In chapter 7, Paul changes the subject from prostitution to marriage. At this point, it appears that he turns his attention to a letter received from the Corinthians.
(1 Cor 7:1 ESV) Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
It’s surprising that some of the Corinthians would reject heterosexual sex given that Paul had just addressed incest and prostitution. But this is one of the peculiarities of Grecian Platonic thought. Philosophers call Plato’s thinking “dualism.”
In essence, the Greeks saw the world as divided between the ideal and the reality, the spiritual and the physical. In such a worldview, it’s easy to conclude that sex is of no concern to God because he is only interested in the “spiritual” part of our existence. Indeed, our physical selves are so corrupt that it’s impossible to redeem that part of us. Therefore, incest or sex with a prostitute doesn’t concern God. After all, our bodies will not survive into the next world. And God is only concerned with the eternal. This philosophy is called “antinomianism.”
The same dualism can be argued in the opposite direction. Since the flesh is hopelessly corrupted, we should have the strictest of disciplines in order to keep the flesh pure and please God. Therefore, because sex is a feature of our physical selves, it should be suppressed entirely in hopes of pleasing God. We should also refrain from pleasurable foods and all else that tempts the senses. And this is called “asceticism.”
And both points of view were prominent in Grecian thought. In the Second Century, Grecian dualism evolved into Gnosticism, which became a major heresy that the church had to deal with.
Today, we remain dualists, but we divide our lives differently. We see some aspects of our lives as “spiritual” and the rest as outside of Christianity. Thus, we often leave our Christianity entirely behind when it comes to politics and business, but insist on Christianity when it comes to personal morality and family. In short, we Christians do as much to drive Jesus out of the public square as the atheists.
As a result, we’ve not developed a well thought out doctrine of how the church should relate to the state. Sometimes we ignore moral issues altogether — such as racism — and other times we have trouble distinguishing Christianity from, say, the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Indeed, in some churches, the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights are treated as holy writ, and sermons are delivered exegeting these texts as though they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
In fact, the Christian worldview taught in the Scriptures is that man is a unity — body, soul, and spirit. These are not three different things but different aspects of a unitary whole. And after we die, God will resurrect us with a transformed body, not as a disembodied soul.
(Phi 3:20-21 ESV) 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
Therefore, Paul could argue in chapter 6 that prostitution is a sin because it’s a sin against an eternal part of us — our bodies.
Now, in chapter 7, Paul has to confront the ascetic side of Greek thought. If God is against incest, adultery, fornication, and homosexual activity, does that mean we should suppress out sexual urges altogether? Is sex itself wrong?
(1 Cor 7:2–4 ESV) 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Paul will make clear in a few verses that “each man should have his own wife” does not mean “every man should marry.” Rather, he is concerned that spouses meet one another’s sexual needs. In a city filled with sexual sin and temptation, Paul wanted to sure that wives would be available to their husbands.
After all, in a pagan marriage, a husband and wife might only have sex when it was time to have children. The husband might well satisfy his sexual needs almost entirely with prostitutes and mistresses. And, of course, this also meant that married women were not being provided with their conjugal rights. And this perverse culture surely made it difficult for both Christian spouses to be faithful to each other.
Somewhat surprisingly, Paul’s insistence that spouses have regular sexual relationship was also taught by the Jewish rabbis, who reasoned from —
(Exo 21:7-11 ESV) 7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”
The rabbis reasoned that if a man must treat a slave concubine this way, guarantying her food, clothing, and marital (conjugal) rights, surely a free woman must be treated at least this well. As a result, long before the time of Jesus, a failure to provide a wife or concubine each of these three things was considered grounds for a divorce. And a procedure had been invented whereby the rabbis would require the husband to let the wife divorce him.
The rabbis went so far as to regulate how often spouses must have sexual relations to meet this standard, the rule varied depending on the profession.
The times for conjugal duty prescribed in the Torah are: for men of independence, every day; for laborers, twice a week; for ass-drivers, once a week; for camel-drivers, once in thirty days; for sailors, once in six months. These are the rulings of R. Eliezer.
It’s not that camel-drivers or sailors had less sexual needs than other men, but that they traveled and so couldn’t be held to the higher standard.
Now, Paul was very far removed from this sort of thinking. He was hardly going to make a rule for just how often sexual favors had to be granted. Rather, he reasons from Genesis 2–
(Gen 2:23-24 ESV) 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
The husband and wife are “one flesh.” Therefore, the wife’s body belongs to her husband, and vice versa.
Now, this is a popular verse for Sunday school class discussions. How often may a husband demand sex from his wife? How does a wife, burdened with babies and lack of sleep, cope with her husband’s needs?
There is no concrete rule, of course, and it’s far better when sex between spouses is not about meeting demands but rather giving of gifts.
