BIG IDEA:
BOTH CELIBACY AND MARRIAGE ARE LEGITIMATE GIFTS OF GOD, BUT A CONSISTENT PATTERN OF SEXUAL INTIMACY IN MARRIAGE MUST BE MAINTAINED TO PROTECT AGAINST IMMORALITY AND TO EXPRESS MUTUAL SUBMISSION
INTRODUCTION:
Temptation to Immorality is all around us. Apparently, this was true for the Corinthians back in Paul’s day just as it is true for us today. After the hormones kick in for a young man, the clock starts ticking and the intensity of the temptation and need for self-control increase dramatically. Some individuals have been granted the gift of celibacy from God. They still need to exercise self-control. But marriage is equally a gift and provides the God-ordained context for sexual relationships – between one man and one woman in a lifelong covenant union. But even that does not make one immune from sexual temptation. There still must be that growth in intimacy and the sharing of one’s life with one’s partner along with the discipline of self-control.
How do you know whether you have the gift of celibacy (or the calling to stay single and minister from that standpoint)? Even if you have not been married for twenty years, do you ever come to that point of conviction where you have confidence that God desires for you to remain single your entire life? “Each man has his own gift from God.” (I am thankful for my gift!)
Robert Gundry: It appears that just as sexual promiscuity characterized some Christians in Corinth, sexual abstinence characterized others. Where promiscuity abounds, reactive abstinence often follows. Abstinence in the Corinthian church precluded marriage for some and prevented sexual intercourse within marriage for others. So the Corinthians’ letter to Paul brought up the topic of sexual abstinence.
Gordon Fee: This first section is basically a response to some who have argued for cessation of sexual relations within marriage on the basis of their slogan: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” At least three such situations are addressed:
(1) Paul begins (vv. 2–7) by forbidding the practice of depriving a marriage partner (probably husbands) of sexual relations (which may explain why some of the latter are going to the prostitutes [6:12–20]);
(2) later (vv. 10–11) he forbids those who would eliminate the problem of sexual relations altogether by separating from a believing spouse; and
(3) at the end (vv. 12–16) he speaks to the “rest,” those who have an unbelieving spouse, and makes basically the same ruling: the Christian should not initiate a divorce.
David Garland: To understand Paul’s argument, it is important to start with the recognition that he addresses specific difficulties that have developed in Corinth and is not presenting a marriage manual or his systematic thoughts on marriage. Osiek and Balch (1997: 104) correctly protest that Paul “was not a Stoic philosopher or a Christian theologian writing generally about marriage in order to shore up Greco-Roman or American urban society. We have instead his pastoral argument against some particular Corinthian Christian ascetics’ rejection of their sexuality.” He is not antimarriage, nor does he disparage sexuality. He knows marriage to be a divine institution in which the two become one flesh. As marriage was applied in the OT as an image for the relationship between God and Israel (Isa. 50:1; 54:6–7; Jer. 2:1–2), so Paul uses it as an image for the relationship between Christ and the church (Eph. 5:21–33). In this letter, he does not begrudge that Cephas, the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord have wives and travel with them on their mission sojourns (9:5). He too could exercise that right. In 11:7–9, he assumes that marriage is normative. Paul does not devalue marriage only as a venereal safety valve for incontinent, noncharismatic people, providing them a lawful outlet for expressing their sexual urges. Instead, he relativizes its significance “in the face of the nearness of the coming kingdom and the new estimation of the earthly life coupled with it” (Ridderbos 1975: 312; cf. 7:7, 26, 32, 40).
