- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,116
- 34,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Anyway, I would like to discuss 1 Corinthians 7:1-9. I agree with you to a point. However, in context, the desire that the unmarried were actively struggling with was sexual idolatry.
This is your assumption as you have not established this was a historical reality. Nothing in the text isolates the sexual immorality to sexual idolatry.
Before becoming Christians, many had made it a habit to visit such temple activities. They apparently were finding it hard to stop. Under such conditions, Paul advises them to marry instead. We must remember that the culture at this time had very few legitimate sexual outlets - unlike our culture. Marriage, at this time, was the best way to find a partner to have regular moral sex with.
Again an assumption on your part. It is historical fact that the pagan temples were socially acceptable means of personal conduct. However, not the only ones. Even in Roman society adultery was illegal but pre-marital sex was not frowned upon at all. The Jewish culture did forbid pre-martial sex. Paul in all his church epistles addresses a mixed Jewish Diaspora and Gentile audience. We also know the moral law was taught by the apostles from a TaNaKh perspective as at the Council of Jerusalem we have the following:
Acts 15: NKJV
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
This indicates that all of the assemblies with Jews and Gentiles were being taught from TaNaKh.
The question that Paul addresses in the opening section of this chapter is whether it is good to abstain from sexual intercourse. Some of the Corinthians asserted that it was good and understood "good" to be the highest virtue. Paul counters in 7:2–5 that it is absolutely not good for married couples to attempt to do so, and he vetoes any bid by the Corinthians to become celibate within marriage.
He is arguing why it is inadvisable for married partners to withdraw from conjugal relations. As he will do in chapter 8 when discussing idol food, Paul stresses the danger involved in their current practices. Eating in an idol temple may drive a fellow Christian who has a weak conscience back into the clutches of idolatry (1 Corinthians 8:10). Trying to be celibate in a marriage relationship is also recipe for the weak to seek sexual attention in the idol temple. You have to remember that in this culture none of this was taboo or shameful - at least to the vast majority of the population. We must restrain ourselves from viewing these prostitutes as our modern day nasty hookers. Plus, many of these wives probably were not even against their husbands doing it!
Again, you are assuming Paul is speaking of sexual intercourse only found in pagan temples. The text does not suggest that at all. You mention 1 Corinthians 8 as supporting your claim, however, that appeal actually goes against your assumption. Paul makes a clear point in chapter 8 to relate food to idols. He did not do so in chapter 7 when speaking of sexual immorality.
"Let each one have his own wife or her own husband" does not advise everyone to marry. The Greek 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.
Who claimed all should marry? I agree the text advises young men and young women to get married. If they have a higher calling then they don't. The Greek verb 'to have' is used consistently as 'to have.' Meaning, you may want to redefine what 'is IS' but you can't. The 'to have' also applies to possession of objects and livestock. So not seeing how you can say 'yes it refers to marriage' and then claim 'that meaning does not apply here.'
We should take note that the verb "to have" was also commonly used as a euphemism for having sexual intercourse. The immediate context, with the reminders about what is owed in marriage, the assertion that husbands and wives have sexual rights over one another, 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. 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 (also see 1 Corinthians 7:38).
The above makes no sense.
And since you mention "burning in passion", I'll quickly rundown my thinking of verse 9. Some translations make this verse harder to understand. To the unmarried, Paul does not say "if they cannot control themselves." Rather he says, "if they are not exercising self-control." The implication is that some of these people are actively doing the same as some of the married in verses 1–6, practicing sexual idolatry, that is, also going to the temple prostitutes.
Your entire argument rises and falls on the pagan temple cult rituals. Unfortunately, nowhere in the text, nor even the context thereof can you point this out. Why? Because it is not there.
You can make an inference of course. A cultural inference for a portion of the Corinthian audience. However, that is frankly begging the text to conform to your theory (eisegesis). Yes there were temples and sex happened there. However, one would have to assume a Jew and former Pharisee now come apostle of Jesus Christ would be teaching young Jewish and Gentile people that it is ok to shack it up in the sheep pen but as long as you don't do it in a pagan temple..no problem.
It is these unmarried active participates that Paul is addressing. And like I said above, the antidote for such sin (in the culture of Corinth at least) is to get married. This might not be true in other contexts.
You could have saved us a lot of time by just telling me up front you don't see Biblical sexual mores applying to Christians today. Do you believe there are moral absolutes? And if so where do we derive them from?
Upvote
0