WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
1st Corinthians 7.3–11
April 29th 2018
Milk
Ok, last week we read in verses 1-2 of chapter 7:
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Now, last week Ray asked me a question which is a good one and it dovetailed into what Earl said too on the record:
Earl asked:
What was the question that Paul is responding to in the lost letter? And the answer is we don’t know. But what we do know is that Paul’s answer was, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
This led Ray to ask, “Isn’t that all that Paul is saying here – that it is good for a man not to touch a woman – and that it has nothing to do with marriage?”
And I think this is a really good question – after all that is what Paul said plainly – so it seems like this was just a clear statement – “You have all asked me a question (and we don’t know what that question was) so let me say this,” says Paul, “it is GOOD that a man not touch a woman.”
Nothing about marriage. It’s a response that merely echoes the fact that if its possible men should refrain from sexual activities with women and if they can’t they SHOULD marry.
So why do I read this line as Paul saying that they would be better off remaining not marrying?
My view – which I realize may overstep its bounds – especially in light of Rays question, is based on the context of Old Testament practices and the context of what Paul adds later in this chapter.
To me, when Paul says it is good for a man to not touch a woman he means in any situation and he is NOT ONLY speaking of unlawful sexuality.
He has made the sin of unlawful sexuality plain in chapter 6 and the first few passages of chapter 7. Don’t do it, is what he has said.
Then he turns to a question asked of him in a letter. If we could assume the question according to the answer he give, the question might be:
“We are choosing not to marry or to be involved with marriage at all.”
The reason Paul DOESN’T write back, “It is Good for a man not to marry” is because that is not the case – if people must fornicate, they ought to marry. So in response he says:
“It is Good that a man not touch a woman. And by taking the Old Testament command to NOT touch any woman unless there is marriage in place Paul is able to answer this letter from every angle.
Then later, Paul will add:
1st Corinthians 7:7 “For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”
And when this opinion is added to the mix to me it validates the he was speaking more or marriage here in verse one than just fornication – which again, he has already addressed completely.
But this is just me and it is so wonderful when people choose to test such things.
Alright, let’s continue on with our text today, as Paul now continues to talk about marital relationships, saying:
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Okay back to verse 3-5 which say a lot but delicately, as Paul says relative to the marital union and in particular, the physical union of the husband and the wife:
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Okay, that line, “Let the husband render due benevolence” in the Greek means:
Let the husband give to the wife what is hers and let the wife render to the husbands what is his (or due).
Now, because we are Christians and the subject of sex can be so freakishly awkward, Paul is telling spouses they not only don’t have a right to hold out on each other, but he presents this in terms of DUE benevolence – meaning, in the intimacies of marriage there exists debts, of sorts.
Why is the wife in debt to the husband and the husband in debt to the wife – because when the two became one, the one is of two components, with both relying on the other to fulfill their emotional, physical and intimacy needs.
So, there is an ongoing, never-ending exchange of debts that occur within such a relationship.
Outside of marriage there exist no such debts this is how we also know that when it comes to husbands and wives that this is what Paul is talking about – and anyone who is married understands the meaning – though there is often misunderstanding involved as well – especially on the part of men.
Historically, especially in relation to the Greeks advice on marriage, there was an idea floating around that promoted the notion that celibacy was the best way to live and Paul was directly addressing this in the case of people who were wed.
In other words, not only is there no honor in celibacy within marriage, it is not rightful when two parts are made one.
Paul explains the premise behing this in verse 4, saying:
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
This line is pretty tough to explain in our day and age which kicks strongly against such ideas and promotes individual rights like mad, but remember, Paul (and Jesus and God Himself) see the married couple as one – not two – one.
As one, Paul is saying that the power the woman once had over her own person has been transferred, in part, to the husband.
I say in part because she is still responsible for herself as a woman and an individual before God. Nevertheless, within the marriage contract of two becoming one, the principle (maintained in the Christian ethos of agape love and respect) hold true – the power of her body has been transferred to another.
But Paul is not willing to leave it here, and adds:
“And likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.”
Now, this is interesting when we think about it. If the wife has power over the husbands body and the husband over the wifes, then there is an IMPLICIT result that says, “there has to be agreement between them in the physical unity they enjoy.”
We can say this because if the husband takes this transference literally and overtakes the body of his wife using this passage as justification to do as he wishes, she, in turn has the right to “overtake his body” and shut it off – because His body is no longer his, right?
So when power over the other has been bestowed equally, the ground rules of shared interest, respect, love, MUST come into play – or there will be problems.
Anytime one party assumes a right to another in the marriage covenant they cannot forget that there is complete reciprocity, and therefore, there must be total and complete agreement based on love and respect for the unity to work.
God is simply ingenious. Imagine if God told the two who became one that they each had total power over their own bodies? Or if he gave the man total power over the wife but not the wife total power over the husband?
Years ago M Scott Peck wrote a book and said in it that there are two reasons why people marry – to bring up children and for friction.
I always thought that that was astute. Within the marital covenant there is the conflict the two becoming one.