Some fault Paul for saying nothing here about love between husbands and wives or the “richness of family human experience in marriage and family life” (Bornkamm 1971: 207–8). Such a discussion is omitted because it is not at issue. In the opening paragraphs of this chapter, Paul is preoccupied with the sexual part of marriage because that is the problem in Corinth (Furnish 1985: 46). His statement that those who marry commit no sin (7:28) suggests that others were saying quite the opposite. This view is confirmed if the opening statement in 7:1 is not Paul’s own declaration about sexuality but a citation of a Corinthian position. Paul’s personal choice of celibacy is clear and would have been well known to the Corinthians. He lives out his calling in Christ as one who is celibate and thinks that it is a preferable but not superior calling (7:7, 26–28). He does not seek to make everyone conform to his own personal gifts and insists that the physical side of marriage not be curtailed by misguided spirituality (7:2–5). Celibacy is the best course only for those who have the gift of celibacy (7:8). It is not for every Christian, but the requirement of sexual purity is. Those who attempt to become celibate for utopian reasons only open the door of temptation to fornication. Paul affirms that the sexual relationship, which is integral to marriage, is fully compatible with the Christian life.
I. (:1) SHOULD SEXUAL INTIMACY BE WITHHELD IN MARRIAGE?
A. Context = Corinthians Raising Some Key Questions
“Now concerning the things about which you wrote”
Maybe some were advocating celibacy on much too widespread a basis; taking a legalistic approach – that given the seriousness of sexual immorality, let’s just rule sex as taboo and move on …
Apparently they were not too squeamish to put this question in writing; they were very frank about the need to have clarity regarding sexual issues.
Gordon Fee: With the words “Now for the matters you wrote about,” Paul moves on to the second part of the letter, his response to the letter from Corinth. . . Rather than a friendly exchange, in which the new believers in Corinth are asking spiritual advice of their mentor in the Lord, their letter was much more likely a response to Paul’s previous letter mentioned earlier (5:9), in which they were taking exception to his position on point after point. In light of their own theology of “S/spirit,” with heavy emphasis on “wisdom” and “knowledge,” they apparently have answered Paul with a kind of “Why can’t we?” attitude, in which they are looking for his response.
Ray Stedman: You will remember from the first part of this letter that there were three young men who had come from the church in Corinth to Ephesus, where Paul was, bringing with them a report on the conditions of the church. (Their names, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, are given to us in the last chapter of this letter.) They also brought with them a letter from the church, asking the apostle certain questions.
B. Characterization of Celibacy as a Good Thing – But within Marriage?
“It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
Three views:
1) Traditional View –
Good to remain celibate if possible and not marry unless that would create undue sexual tension leading to temptation.
2) New Scholarly Consensus – [this is the view I am taking]
Paul is responding to the perspective of the super-spiritual Corinthians that somehow it is good to refrain from sexual relations even within the marriage context.
3) Newer Alternative Perspective —
Paul is responding to the perspective of the super-spiritual Corinthians that certain kinds of sexual activity should be abstained from – specifically sex motivated by pleasure or passion rather than for the sole purpose of procreation.
Anthony Thiselton: What kind of people in Corinth would advocate total abstinence from sexual union, either as a constraint upon those already married (especially if we translate the Greek gynē as wife rather than woman) or as advice not to marry at all? We may recall the point of the argument about “the body” in 6:12-16. Some tried to argue that “spirituality” had nothing to do with bodily actions, but was an inner, private state of mind or “knowledge” (gnōsis). Such “gnostics” either disdained the body as a domain of no consequence or disdained it as unworthy of concern for “spiritual” people. The former led to license; the latter to ascetic self-denial. Paul utterly rejects both as unchristian. “The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” (6:19) and is “for the Lord” (6:13). Some in Corinth, however, insisted that “the spiritual” should avoid sex.
David Garland: The pattern of citing a catchphrase and then immediately rebutting it appears in 6:12–13; 8:1–4; and 10:23. Paul’s strategy in this chapter, as in chapter 8, seems to be to start his argument by quoting a Corinthian position “as if he agrees with it” and then to add “strong qualifications to its use” (Yarbrough 1985: 93). He does not want to reject celibacy out of hand, since he considers remaining single the better course for unmarried Christians (7:8–9, 27, 32–35, 40). But he clarifies that it is not the only viable option for the Christian. He cites the Corinthian position only to correct its dangerous misapplication. If celibacy is chosen for the wrong reasons by those with the wrong capabilities, the results can be disastrous. For those already married, however, celibacy is not an option. It recklessly opens the door to Satan, making one vulnerable to the wanton ways of their city, and is utterly unfair to the spouse.
