Transcription
Now, this morning, when we were dealing with chapter six, we never did get to six twelve to twenty. Although, in many ways, we did deal with a lot of the things that I would have dealt with there when we talked about what it means to be a free person in Christ. I want to just say a word or two about the real urgency that's in that text, quite apart from the first verse, which is really the only verse that we dealt with. Because it will give us an opportunity to sort of have some, some background and groundwork for what goes on in chapter seven.
Now, in many ways, 6:12-20 is well, one, one scholar, in fact, Barrett, the commentary that I suggested to you, uh, who is really the best commentator on First Corinthians, really thinks that 6:12-20 is the root of the problem. That's how he titles this chapter. In fact, on this section, "The Root of the Problem." He sees the kind of thing that is going on here as absolutely at the very bottom of the kind of mentality that is going on in the church. Now, I'm not so convinced it's the root of the problem, but on the other hand, it's very difficult also to decide where it fits into the argument. In many ways, it would fit better with, with say, chapters eight to ten, where in 10:23, we have this same little thing repeated: "All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful." And furthermore, if my interpretation is correct, that we have here, uh, probably the, the argument on the part of some, uh, for temple prostitution, that is, it's not just fornication, any just any old kind of fornication, but they're actually involved in temple prostitution in the process of their alleged freedom, then it does, it does certainly belong more with chapter eight to ten.
Why it comes in here is the thing that really gives me some reason for, you know, I don't know what it's there for. Just all of a sudden, it appears on the scene. But probably because he's already dealt with the question of incest. The Greek word here, by the way, I keep almost always saying it because it's the, it's the large catch-all word in Greek. It's *porneia*, from which we get "porno," "pornographic," you know, the whole bit. *Porneia*. It's a word that means sexual immorality, but it's the large word. It's the word that covers the whole gamut. It can include incest, adultery, and all, every kind of, uh, of sexual sin as the catch-all word. But most often, it means promiscuity. That is, it doesn't, there's a word for adultery. So if you're going to talk about adultery, they usually use the word adultery rather than *porneia*. Although *porneia* is that, is that word that just means promiscuity, which can also include all kinds of unspecified sexual sins.
Now, what is going on in the church in Corinth is that somebody has set up a real neat syllogism. The argument is really airtight. The problem with the argument lies in the premises. What they have said is that "All things are lawful for me." Now, they have heard Paul very well. That is, that they have heard the gospel and its declaration of freedom. "All things are lawful. We're not under law. Therefore, all things are lawful." And there's a sense in which that's true. Uh, well, that's what we were suggesting this morning. We're, we're free to become slaves to every man. You know, once you live in that kind of context, it's true that all things become lawful. Law is no longer the consideration. But what they've done is they've taken that as their major premise, and then they have set forth a second premise, which says, "Food is meant for the stomach, and the stomach for food." And what they're arguing is that one bodily appetite is pretty much like any other. And since the stomach is meant for the food, this is going to be a long night, and that tennis is going to get to me. Since the stomach was meant for food, and food is meant for the stomach, and God is going to destroy both one and the other, then the argument goes, "Sex is for the body, and the body for sex, because the body doesn't really count. It's destined for destruction."
Now, the problem lies in that last premise: "The body is meant for sex, and sex for the body, and it doesn't really matter. All things being lawful, because the body is destined for destruction." What they have totally misunderstood is the Christian doctrine of the body. And that is, in fact, what is being brought into, into focus in this text. After he deals with their major premise, and you know, you'll notice from here on out that whenever Paul is dealing with their arguments, he always sets out their argument and agrees with it, but he qualifies it. He's not going to fight "All things are lawful for me," but he's going to qualify it. He's going to give it a qualification that's going to put it into perspective. So he says, "All things are lawful for me," but now Paul says, "Not all things are helpful." That is, as we said this morning, the great question isn't whether it's lawful or right. The great question is whether it's good or helpful. "All things are lawful," but that's not the question. The question is, is it helpful? And then he says, "All things are lawful," but, and then the second qualification, "I will not be enslaved to anything."
Now, the worst kind of enslavement is an enslavement to one's own sense of freedom. That is, the person who says, "I am free, therefore I've gotta," is not free at all. He is enslaved to his understanding or sense of freedom. We used to get students like this irregularly at the Christian college that had, that had, uh, certain rules that they had to obey, but they got out of home, you know, and they were away from home. And now at the Christian college, and in the process, they found out that God really wasn't against some things that their parents were against. But the college still had the rules that were against the things. And so, in the process of their maturing and understanding, namely, that God was not against some things that either the college or the parents were against, they had this great urgency. Since they knew that it was, you know, God didn't care, that they had this great urgency to prove their freedom. And once they did that, they demonstrated themselves to not be free at all. Because the truly free person can live above it. He can take it or leave it. That is, the true, truly free person is free not to, as well as free to. But if you're, if you have to, if you have to demonstrate that you're really free, then you're not free at all. Anybody that's got to prove his freedom is simply enslaved to a worse kind of enslavement. So Paul just, you know, calls it. If you've got to prove that you're free in this matter, Paul says, you, you don't understand the nature of freedom at all.