Then he stresses that, just as the wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, because the husband does, even so the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, because his wife does! That was daring at the time, and is challenging still. Working out what it means in the day-to-day and year-to-year rhythms and routines of family life, especially when one or both partners are under pressure at work or with children, is part of what the joy and discipline of married love is all about. But the main guideline is quite clear.
Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians.
Now, we should note that Paul was extremely counter-cultural in giving husbands and wives equal conjugal rights. In fact, Paul goes out of his way to be clear that the husband is not entirely in charge. It’s a question of mutuality — astonishing in a world in which the husband was considered to have all authority in the family and where wives were little more than property.
A note on hermeneutics:
As was true in chapter 6, Paul alludes to Genesis 2 as establishing principles that govern Christian sexuality. He does not refer to Genesis 3:16 (“he shall rule over you”), which is a product of sin, but to Genesis 2 (“she is flesh of my flesh”) as describing a marriage redeemed by Christ.
Paul considers the gospel as restoring humanity to the husband/wife relationship that existed before sin entered the world. This is more than an ideal. It’s how Christians are supposed to live.
In light of recent discussions it is relevant to note here that Christianity has historically maintained the right of heterosexual men to always have a wife with whom a sexual relationship was possible even if it meant polygamy. Martin Luther strongly opposed polygamy in general but allowed it in such instances as when the first wife became a leper. Phillip Melanchthon reluctantly said that polygamy was a preferable alternative for Henry VIII to his divorcing and remarrying multiple wives. As recently as the 1988 Lambeth Conference it was agreed that the Anglican Church in Nigeria could legitimately allow converts in polygamous marriages to remain in them.
The concern for heterosexual men not having to live celibate lives stands in contrast of course with the common conservative conclusion that homosexuals must live celibate lives to be acceptable before God. God’s statement in Genesis that it is not good for humankind to be alone notes no exceptions.
I recently read an online article entitled HAVE WE MADE SEXUAL PURITY AN IDOL? Of course the writer’s answer was “Yes”, considering how harshly Christians judge others, especially women, who have a sexual past. And the judgement becomes even more stinging when those doing the judging have a past themselves; which is often the case.
But that is exactly the unkindness and the ugliness that stands out regarding sexuality, how so many Christians hold others to a higher standard than they do for themselves; how their emotional security for a morale church and nation needs and demands all others to be “pure” when they know that their own past, and often, their present, has no room to boast. After all, we should keep in mind, that the imagination is also a part of our sexuality.
No, the answer is not “perfection”. None of us have been so perfect, nor can become so perfect, that we can demand it of others. But we can call and support one another in the responsible lives we are asked by God to live, and we do that with more mercy than most of us who read this blog, in times past, felt forgiven enough to give.
Gary,
Men have, (women too)because of their sexual desire, sought various ways to quench their sexual thirst. Wrong ways. Adam could have(as some do)could have chosen to quench his thirst by lying with an animal, except that man was commanded not to do that. Also, man was commanded, to not lie with man as with a woman. These things are an abomination to God and go against nature. “If a man has sexual relations with a man as he does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” Leviticus 20:14. The very next verse says, “If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.” v16- “If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal.” Interestingly enough, the animal is to be put to death also. It’s as if God is saying, this stuff is so gross, kill anything that was involved. You also can’t sleep with your step mom. Although, I’m sure it happens often enough, today. These things are immutable. God doesn’t change. He hates these things because they go against the way he created things to operate. He determines right and wrong for us. Not us for Him. Adam was alone, God said, it wasn’t good, and he created a woman, to fulfill that need. Man has historically had sex with animals, and other men, in order to satisfy their sexual appetites. God says it’s wrong, not on a basis of the level of commitment but because it goes against Him. HIs established laws. HIs ways. HIs ways are higher than ours.
Monty, God doesn’t change but what he requires of or allows humankind to do certainly does change. Jacob married sisters, Leah and Rachel, and the twelve tribes of Israel were named for their sons. Yet the Law of Moses forbade the marrying of sisters. The Law of Moses forbade the eating of such foods as shrimp, lobster and crabs but most Christians today believe God allows us to eat those foods. The Law of Moses expressly allows a slaveowner to beat his slaves as long as he does not kill them. Try squaring that with Jesus’ Golden Rule.
A few of the sects of the time were telling the saints to abstain from marriage, wine and meat, which Paul rejected. God allowed polygamy, but that wasn’t the preferred set up, but he didn’t have a law against it either. But Jesus puts forth the sexual union/marriage concept of one man and one wife (or woman). This was based also on God’s initial setup of Adam and Eve. In Cor.11 we have a discertation on headship, which is often overlooked, but in it it gives they cylical cature of man and woman that they are from one another, reproductively. In Romans man is supposed to love his wife and the wife her husband and they are supposed to fulfill each others needs and not selfishly with-hold themselves.