Gordon Fee: Here is another expression of their “spirituality” with its negative attitude toward the material world and the body (see on 6:13; cf. 15:12). In such a case, their position would have gone something like: “Since you yourself are unmarried and are not actively seeking marriage, and since you have denounced porneia in your letter to us, is it not so that one is better off not to have sexual intercourse at all? After all, in the new age which we have already entered by the Spirit, there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. Why should we not ‘be as the angels’ now? Besides, since the body counts for nothing, if some wish to fulfill physical needs, there are always the prostitutes.”
Paul Gardner: [Explaining Position #2] Some Corinthians seem to espouse a dualism that regards abstinence from sexual intercourse (in marriage) as of spiritual value. Paul denies this. “To touch” (ἅπτεσθαι) a woman refers to having sexual relations with her. The verb is used in this way in Ruth 2:9 (LXX) where Boaz orders the young men not to sexually molest Ruth as she gleans, and in Proverbs 6:29 (LXX), which speaks against adultery with a neighbor’s wife.
Mark Taylor: (Explaining Position #3) In a world where there was significant debate about whether pleasure and passion were acceptable motivations for sexual relations, or whether sexual relations should be engaged in solely for the purposes of procreation, it is quite remarkable that this particular euphemism is consistently used for sexual relations motivated by pleasure or passion rather than procreation (or reason or marital friendship, which would also have been acceptable motivations for some Stoics).” Ciampa and Rosner suggest that the preferable translation of 7:1b would be, “It is good for a man not to use a woman for sexual gratification,” or “It is good for a man not to have sex with a woman for the sake of pleasure.” Paul would agree that certain kinds of sexual activity should be avoided, thus his limited agreement with their statement. He refutes, however, the view that married couples should avoid sex motivated by pleasure or passion, something idealized in the Scriptures in the Song of Solomon. Thus, in 7:2, Paul emphasizes both the need to avoid immorality and to meet the normal, appropriate needs of one’s spouse.
II. (:2) SEXUAL RELATIONS WITHIN THE MARRIAGE CONTEXT ARE GOD’S PROVISION FOR AVOIDANCE OF IMMORALITY
A. Context = Pervasive Pressure of the Temptation to Immorality
“But because of immoralities”
John MacArthur: Marriage cannot be reduced simply to being God’s escape valve for the sex drive. Paul does not suggest that Christians go out and find another Christian to marry only to keep from getting into moral sin. He had a much higher view of marriage than that (see Eph. 5:22-23). His purpose here is to stress the reality of the sexual temptations of singleness and to acknowledge that they have a legitimate outlet in marriage.
David Garland: He is not offering reasons why people should marry but arguments why sexual relations in marriage are binding on spouses and why sexual abstinence in marriage is both impractical and inappropriate. . .
“Let each one have his own wife or her own husband” does not advise everyone to marry. The verb “to have” is used in 7:12, 13, 29 to refer to the state of being married, but that meaning does not apply here (contra Weiss 1910: 171; Robertson and Plummer 1914: 133; Yarbrough 1985: 97; Caragounis 1996: 547–48; Oster 1995: 161). Otherwise, Paul would contradict himself in 7:8–9 when he asserts that celibacy is a workable ideal for those who feel no compulsion to marry (cf. 7:38). The danger he wants to preempt is immorality, and he is fully aware that simply urging people to get married will not solve the problem of sexual sins. Married persons can violate their marriage (6:9). The state of marriage alone is not enough to guard against outbreaks of immorality.