But then he takes up the question of the body. And I'm not going to get into that in great detail, but I want you to notice verses 13 and 14. They don't seem to flow very logically to your thinking and to mine, but I want you to understand that this is, for Paul, a very logical flow of thought. "The body," Paul says, "is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power." Now, the point that Paul makes is that since the body itself is destined for resurrection, it is not an irrelevancy to God at all. And right here, we have the very heart of a Christian understanding of creation that lies at the heart of an awful lot of things that over many years, Christians have sometimes abused.
Now, let me just say very briefly, but say very strongly, that the body is not some unnecessary appendage, some thing that we are, in our spirit, saved, but we have to endure this physical body of ours until it dies, and then we can finally be freed from it. That is not a Christian view at all. As a matter of fact, the biblical view is that God created the material order. Now, it comes out of Roman, I'm sorry, it comes out of Greek pagan philosophy, this kind of dualism that sees matter as somehow less than good, that all of the action is in the spirit, and that God has come to save the spirit, but the body is an irrelevancy. Now, that is simply a pagan point of view. In fact, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is a pagan doctrine and not a Christian one at all. I want you to hear me well: it is not a Christian doctrine, the immortality of the soul. What is Christian is the resurrection of the body, and there's a difference. It isn't that somehow we've been created with an immortal part of us and then a mortal part of us, and the immortal goes on and on and on. It is that we have been created as whole persons, spirit and body, and in that wholeness, there is a part of that that is indeed subject to decay. But we are not persons until we are body and spirit together. We simply don't exist as persons. There is no such thing as a disembodied spirit having meaningfulness as a person in a biblical point of view. The Bible says that God created the material world. He created it. He's responsible for it, and he pronounced it as good. It's not bad, it's good. It is God's creation, and the human body is a part of that good creation of God. Now, because of the fall, it is subject to decay. It is subject to death. But this body is going to be raised, and it's going to be obviously changed and adapted to the new situation, but it's this body that is going to be raised. And I am not a complete person until it is. And therefore, to talk about the immortality of the soul is to talk like a pagan. It isn't until you can talk about the resurrection of the body that you talk about you, you talk like a Christian, because only that brings you into personhood again and gives you meaning as a human being. And that's precisely what God is about: redeeming the whole person.
One of the worst things that the Christian church ever fell into was the business of saving people's souls. The moment we start saving souls, that's exactly what we do. We disembody people, and we forget that they're human beings, and we go after that "quote spiritual part" of them, and then we don't, it doesn't matter if they're hungry, or whether they're, they're hurting. You know, we, we don't care about that because all we care about is to save their souls. Now, I'm here to suggest to you that the biblical point of view is that God has come to make men whole. Wholeness is what God is about, and it's a part of the whole redemptive business that we're about. And when we pass people by and say, "Man, isn't that too bad, the poor chap doesn't have anything to eat, but hey, I want to tell you about Jesus," you might as well forget it. That's not a part of the gospel that Jesus Christ brought into the world. God cares about man, the whole human person, and that includes man as a, as a part of his being, as the physical body.
Now, Paul says, "The body is for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body, and God has raised up the Lord, and he's going to raise us up." And that's precisely why you can't take your body and do any old thing you want with it. That ought to be the thing that causes some of us to think a little bit more carefully about our eating habits, about our rest, about our recreation. I know that sounds terribly unspiritual, but, but it happens to be very biblical. He finally concludes this passage by saying that the body itself is the temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in you, and therefore, "Glorify God in your bodies." And he means the physical body is to be an expression of bringing glory to God. Now, that you can take that where you will. And he, and I understand that. I'm well aware that in this text, he's talking about prostitution, about taking the body and joining it to a harlot. And of course, that's the point. Paul says is that you have already been joined to the Lord, and you can't take that which has already been joined to the Lord, you see, as an eschatological person, and join it to a harlot and make it belong to the old age. Okay? Now, that's as much as I want to say about that text, because we want to go on now to see how that might also help us to understand what's going on in chapter seven.