Within the contract there is so much that is emblematic to the relationship all of us have in our becoming one with God.
In the marriage each individual learns to die to self, to live for the other, and to work out the salvation of their marriage) with fear and trembling (and sometimes anger and rage, right?)
When marriages are single sided, with one or the other taking control over everything, there is no growth, no real maturity – there’s just subservient acquiescence of one participant to the other.
Instead, God want the two to become one, not the one to become the other.
He want both to give and grow and overcome so they can become stronger as the one in marriage then what they would have been as a single.
So it is with us in our relationship with God. And while we speak so often about dying to our will and to living to His, God is not a puppeteer, and the God human relationship is not one of a master demanding the servant do his will.
That is the basis of Eastern metaphysics and the idea of Nirvana. Within Christianity God is not seeking for the individual to become absorbed into His being and person completely but for there to be an exchange, this is why we read in Isaiah 1:18:
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”
It is why David talked with the Lord and expressed his very heart. He wants relationship with His creations, He wants to be a father, not to take our unique individuality (which He gave us) and break it down so that we get lost.
Hardly. He gave us minds, and wills, and emotions, and the ability to think and reason and wants to be in and with us as we travel the roads of existence – if we will let Him.
Imagine a marriage where the husband takes over the wifes mind, will and emotion and demands she do His will entirely.
“I want to go outside (she goes outside) I want to eat salami (she eats salami). I want to watch horror movies (she watches horror movies). And on and on and on.
In the marriage covenant – a healthy marriage that it – there is real relationship where the two (the TWO) become one NOT the one BECOMES the other.
And so it is with the faith. God works in partnership with our person giving us freedom and liberty to choose to love Him, to grow with Him, to produce fruit from the lives He has given us.
If or when you hear people espouse or attempt to introduce Eastern metaphysics of the self getting lost into God examine it very carefully – because it is not reflected in either the commands of God to man or in the marriage covenant that greatly reflects a healthy relationship God longs to have with us.
Paul goes on at verse five regarding the same subject and gives some direct advice to the believers there in Corinth, saying:
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
The idea expressed here is don’t deprive each other of each other carnally unless it be done with consent for a time (and the time he uses here is when they might give themselves to fasting and prayer) but then he says, “but come together again that Satan tempt you not for your (KING JAMES) incontinency (or lack of self-control).
Why would Paul tell them that depriving themselves was permissible if it was agreed upon and was due to a focus on fasting and prayer?
He does this because when people are looking to temporarily separate themselves from this world of carnal delights (like eating, sex and entertainments) the opposite attitude was to separate themselves from the world through “abstinence, fasting and prayer.”
Remember, Paul is talking to both sexes here and he is telling them NOT to do this unless it is agreed upon and for a time because if it was longer than a time Satan has the power to take advantage of their lack of self-control.
In the book of Exodus, we read Moses tell the Children of Israel, in preparation of God coming down to visit them:
14 And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes.
15 And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives.
16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
So the idea of abstaining from intimate relations hearkens all the way back to the Old Testament.
I personally see no issue with Paul’s advice here being applicable today as abstinence of all fleshly things in a time dedicated to the things of the Spirit still has great merit – so long as there is mutual understanding and open communication in the relationship.
Now, at this point we are presented with a line that is difficult – though it automatically seems to have application to what he just said because right after saying these thing Paul says:
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
Most people think that he is speaking of his previous advice – and it makes some good sense.
However, look what he says next:
7 For . . . I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
That verse and the way it begins, also makes us think that Paul, before writing the words of verse 7 says:
Now, I speak the following by way of permission and not commandment, FOR . . .
“I would that all men were even as I myself. But . . . every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner and another after that.
So you decide for yourselves – was Paul saying that his advice to married couples “by permission and not commandment” OR was it related to verse seven where he adds:
For, I would that all men were even as I myself (meaning unencumbered with marriage demands)?
On this point our Bible commentators are divided. When reading it without much analysis it seems that the more natural interpretation would be that it refers to the preceding statement.
The King James term, “by permission,”
stands in opposition to something that is
expressly commanded.
In other words, whether Paul was talking about what he said about verses 1-5 or what he says after verse 6, he does not claim that the insight was given to Him by the inspiration of God.
I really love this passage because it shows an honesty from the writings of Paul – he had opinions and views but appears to have been able to know what was inspired of God and what wasn’t.
Just for the fun of it, I’ve put the set of passages on the board and want to see which you think are from the LORD and which you think are from the Mind of Paul.
(GO TO BOARD)
(verses 1-5)
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
(ADD VERSE SIX LAST)
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
(verses 7-9)
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
(Noting that he adds hereafter)
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord (which returns us to the Inspiration of the Lord speaking) . . .
What do you think? (vote)
Isn’t that fascinating? Paul says one thing from his own mind and another from the mind of God, and we are fully sure which is which?
What I discover from this fact that there are statements in scripture which may and may not be inspired – and this is why it is important to study to show ourselves approved, to rely on the Spirit to direct our understanding, and to allow everyone the responsibility and right to choose for themselves before the Lord how they will personally decide to understand what is presented.