The verb “to have” was also used as a euphemism for having sexual intercourse (see the LXX of Exod. 2:1–2; Deut. 28:30; Isa. 13:16; see also Matt. 14:4; Mark 6:18; 12:33; John 4:18). The immediate context, with the reminders about what is owed in marriage, the assertion that husbands and wives have authority over one another’s bodies, and the command not to deprive one another, makes clear that the phrase “let each one have his own wife or her own husband” refers to sexual relations within marriage, not getting married. Paul later discusses marriage for those who are single (7:8–10, 25–40). Here, he enjoins couples to fulfill their marital obligations to one another to avoid any danger that partners with celibacy suddenly thrust upon them might seek to satisfy their sexual urges in illicit ways. . .
Although Paul may seem to imply in this verse that the only value of conjugal love is that it averts fornication, we must remember that he is reacting to a particular context in which persons are attempting to become asexual. He is not writing a theology of marriage or of sexuality. Some Corinthians may think that by renouncing worldly pleasures they will be able to rise to new spiritual heights. Paul demurs. He sees them entering territory filled with snares and traps that will only lead to their moral downfall.
B. Characterization of Monogamous Marriage as a Good Thing = God’s Provision
“each man is to have his own wife,
and each woman is to have her own husband.”
Interesting TV interview this past week – reporter embedded in polygamous Mormon community in Arizona. He interviewed all segments of that community. Very disturbing to see how the truth can be twisted and then the biblical roles of husband and wife impugned as a result.
This verse clearly spells out a one-to-one relationship; and that is one husband to one wife; no allowance for same sex unions; no allowance for masturbation or any other sexual perversions.
Wayne Mack: Sexual relations within marriage are holy and good (Heb. 13:4). God encourages sexual relations and warns against the temptations that may arise from deprivation or cessation. . . Sexual relationships are equal and reciprocal.
(principles quoted from Harry H. McGee, M.D., in the booklet, “The Scriptures, Sex and Satisfaction” – quoted by Mack in Strengthening Your Marriage)
Gordon Fee: When the clauses are taken at face value, however, giving all the words their normal usage, then Paul is saying No to their slogan as far as married partners are concerned. Thus he means: “Let each man who is already married continue in relations with his own wife, and each wife likewise.” And that means a full conjugal life, which is what Paul will now go on to argue in detail. Even though not specifically enunciated here, this is the first in a series of admonitions on “Stay as you are.”
III. (:3-5) THE CONSISTENT PATTERN OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE MARRIAGE UNION MUST BE MAINTAINED
A. (:3-4) Sexual Relations in Marriage Involve Mutual Obligations and Rights
- (:3) Both Spouses Have an Obligation to Sexually Satisfy One Another
“The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife,
and likewise also the wife to her husband.”
Robert Gundry: The obligation to give his wife sexual satisfaction frames her similar obligation; and another “likewise also” points up the equality of obligation over against a culture of male-domination.
Gordon Fee: The language of obligation, literally “the payment of what is due,” implies that married couples are indebted to one another sexually. Such language has often been found offensive, both by the ascetic (who sees abstinence as a higher good) and the “liberated” person (who sees “obligation” as a demeaning way to speak of such a relationship). This usage, however, is to be explained in light of what follows immediately, where some are in fact depriving their spouses of sexual relations. Although not primarily a duty, there are times when the duty aspect needs to be heard for the sake of the marriage. And Paul’s emphasis, it must be noted, is not on “You owe me,” but on “I owe you.”
- (:4) Both Spouses Have a Right Over Each Other’s Body
“The wife does not have authority over her own body,
but the husband does and likewise also the husband
does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”
Wayne Mack: Pleasure in sexual relations (like pleasure in eating or in the performance of other bodily functions) is not forbidden but rather assumed when Paul writes that the bodies of both parties belong to one another (cf. also Prov 5:18-19 and Song of Solomon). . .