One further thing we need to say, though, and that is this business about the, uh, church understanding itself as eschatological people. Now, it occurred to me as I was thinking about this, uh, for the, for this afternoon, for this evening's, uh, time, that earlier I had suggested that part of the problem in Corinth is that the people had a sense of over-realized eschatology. Remember that we use that kind of language? Well, you see, the real problem in Corinth is that they really do understand themselves, in a certain sense, as eschatological people. But what they have lost is the tension between the "already" and the "not yet." See? And what side of this have they lost? That's right, they've lost the "not yet." They see everything as "already," and they've lost the sense of the "not yet." And they're no longer living in the tension of the fact that there is yet a future, even though already God has brought in the kingdom, and already we're living as eschatological people. We are not yet finished in terms of what God has begun in our lives. And so, what has happened in Corinth is that they have put their emphasis on the "already" in such a way that they've lost the sense of living in tension. Now, this is going to bring all kinds of heresies to them. It's precisely this that's going to get them involved in chapter seven. Now, this is where, this is where the problems lie: is this business of wiping out the "not yet" in this "already-not yet" eschatological existence. And unless you see that, even they, you see, understand themselves as eschatological people, that they misunderstand the real nature of being eschatological people. And here's where it is, now, in chapter seven.
Now, when we turn to chapter seven, we obviously begin the second part of the letter. Paul says in 7:1, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote." Now, the first section that he takes up in this letter of theirs has to do with matters that are related to marriage, divorce, sexual intercourse, second marriages, singleness, all kinds of things. Now, the passage, the whole chapter, is filled with well-known and notorious difficulties. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that we have Paul's answers without their questions, and that brings us a further problem, because we don't know with, with regard to where their question, how much of this is an answer to their question, and how much of it is, well, "once I started, you know, you know what I mean?" In other words, they might have asked the very first part only, and Paul gives it his answer, and says, you know, "while I'm at it," sort of thing. So we can't tell whether all of this is, in fact, a response to their question, but it's all somehow related.
Secondly, apart from the difficulties, it is interlaced with personal opinion. That's one of the great problems. And Paul says, "I say, not the Lord," and Paul says, "I give my opinion as one who is trustworthy." And we ask, well, now, in terms of inspiration, where does Paul's opinion lie in, in our hearing this text? And we'll deal with that. And then, finally, the real difficulty is that the way the text has been traditionally interpreted, the answer moves all over the place without any clear sequence. That is, here is one of those places where, if, in fact, the traditional interpretation is the correct one, then Paul simply loses track of where he's going. He starts and stops and stutters and starts and stops. He doesn't know where he's going in this whole thing.
Now, I have a different view. The more I stay with the Apostle Paul, and the more I live with him, and he's not my first love in the New Testament, as interesting as that might be to you, but the Gospel of John is. But the more I'm like, I'm with Archbishop Temple, I always come back to John is coming home. But, but Paul is such a marvelous adventure that I love to go there and just sit for a while. And, and in the adventure that I have had over many years now with the Apostle Paul, I have come to the conclusion that this guy's head is put on pretty straight. That is, uh, and by that I mean, not that he, you know, because I'm so smart, he makes sense. What I mean is that we have had a tendency to read him, partly because we've done, you know, done him in with the way we've put verses into his paragraphs and taken him apart and all that kind of thing. But also partly because we, we can't always move with his thinking at every time, because his mind does jump sometimes. But there's a very, once one begins to sit with him, you begin to say, you know, this really has a pretty logical sequence of ideas from Paul's point of view.
Now, I happen to think that that's the real clue to this chapter, and that it really makes sense. So we're going to start with the position that unless one can demonstrate clearly to the contrary, that there is an inner logic to the whole chapter. And secondly, we must take seriously what I think is the real clue, not only to this chapter but to the rest of the, of the letter, and that is the little phrase which occurs here and elsewhere, "now concerning," which in Greek is *peride*, which is translated "now concerning," "now concerning," "now concerning." Now, there is one of those "now concerning"s in this particular chapter that is never taken seriously. And I contend that if we take it seriously, that means that every time Paul says "now concerning," he's taking up a brand new item out of their letter. Now, it might be partly related to the letter, the item before, but he's taking up a brand new item out of their letter. Now, that is the clue to putting chapter seven into perspective.
So, the first thing we're going to do is simply look at the structure of the entire chapter and see what Paul is about. The first clue lies, it seems to me, in this little *peride*, that's "now concerning," that occurs in verse 25. "Now concerning such and such." Now, if we take that seriously, that means that everything from 1 to 24 is another topic, and that from, I'm, 1-20, yeah, verses 1 to 24, and that from verses 25 to 40, we're in a second topic. And what I'm suggesting to you is that the whole chapter is not related directly at all. That is, it is, it is related in the sense that the ideas are related, but that he is dealing with two completely separate topics out of their letter.
Now, the other clue to this lies in the word that occurs in 7:25. Paul says, "Now concerning the *parthenoi*." The *parthenoi*. Now, this word occurs for the first time in verse 25. And the RSV has just done an awful thing. This is one of those places where I contend with translations rather than listen to them. The RSV translates this, "Now concerning the unmarried." Well, it is also used, that same translation, in verse 8: "To the unmarried and to the widows I say." And if you were to read this in an English translation, you'd think Paul was talking to the same people. Verse 8: "To the unmarried." Verse 25: "And now to the unmarried." Well, I got news for you, those are not the same word, and almost certainly don't mean the same thing, even though both situations, the people happen to be in an unmarried state. But that's an irrelevancy at this point.