This takes me back to a passage that is so frequently used to support the false idea that every word in the Bible is inspired – because it is in the Bible.
We know this is not correct. But when we read passages like:
2nd Timothy 3:16, which is a favorite of people who take every word recorded in the Bible as inspired of God and says:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,”
We MUST remember that the Greek better reads:
“Every writing that is inspired by God is profitable for doctrine” and NOT, “all scripture (as in all passages found in the Bible) are inspired by God.”
So, we study and examine to, again, show ourselves approved when we step forward with propositions and interpretations.
So, whether this was his opinion or the Lord’s, verse 7
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
According to 1st Corinthians 9:5, which we will get to in a few weeks, Paul appears to not have been married.
Some say that he was, but his wife left him when he converted to Christianity.
The justification for this is that he could not have been esteemed in the faith unless he was.
But we cannot say so definitively. What does seem clear is that at the time of his apostleship he was single.
However, there are two ways to see this passage.
First, some suggest that when he wishes that all men were like himself, he could NOT mean that he is suggesting that people would be unmarried because this would be against the Divine institution of God and against his own precepts elsewhere that are mentioned elsewhere.
In this light some believe that Paul is telling that that he wishes that they could be like him in that he had control over his passions and propensities and he wished they did too.
But even this wish indirectly suggests that because he had control he did not have to be married – and so we come to that natural inference any way we look at it.
Because of this I personally believe that Paul, over that dispensation and church age, was, in fact telling them that he wished all men could be in control of themselves and therefore not needing to marry.
To the resistance that this would be against what God established I would again cite the day and age and purpose behind that advice AND I would remind all of us that Jesus was inclined to reinterpret what God had established in the former covenant and since Paul was His apostle and had been given powers to do the same – he did.
But after saying (or writing this) Paul adds:
“But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”
Here is another reason I think that Paul was not speaking by commandment here but of his own opinion. In other words, he says,
“You know, I wished all of you could be like me – in control of his passions so much he would not need to marry,” but then he admits:
“But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”
What a great things to not only recognize, and admit, but to remember when we are tempted to start looking at the gifts or abilities God has given to others and thinking ourselves lesser.
Perhaps God gifted Paul with a zero libido so he could really focus on his apostolic labors. If so, praise God.
But if God gives another man or woman the libido of a horse, praise God.
Sometimes we have to labor to see ourselves in terms of how God made us instead of being greater or lesser in comparison to others.
All of us are pieces of a grand puzzle where no piece is exactly alike. The longer I live the more I appreciate those pieces that are truly original in either extreme or in their extremely moderate natures.
Paul admits that it was God who gifted him with this ability, and additionally admits that God gifts people in various manners.
It’s really a fascinating factor in human existence because we tend to regain people who have naturally peaceful, kind, gentle dispositions as better than others and assign that to something virtuous that they have personally acquired when in reality it was God who blessed them with the trait and likewise we “But every man hath his proper gift.”
Another reason I believe Paul is speaking his own mind here in these passages is because at verse 8 we read:
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, “It is good for them if they abide even as I.”
The word unmarried (agamoiv) could refer either to those who had never been married and/or to widowers.
Interestingly, he only mentions widows here and not widowers. Not sure why.
What is also uncertain is what he is actually saying here when he says:
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, “It is good for them if they abide even as I.”
Because he uses the very same words, “It is good,” here, “for them to remain even as He is,” as he did when he said, “it is good that a man not touch a woman,” that we connect both his being chaste and unmarried and suggest that this is what Paul is saying is Good –
That all people remain unmarried and chaste – and if they can’t, they ought to then marry, and touch women – which he is not suggesting is the best way to live their lives at that day and time.
“It may be advisable, in the present circumstances of persecution and distress, not to be encumbered with the cares and anxieties of a family.”
But he adds his caveat at verse 9 and says:
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
Again, is this Paul’s insight or the Lords? Cannot definitively say
But we can say that he believes to some extent that if they cannot contain their desires, “it is better, “it is preferred,” that they marry rather than burn.
Within the Greek and Hebrew culture the human passions were often equated with burning with lust and fire. I believe there is a play on words here because I suggest that Paul is also suggesting, in addition to marrying as a means to quench lustful burnings, that is better to pursue this path rather than not marry, fulfill ones lust, and then burn both at His coming (when Jerusalem was destroyed) and potentially in the eternal fires that are God.
Having stepped into the subject of marriage back at verse 1, Paul now advances deeper into the topic and addressed those who are already married who might read his words, and says:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,”Let not the wife depart from her husband:”
Here is yet another reason that I think Paul was in verses 7-9 speaking from his own mind and not by commandment of the Lord because AFTER having said this, he includes the information that informs us that though he is writing or speaking, it is the words of the Lord that he conveys.
He has spoken of fornication. He has spoken of those who can refrain from it and those who can’t by advising them to marry, and now he speaks to those who find themselves in a marital relationship.
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,”Let not the wife depart from her husband:”
And we will address this topic next week.
Q and A
PRAYER
