some statements. I am assuming that you are asking this as an honest question, so I wanted to give thoughtful, honest answers.
First, I am certain that I am not, as you put it, doing “damage to the actual intent of Paul.” I think you have already answered your own question about the translation of verse one. The way you’re trying to wring meaning out of haptomai shows that it’s a real stretch to exclude premarital sex from discussions about sexual immorality. In fact, your definition 1(b) “of carnal intercourse with a woman or cohabitation” includes premarital sex and shows automatically that your case might be an erroneous one. More importantly, 1 Corinthians 7 is best understood as Paul answering their (the Corinthians’) statement, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Paul then launches into descriptions of singleness and marriage, and in every case, he refers to sex happening within marriage. In other words, in biblical times (as should be in ours), having a sexual relationship automatically assumes marriage. I think the article linked below will further illustrate this, but I also think you already answered your question: The fact that some translations go ahead and translate it as “to marry” means that your Bible’s translators also considered haptomai to mean not merely touching, but sexual intimacy, and in light of the context of the remainder of the chapter, they then translate that word in verse one as “to marry.” They, too, understand the intent that: sexual intimacy = marriage. So, I would encourage you to read the verse you mention in the context of what follows it.
Second, not ironically, the immediate preceding paragraph (1 Corinthians 6.12-20) precisely answers your question. The main point of that section is to explain that physical activities are not merely physical—they are also spiritual, and specifically Paul says that sexual relationships are not merely physical. There is a deeply spiritual element to sexual activity, at least for the follower of Christ, whose “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.” So, again, I would encourage you to read these things in the context of what precedes them.
Thirdly, I want to gently say that I believe it is a misunderstanding of the Scriptures for someone to look for something specific in the NT to compare it to the OT (or vice versa) and then decide if he or she wants to follow it. Respectfully let me say that if that is the way one reads the Scriptures, he or she is missing the point of the Bible. Jesus even said He did not come to abolish the law and the prophets (the OT), but to fulfill them (Matthew 5.17). Paul says that the law (OT) is good if one uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1.8ff). So, to make distinctions between the two based on the prohibitions they contain is to miss the point. The Bible has to be read in context. The Bible is a unified message in that points to the precious grace offered to us in Christ, by His taking our place of punishment, so that we might have life with God because of His great love and sacrifice. Even the rules, laws and prohibitions of the OT ultimately point to this, so if that is confusing to you, I would be glad to point you to some further resources that will help in explaining how to get the most out of reading and studying the Scriptures.
Finally, here is the article that answers your specific question, including chapters, verses, etc., about premarital sex:
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001334.cfm
I sincerely hope these things help in your quest to find the answers. Praying for you! :)
Oops--I meant to say above that I have found an excellent article.
Sorry about that. I did not write the article. :)
Thank you, Mr. Williams. I'm am very grateful you took the time to respond, so there is no need to apologize. Also, yes, you assumed correctly that I asked an honest question. I truly am struggling to come to the Godly, Biblical answer to this question. I am not trying to push an agenda or anything like that.
Thank you for the article you provided. It says, of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, "These might be the clearest disapproval of sex for singles in Scripture." I guess that is what is bothering me. In the Bible, the clearest verse for us to look to for specific instructions concerning pre-marital sex is one relatively obscure verse from the Old Testament... and one that doesn't even prescribe a "punishment", per se, at that. I'm not trying to "dis-unify" or "abolish" the Old Testament; I'm just stating a fact: We follow some, but not all, of the Old Testament. I understand all of the Bible is useful and ultimately points to the grace and love of Christ (and to our salvation by grace through faith), yet at the same time I do recognize we follow some of the rules stated in the Old Testament, not all of them.
That being said, you make a very relevant point that, "in every case, (Paul) refers to sex happening within marriage... having a sexual relationship automatically assumes marriage." It just irks me that, if someone asked me, "Where in the New Testament does it say that I can't have sex with the girl I'm courting?" I can't give them a verse like I can for homosexuality, adultery, etc. The most I can say is that the New Testament assumes sex happens in marriage. But that doesn't seem like much for me to stand on.
I mean, it was assumed we would get from point A to point B either walking, on a boat, or on an animal. However, that does not mean that I can't fly in an airplane. It was assumed that regular, marital sex produced children. However, that does not mean my wife and I cannot use the birth control pill. Does that make sense? I just feel like I'm standing on a wobbly foundation if the entire reason I tell people pre-marital sex is a sin is because the New Testament "assumes" sex happens in marriage. One could say to me, "Just like we have airplanes now, we also have birth control that allows relatively safe and 'responsible' sex." As a person who was raised believing pre-marital sex is a sin, that argument seems weak. But on the other hand, if I put myself in the shoes of someone who has no background in church at all and who is just looking for a verse before he stops having sex with his girlfriend... that argument actually makes some sense.
So again, I'm not trying to push an agenda. I'd just like to feel more comfortable with this topic if I'm ever asked about it, along the lines of the "always be prepared to give an answer" thing (1 Peter 3:15). As it is, I feel as if I'm on fairly wobbly ground.
I've been praying and thinking about this for a while, since our conversation, Mike. I would like to add one more thing to what I said to you. The "assumptions" I mentioned (cars v walking, etc.) are not as applicable as, say, singing. What I mean is this: if you read the New Testament, it is always assumed that singing is in church, with believers, spiritual songs, songs of praise, etc. But from that we shouldn't assume singing is not to be done outside of that context, or is somehow sinful outside of that context.
Pre-marital sex is no different. In every case of pre-marital sex in the Bible there is no punishment for the sexual act. The only 'penalty' is the compensation to the father for the woman's change in status. Compare that to things like adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, etc. Severe punishments are proscribed for such acts.
I have found no Biblical reason to translate "Porneia" to mean 'sex between singles.' If the greatest answer a man of your expansive biblical and theological education can give me is that the Bible "assumes marriage" when it discusses sex, I think that says a lot. The Bible assumes a lot of things that don't imply sinfulness outside of the assumption.
Please understand I'm not arguing for orgies (another sexual act clearly condemned in the New Testament), sleeping around all the time, etc. The entire purpose of sex and dating *is* marriage. But the fact is, Christian couples who are dating should feel free to be intimate with each other before marriage. I'm not necessarily even talking about intercourse per se, but even if that was responsibly included there should be no guilt or shame. Sex is an enormously important part of a marriage (though by no means the only important part), and it would just seem wise that some intimacy and "compatibility testing" should be included in the Christian dating relationship... just like all the other parts of the relationship.
I've been a Christan for a long time, much longer then I've attended Providence, and as I've matured in my faith I've realized that the ultra-conservative, Southern Baptist party line theology I bought into as a child has not always been correct, historically speaking. Much of the time it is correct, but sometimes it has not been. I'm sure you know this.
The sinfulness of premarital sex (and in many cases even premarital sexual intimacy not including actual intercourse) is greatly emphasized as sinful in the modern conservative Christian church. And I have found no comparable biblical emphasis. It seems to be an assumption and a tradition that has worked its way into the fabric of many modern churches, yet with no clear biblical basis.
Anonymous, thanks for finally sharing with me that you know me and that you attend Providence. I look forward to responding, but have just been too busy for the blog these days. You can probably tell by my frequency of posts. :)
I will respond as soon as I am able, but it would be great to be able to actually speak to each other, or at least email each other. Feel free to contact me at mikewilliams333 AT hotmail DOT com (weird format so that spambots don't pick it up).
Hope to respond to you soon! Happy Thanksgiving!
Post a Comment