Now, the word *parthenos* occurs first in verse 25. It is, does not appear at all in verses 1 to, it doesn't come anywhere in that text at any point along the way. But it becomes the crucial term throughout 23, 25-38. It starts in verse 25. Then in verse 28, Paul gives a couple of very interesting alternatives: "But if you singular marry, you do not sin." And he's obviously speaking here to a man, because he turns right around and says, "And if a *parthenos*, this word, now in the, in the feminine singular, if the *parthenos* woman marries, she does not sin." Then in verse 34, we have another interesting set. We have "the unmarried woman" and "the *parthenos*." Now, it's obvious, you see, that verse 25 can't be translated *parthenos*, because here we have the word for unmarried, the same word that occurs in verse 8, and it sets, you know, it's set over against the *parthenos*. Now, that is not over against it, but it's a second member. Now, "the unmarried woman and the *parthenos*." Now, in verses 36 to 38, the word occurs three times. It's the word that is translated "virgin," remember, in the King James Version.
Now, we're going to come back to what all of this means. But the point is that when we come to the *parthenos*, the *parthenoi* in the plural, we come to someone who, at the very least, that is the very least we can say, is that this person has never been married. Now, it's a person who has never been married. Technically, that's what the word virgin means. That *parthenos* means in Greek. It means a young male or female, depending on whether one uses that with the masculine or the feminine, a young male or female who has never had sexual relations, but ordinarily meaning who had never, who has never been married. Now, probably the word means a special case of such for Paul in this instance. That's, that's a good possibility. In any case, that's certainly true in verses 36 to 38.
Now, a second clue that things aren't always the same all through this chapter is that the term "to marry" or "to give in marriage," which also recurs all the way through verses 25 to 40, appears only in verses 8 and 9 in chapters 1 to 24. That's a very important point to make. That is, the word does occur in chapters 1 to 24, but it occurs, as we'll see, in a very special case in that, in that section. But it, it's the word that occurs all the way through, and you know, it's the regularly recurring word to make the word "to marry" or "to give in marriage," "to marry" or "to give in marriage." That's simply not a part of what's going on in 1-24, except in verses 8 to 9. Now, that's also a very important point to make.
Now, the conclusion, just of looking at the structure and some of the words that occur, the conclusion is that 7:1-24 simply is not dealing with marriage in the sense of getting married. It has nothing to do at all with getting married, except verses 8 and 9. Now, the structure of 7:1-24 adds to that conclusion. The difficulties in this section obviously lie in verses 1 to 7, and that's the one we're going to spend some time with in a few moments. But notice verses 8 to 16. They take up a succession of items. Look at verses 8, 10, and 12. "To the unmarried and to the widows I say." Now, if we take the fact that Paul is going to finally address the unmarried, never having been married, in 25, and since the unmarried is the word in the plural, I'm sorry, that's too much tennis, too. Since "unmarried" in this verse 8 is a word that is in the masculine, and then the feminine is given, "the widow," the best possibility of meaning here is that he's referring to a widower, to one who has once been married but is not now married. It's the thing that's going to make sense out of the whole text. In fact, so instead of meaning "the unmarried" general, it is clear that Paul speaks to the unmarried men and to the widows. And unmarried men probably means, and it was the word, the word is, is in Greek, is *agamos*. And, and, uh, you, you know well enough from your use of English and French and German that you can put an "a" in front of something and negate it. You know, we say "agnostic," not knowing. "A," you know, "all millennial," not believing in a millennium. Well, that comes from the Greek word, what we call the alpha primitive, the alpha in front of it means "a," not something. *Gamos* means married. So this is *agamos*, and it's a word that's the general, you know, it's the biggest possible general classification. Can refer to anybody. A *parthenos* is, in fact, *agamos*, no question of that. But so is a widower, and so is a widow. Those who are not now married are *agamos*. They're not married in their present situation. So very likely, Paul is using the term here to refer to the widower.