Sexual pleasure is to be regulated by the key principle that one’s sexuality does not exist for himself or for his own pleasure, but for his partner. . . Every self-oriented manifestation of sex is sinful and lustful rather than holy and loving. Homosexuality and masturbation thereby are condemned along with other self-oriented activities within marriage. In sex as in every other aspect of life, it is “more blessed to give than to receive.” The greatest pleasure comes from satisfying one’s spouse. . .
The principle of mutual satisfaction means that each party is to provide the sexual enjoyment which is “due” his or her spouse whenever needed. But, of course, other biblical principles (e.g., the principle of moderation), and the principle that one never seeks to satisfy himself but his partner in marriage always regulates the frequency in such a way that no one ever makes unreasonable demands upon another. Requests for sexual satisfaction may never be governed by an idolatrous lust, but neither may such regulation be used as an excuse for failing to sense and satisfy a partner’s genuine need.
David Garland: One can extrapolate from this that Paul believes that love should govern the marriage relationship and that spouses should not treat one another as objects for sexual self-gratification. In marriage, one gives up complete self-determination and must seek to please the partner. The sexual relationship in particular requires mutual sensitivity, loyalty, care, and tenderness.
David Prior: The Corinthians had grown accustomed to asserting their rights with such tenacity that they were constantly parading their sense of being defrauded in the public courts. To have Paul talk to them bluntly about not defrauding their marriage partners about conjugal rights must have really cut them down to size, or, to use a metaphor more apt for Corinthians, pricked the balloon of their arrogance.
B. (:5) Depriving Your Partner of Sexual Relations Only Proper in Special Circumstances
“Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may
devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not
tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
Wayne Mack: Sexual relations are to be regular and continuous. No exact number of times per week is advised, but the principle that both parties are to provide such adequate satisfaction that both “burning” (unfulfilled sexual desire) and the temptation to find satisfaction elsewhere are avoided. . .
There is to be no sexual bargaining (“I’ll not have relations unless you . . .”) Neither party has the right to make such bargains.
Bob Deffinbaugh: Unfortunately, I have known of situations in which “prayer” was the excuse of one mate for avoiding sex with the other. Who can be more pious than one who gives up sex for prayer? And who can be so unspiritual as to criticize anyone for neglecting their sex life to enhance their prayer life? It is the ultimate spiritual “lion in the road” (to use an expression from the Book of Proverbs). A “lion in the road” is a compelling reason (excuse) for avoiding what one really doesn’t want to do. If the truth were known, a healthy sexual relationship between a man and his wife may facilitate a richer prayer life. I say this on the basis of Peter’s words in 1 Peter 3:7 “You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” Surely “living with one’s wife in an understanding way” includes the sexual relationship. A sexually frustrated and irritated mate is not a good prayer partner.
David Garland: Prayer and married sexual relations are not mutually exclusive, just as prayer and eating are not mutually exclusive. For various reasons, one may decide to be abstinent during a time of devoted prayer, just as one may decide to fast during a time of prayer. But neither abstinence nor fasting is a requirement for prayer. Just as occasional fasting does not denigrate eating, occasional abstinence does not denigrate sexuality. If Paul were to give any hint that the sexual relations somehow impair one’s spirituality or diminish one’s ability to pray, he would only play into the hands of those who may have exalted celibacy as “good” or as a means of reaching a higher spiritual plane. They could counter, “If Paul thinks that abstinence might be advantageous for such short-term spiritual inspiration, why would a permanent renunciation of coitus not optimize a deeper walk with God?” He recognizes instead that times arise when one is so overwhelmed by spiritual concern that retreat in prayer is expedient. He would surely agree with 1 Pet. 3:7 that one’s prayers are hindered by mistreatment of a spouse, not by sexual activity with a spouse (cf. m. Ber. 2:5). The spiritual life does not cut a person off from the natural order of creation, and religious devotion is not to become a pretext for withholding sex from one’s spouse.