Now, I'm not going to give my life for that interpretation, but it makes so much sense out of the text that I'm prepared to argue strongly for that. In any case, notice verse 10: "To the married I give charge." And then there's verse 12: "To the rest." Now, if, in fact, verse 8 means the unmarried, and verse 10 speaks to the married, and then verse 12 speaks to the rest, I would like to know what classification that is, please. Well, obviously, it's a special class of married. If you read the text, it's a person who's married to a pagan partner. So that means that verses 10 to 11 refer to people who are both Christians and are married. Okay? Now, put all of this together, and we've got a real nice, cogent argument going on. What Paul is dealing with in chapter 7:1-16 is behavior within marriage. Chapter 7, verses 16 to 24, generalize. And notice that the whole point, we might not get to that passage, and if we don't, I won't be greatly disturbed, although there's some really important things being said in there. But you'll notice that right in the middle of a section when he's talking about behavior within marriage, and then he's going to talk to those who have never been married, in between this, he gives his general principle: "Remain as you are." If you were a slave when you were called, stay that way unless you have an opportunity to get free. But, you know, in other words, "Remain as you are. Don't sweat the program."
Now, the point is, you see, that Paul is thinking as a purely eschatological man. And in this instance, he is thinking eschatologically, not only in terms of the "already-not yet," but with a sense of the "not yet" coming much sooner than you and I, uh, know that it really came about. That is, as an eschatological person, there are things that one does in the present situation which are a part of life in this world that the eschatological person, it's, you know, it can be a matter of indifference to him. So, "However you are when you are called, be there in Christ, and do whatever you're supposed to do there." Now, that becomes the generalized principle, and we've got to hear that as a generalized principle. But, but, but take into consideration that the Apostle Paul is thinking eschatologically when he says that in a context of immediacy or at least soonness.
Now, before we get to that, before we get to that, then he deals, then 1 to 24, with behavior within marriage. That's especially true of verses 1 to 7. And here's where I'm going to blow your minds a little bit, but when I'm through, I'm going to hope to have your minds put back together, and you will see that this is the thing that, not only if it's brand new to you, it's at least what Paul was trying to say, and the point is, it makes so much sense of what Paul was trying to say, you're going to wonder how in the world you ever thought otherwise for so many years. Okay?
Now, here's what's going on. First of all, because of certain terms like, "Let each man have his own wife," "It is good not to touch a woman," and "I wish that all were as I," this particular paragraph has been interpreted to be a general introduction to the question "to marry or not to marry," which then is taken up finally in chapter 7:25. But this interpretation, the traditional one, totally disregards the very heart of the paragraph. In fact, it can't do anything with the very meat of the paragraph, namely verses three, four, and five. It totally disregards what's going on at the very heart of the paragraph and deals only with those little phrases that we've just mentioned: "Let each man have his own wife," "It is good not to form," "for a man not to touch a woman," "I wish that all were as I." And furthermore, it abuses the structure of the whole chapter that we have just noted.
Now, what I would suggest to you is that you read this paragraph through for yourself, and you will see that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the heart of the paragraph that deals in any way, shape, or form with getting married. It doesn't even come close to doing so. Paul says, "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. Likewise, the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another sexually, except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer, but then come back together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control." And I say this by way of concession.
Now, one of the weirdest things that has gone on in this traditional interpretation of the text is verse 6. "I say this by way of concession." Is that the concession goes back to verse 2, which has been argued as meaning to get married? "I say this, namely, get married, as a concession." Now, all you have to do is read verses 3, 4, and 5, and that makes stupidity out of verse 6. If that's concession, then what in the world is he talking about? The concession is verse 5: momentary, momentary in the sense of seasonal or whatever, a time of abstinence for sexual relations, perhaps. And "I say this by way of concession," but that is no commandment at all. In fact, what verse 6 finally does is advocates regular sexual intercourse for married people. That's precisely what the text is advocating.
Now, if my language is very straightforward for you, just go ahead and hang on, because I, I know we all know the words, and so we'll use the words the way they, that's what Paul is talking about. Now, everything begins in verse one, and here is where we got ourselves off base. 7:1 says, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote." Now, verse 2 begins, "But see that." But now, that qualification should set our minds to thinking. Why is he qualifying what is said in verse one? Well, probably because the phrase "It is well for a man not to touch a woman" is not something Paul has said at all, but that is precisely the Corinthian position. In fact, he is almost certainly citing their letter at this point. "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.'"
Now, here's the thing that you really need to know: the Greek idiom that says "to touch a woman," and here is one of those places where the New International Version, as good as it is, had I been close to that committee when they translated this text, they would have had one unglued professor. They translated, "It is good for a man not to marry." And I just want to depart. My point is a very simple one, but it happens to be a very convincing one. The idiom "to touch a woman" happens to be an idiom that recurs in all kinds of Greek literature, and I can give you the passages. I've got them written down here: Plato's *Leges* 848, Aristotle's *Politica* 1335a, Plutarch's *Alexander Magnus* 21.9, Josephus' *Antiquities* 11.63. Every single one of these instances, every one of them, refers to sexual intercourse. It, there is not a place in antiquity where the idiom "to touch a woman" refers to being married. And in fact, it occurs two times as an idiom in the Old Testament in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in Genesis 26 and Proverbs 6:29. In both instances, it means to have sexual intercourse.
Now, what's obvious is that the idiom means to have sexual intercourse, not to be married. And therefore, if we're going to be translating correctly, we're going to say, "It is good for a person, a man, not to have sexual intercourse with a woman." Now, that, please, is not Paul's point of view. All you have to do is read verses three, four, and five, and you can see it's clearly not Paul's point of view. So whose point of view is it? Okay, it's these Corinthians' point of view, who have taken this same idea of the body and of this over-realized eschatology that we mentioned a moment ago, this "already," you see, existence. And remember what does Jesus say? That when the eschaton comes, there's going to be neither marriage nor giving in marriage. Therefore, in their over-realized eschatology plus this view of the body, there were Christians who were arguing that it was, it's good for people not to have sexual relations. And every last thing in 7:1-7:16 is dealing with that. Those who are already married, verses 1 to 7. 8 and 9: those who have once been married, but now because of many years of sexual experience in marriage, they are having some difficulties, and Paul commends marriage to them. To those who are wed, husbands and wives in the Corinthians who are Christians, who are advocating that the, the people in 1 to 7 are arguing to have no sexual relationships but to stay married, to have what we would call a celibate marriage, where they lived together but lived together without sex. There were some who recognized they couldn't handle that, so they're arguing for divorce on the basis of "it's good not to have sexual intercourse." And then surely the next people have an argument in their favor, because Paul says, "To the rest I say," and not the Lord, that's because Jesus never spoke to this question, and he didn't speak to the other one. Paul says, "To the rest, those who are Christians and have a pagan partner." Aha! Now, at least we shouldn't have sexual relations with a pagan, even though it's my wife or my husband. They're pagan, they're not a part of the community of faith. And if it's, if Paul is correct earlier, and of course they don't know that yet because they haven't read Paul here, but the point is, they can argue from that same base: if "to join oneself" means to become one flesh, and if that's true with a *pornei*, with a, with a harlot, then surely that's also true with a pagan. And therefore, I can't take what belongs to the Lord and join it to a pagan, even though it's my husband or wife. Now, that's what's going on in the entire section. Now, don't look at me like that, that's really what's going on.
Now, you ask, how could they have come to that position, especially celibate marriage? Well, it's very easy. All you have to do is be a pagan who has thought Greek all your life, you know, thought Greek philosophy, and then come into the Christian faith and carry it over into the faith. Just a couple of illustrations to help you see that that this is not some, you know, you look at this and say, "Man, oh man, you know, mostly because it's 20th-century people, we've never even heard of such things." Well, that's, that's our problem, not theirs, you understand. It's their problem too, but it's our problem. We don't under, we haven't heard of such things. Uh, if we'd done a little reading in church history, it helped. So I commend church history to you. It just so happens in the second century, in several places, but the one that I'm going to illustrate comes right out of the set in the middle of the second century. That's when the document was written, but the document refers to something that, that the roots of it must go back earlier. It's a, it's a document that's called the Acts of Paul, and a short section of it seems to be a part of another document that is known to us as the Acts of Paul and Thecla.
Now, Thecla was a wonderful Christian girl who lived in the town of Iconium. And in this story, which is obviously now second century, uh, you know, uh, embellishments, an awful lot of legends, so you can't tell how much Thecla is real, Thecla, and how much is, you know, the legend of the second century. These second-century Acts, by the way, are a lot of fun. In the same Acts of Paul, Paul baptizes a lion, and that's to his great advantage, because someday, one day, he gets thrown to the lions, and guess what lion? That's right. So the Christian lion comes out and befriends Paul, and all the place erupts to the glory of God. Well, you know, I, I don't believe all of that kind of stuff, but it's, it's precisely that kind of thing that makes you go back to read the Paul and Thecla stuff, you know, with a little, with with gingerly hands. But nonetheless, the things that are being reflected there are quite apart from its legendary embellishments. That is, it reflects the second century. In any case, even if it doesn't reflect the first century, whoever wrote the document, it reflects this man's theology. And this girl becomes converted because Paul comes to Iconium, and that's taking out of the book of Acts. Now, without any real historical, I'm sure that Thecla really lived in Iconium, this story couldn't have existed. In fact, unless there were a real Thecla who really was converted and became a beautiful Christian, but nonetheless, you know, the story is, is embellished. But in her home, she is sitting in the window seat while Paul is preaching to the people in her home, and she is engaged to be married to this, uh, fine young man in town. And she hears Paul, and in the hearing of Paul, she gives her life to Christ. But the preaching of Paul that goes on in this document that finally captures her heart is most interesting preaching. It comes in the form of several beatitudes, among other things, and there are something like seven or eight beatitudes, and three of them are beatitudes that bless continents, even in marriage. It says, "Blessed are the continent, those who abstain from sexual relations, for they shall see God."