David Prior: If shared prayer is fundamental to Christian marriage, then Satan will do his worst in undermining it. Any honest survey of the prayer life of Christian couples would establish two common factors: one, that couples often find praying together the most difficult part of their whole relationship; two, that it is the husband particularly who encounters the greater problems in getting down to prayer with his wife. The reasons for this are not obvious, and are complicated at best. Equally, if true giving to each other in sexual intercourse is the essence of a union where God has joined two individuals together, then Satan will do his worst in inhibiting, spoiling, and robbing it of its purity and its fulfilling potential. Satan is always active in a Christian marriage, to quench shared prayer and to reduce the joys of sex to his own, debased, level.
IV. (:6-7) CELIBACY (OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE) REMAINS A GOOD THING FOR THOSE WHOM GOD HAS SO GIFTED
John MacArthur: Paul was very aware of the God-ordained advantages of both singleness and marriage, and was not commanding marriage because of the temptation of singleness. Spirituality is not connected at all to marital status, though marriage is God’s good gift (see 1 Pet 3:7, “the grace of life”).
A. (:6) Marriage Not Commanded
“But this I say by way of concession, not of command.”
B. (:7a) Celibacy = Paul’s Personal Preference
“Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am.”
David Prior: Paul was “the apostle to the Gentiles” and that unique vocation required complete freedom to move unimpeded by interpersonal considerations, let alone responsibilities for a wife and family.
C. (:7b) God’s Calling and Giftedness = the Determining Factor
“However, each man has his own gift from God,
one in this manner, and another in that.”
Gordon Fee: [Refers] to that singular gift of freedom from the desire or need of sexual fulfillment that made it possible for him to live without need for marriage at all.
Therefore, despite personal preference for his own status, Paul recognizes that his celibacy is a charisma (“gracious gift”), not a requirement; and this places the whole question on an entirely different plane. They were urging celibacy for the married, using his situation as part of the reason for it. But Paul says No; celibacy is for the celibate, and as such it is strictly a matter of charisma. Such gifts can neither be reduced to principle, nor can any one of them be required across the board for all, as apparently some were trying to do. . .
In the present context he is both affirming his own celibate (and single) status and denying that those who are already married may also be celibate (vv. 2–6) or “become single” (vv. 10–16). They are to “remain as they are.” But before he addresses this latter item, this reference to his own situation has caused him first of all to reflect on how that affects some others who are “as he is” but without his gift (vv. 8–9).
David Garland: Understanding celibacy as a grace-gift has three implications.
First, celibate existence is not a matter of personal preference, nor is it a meritorious feat of self-mastery for which one can take credit. It comes from “the unattainable grace of God” (Schrage 1995: 72). This idea directly contrasts with Philo’s view (Spec. Laws 1.29 §149) that “the opposite of desire [ἐπιθυμία, epithymia] is continence [ἐγκράτεια, enkrateia], the acquisition of which is a task to be practised and pressed forward by every possible means as the greatest and most perfect of blessings promoting personal and public welfare alike” (see also Spec. Laws 2.32 §195). Paul converts ἐγκράτεια from a virtue, as promoted by moral philosophers, to a charisma bestowed by God (see Conzelmann 1975: 120). The power to control oneself comes from God, not from oneself (so also Wis. 8:21).
Second, Schrage (1995: 73) points out that Paul understood gifts to be given by God for building up the body of Christ. In this case, he believes that the one who is single may be able to give more ardent service to Christ (7:34). If remaining single is driven by selfish concerns—for example, to use it as a yardstick to measure one’s imagined spiritual status or to gain independence from any obligations to a spouse—it no longer can be regarded as a gift.
Third, Paul sets the example for those who may be blessed with a particular gift not to expect everyone else also to show evidence of it. His gift of celibacy is not determinative for others who have differing gifts (P. W. Gooch 1983: 62, 66). He does not want them trapped in a vow that goes against their nature and that they cannot fulfill. Whether celibacy is advisable for those who are now unmarried depends on how they honestly answer this question: How has God formed their nature?