Now, this is, this is a second-century Christian document, obviously. That's where a lot of Christian minds were in the second century. That is, the thing that brings conviction to Thecla's heart, and she vows perpetual virginity in her accepting Jesus Christ. And that, of course, turns the whole town into an uproar, because Paul has come in and upset one of the great marriages in town, and all of that. He gets run out of town, and she has to end up, you know, getting run out of town and everything else. But the point is, it was that piercing word: "God says, blessed are those that abstain from sexual relations." Over and over again.
Well, even into the fourth century, one of the great, great Christian saints, absolutely one of my favorite people, he is the next truly great genius in the history of the church after the Apostle Paul, is Augustine of Hippo. Now, Augustine is one of those people who was a brilliant mind and a genius among geniuses among geniuses. But he also liked his women, and he had one for many years, a concubine, lived with her for 11 years and never married her. His mother was a Christian and prayed for him all this time, but his father was a pagan, and he just knew enough about the Christian faith to keep his distance. But he, he was attracted by the fact that the Christians had so much smarts. And so when he finally ends up in Milan, Italy, he is a Christian who is listening to the, to the preaching of the great Saint Ambrose of Milan. And, uh, he is greatly disturbed because a part of the Christian message that regularly recurs is sexual purity, not necessarily continence, but sexual purity. And that's where Augustine can't, you know, he's ready intellectually to capitulate to the Christian faith. He's tried everything else: Manichaeism, Neoplatonism. He's, his pilgrimage is long, and he's, he's recognized the emptiness. And he hears the Christian message and realizes that philosophically, theologically, it's going to make a lot of sense here. But this, this purity business, that's his trouble. So, in the process, he finally comes under conviction and gets rid of his concubine of 11 years, and then takes up another one, you know. I mean, he's really having his struggles. In fact, in his *Confessions*, he says it most beautifully. He says, "At this time in my life, I was praying, 'Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.'" Oh, beautiful! If you haven't read Augustine's *Confessions*, you have missed one of the great moments in the history of the Christian faith.
Now, in all seriousness, here is a man who is so candid, and so beautifully put together by the Holy Spirit. It's in those *Confessions* that he says, "Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in Thee." I mean, he knows where it's at. But in finally, when he comes to the point where he tells the story of his conversion, he is sitting at home with his friend Alypius, and they have a home together, and they're sitting around talking, and they're talking about the Christian faith because that's what's going on all the time in his mind, that's where his heart, the conviction is deep. And a young Christian couple come to talk to them, and in the process, they share their life. And it so happens that this is a young couple who have committed themselves to celibate marriage, Christians who have committed themselves to abstaining from sexual relations for the rest of their lives, but married. And that does Augustine in. He looks at these young people who have this going on in their lives and sees where he is, and he goes out to the back of his house and in the garden and falls down on his face and begins to cry. And he's lying there, sobbing and crying, and sobbing and crying, when he hears that child cry, "Tolle, lege! Tolle, lege!" Take up and read! Take up and read! And he goes back to where the Bible was sitting, and in the providence of God, the text happened to be lying open to Romans 13. And it says, Romans 13:13: "Let us conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day, not reveling in drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires." And Augustine said, "I needed to read no further, for instantly I was born into the kingdom of God." The point is, it was that story of a young couple who had committed themselves to celibate marriage that finally, you know, tilted the conviction over.
Now, all of that to say that that's precisely what is being argued for by the Corinthians in this passage. Now, in chapter, in the rest of the thing corroborates this. In verse 2, where Paul says, "Because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." That sounds as indeed, you ought to get married. But let me just make a couple of other observations to you. The word "to have" is never found, in a single instance, to my knowledge, and I really checked the data on this, I've gone through the concordances and everything that I can find, I have not found yet a single instance where the word "to have" ever refers to getting married, to taking a wife. When Paul says, "Let a man have his own wife and a woman have her own husband," what that does refer to regularly is to have one another sexually. In fact, in English, as a slang idiom that has become a popular term in the American scene, "he had her," which means that he had had sexual relations with her. That's precisely how the word is used. "To have a woman" means to have her sexually. And what Paul is saying, "Because of the temptation to *porneia*," now *porneia*, not adultery, but *porneia*, but *porneia* in this instance, not referring to illicit or pre-marital sex, that is, because you can't handle your desires, therefore get married." Which really does put a dim view on marriage. Paul says, "Because of the temptation to immorality."
Outside the marriage vows, one partner can't handle it, and that's exactly what he says you see in verse five. Verse five is what should interpret verse two. But then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. That's what that on account of fornication means in verse 2. Now, he's talking obviously in verse 5 to people who are already married. If it wasn't obvious in verse 2, once you get to verse 5, it obviously is, and therefore that's got to be the meaning of verse 2.
So let each husband and each wife continue to have sex or relations, partly on account of the temptation that lies for one partner to be driven to illicit sex. But that's not the only answer, and that leads me to say some things, therefore, on the part of from what the apostle says in verses three to five about sex and marriage.
Now, about three or four years ago, in Christianity Today, there's that little cartoon in Christianity Today that says that what if that John Lawing draws. Some of these are really magnificent. I cut one out every once in a while and put it on my bulletin board just for fun. About three or four years ago, he had one of these that that what if, and the Apostle Paul has just arrived in the town of Corinth. He has his duffel bag over his shoulder and his, you know, his his rug or whatever in his arm, and he is being met by a contingent of the ladies in Corinth who have these signs: "Paul, male chauvinist pig," "Women of Corinth, unite," etc., etc. And the caption says, "Oh, I see that you've got my letter. Beautiful, but wrong."
Now, whatever else, the Apostle Paul is not a male chauvinist pig. In fact, considering that the Apostle Paul really does prefer the celibate state as strongly as he does, and that's obvious, what he says in verses three to five is, in fact, the most remarkable thing you will ever read, both in antiquity and in present situations, about mutuality in marriage. If you think the Apostle Paul is a chauvinist, I would suggest to you that the Germaine Greers haven't even caught up with the truly liberated apostle.
Now, listen to what he says. He says, "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband." For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. And that is where most people have stopped over many, many, many years. Sex is something that the man does to the woman. The woman does not rule her own body, but her husband does. And sex has been, even in the Christian church, has been thought of as the wife's duty to her husband. In fact, it is so evil, sex and in the church, that it's something that no one ever talked about or ever said a word about, because it is the wife's wifely duty to submit to her husband's sexual desires, and he is the only one who has sexual pleasure.
Now, I want you to listen to the Apostle Paul. He does not say the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. He says, "The wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does, and likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does." Now, I want you to understand that that has to be one of the most mind-boggling texts to have been written in the first century. The 20th century hasn't even caught up with Paul yet.
Now, here is a man who is a truly eschatological man. He realizes that in Jesus Christ, freedom has come, and that means freedom for both men and women, and that marriage is mutual love, and that sexual intercourse is mutual love, not something that the man does to his wife. Now, he says, "If, in fact, you want to abstain for prayer for a season, that's okay." But he says, "I say that by way of concession." And that's just a concession. That's just a perhaps. What really goes on in the marriage relationship is full, open, and loving sexual relations between the two.
Now, I've got a personal theology on sex, and that is a very simple one, and it's within the framework of everything we've been saying about being Christian. That comes right out of this text. I grant you that sex is something that people do in private, but that's because there is an intimacy that belongs to that special love that this brother and sister have, that is not to be shared with anyone else. And that leads me to say some things that we'll say in a in a in a bit about marriage. But the thing that you need to hear is that a Christian husband and wife are brother and sister in the Lord before they are husband and wife. And that is what saves the marriage. That's what makes it Christian. They are not married people who happen to be brothers and sisters in Christ. They are brother and sister in Christ first, and everything else comes from that. It just so happens that they're a special brother and sister in Christ to one another, unlike all of the other brothers and sisters in Christ, and it had better be that way. That's where the romance dimension comes in for that special love that God has given to people for one another. They belong to one another in a unique way that they don't belong to anyone else.
And in sexual intercourse, and especially when in that sexual relation, there has been that beautiful expression of mutual climax, what has happened in that experience is that both husband and wife have fully given one to the other and fully received from the other. There is that moment when they have totally given themselves and totally received, and it is the perfect expression for Paul to use for the relationship of God and His church, Christ in His church, husband and wife who fully belong to one another and fully give one another to each other. And this is the symbolic, and I say it's symbolic, it's a symbol of what is really going on in their lives, but it's a beautiful, symbolic, and pleasurable experience of that mutual love that they have.
Now, it just so happens that sex is pleasurable. God has made it that way. It is when sex is pleasurable and is not unitive or reproductive that it becomes evil. Unitive meaning two people become united into one, and at the same time are also being reproductive. And it's only pleasurable, it's evil because you are using somebody else's body for your pleasure. And when you use somebody, you can't love them. That is an impossibility. That's why you cannot love somebody promiscuously. You can't possibly love them because you're using them, and when you use them, you hate them and destroy them, even though you call it love. It's merely pleasure, and it's your own pleasure that's involved. Even if she is having pleasure or he, it's two people mutually having pleasure at the expense of one another.
Christian marriage is unitive, it's reproductive, and it's pleasurable, and that is something God has created. And we need to take it out of the back rooms and get right back where it is in the Bible and in the in this in the church and say it aloud. It's God's gift. Paul says some have a gift of one kind and some of another. His happened to be celibacy. Mine happens to be marriage, and I'm very grateful for that gift, just as he was grateful for his. Okay.