Skip to main content

1 Corinthians 7:1-16

You can read the text here.

Paul continues to discuss issues related to sex as he answers something from the Corinthian letter. Paul has just outlawed sex with prostitutes and other forms of sexual immorality.[1] This leaves sex within marriage only. Some in Corinth apparently felt that sex should be abstained from there as well. In Roman culture sex in marriage was generally not for pleasure, it was for procreation. The normal avenue for pleasure (for men) was with slaves, prostitutes, or others of lower status. [2] Some at Corinth felt that sex should be abstained from within marriage.[3] But Paul sees this is their only outlet, so he pushes back against this idea. Paul argues that, for both parties, permanent abstinence is a bad idea and gives each spouse exclusive rights over the body of the other.[4] Paul makes an exception that for a period of time they may abstain for the purpose of prayer. However, he notes that there is a risk even there that sexual urges may hinder their prayers presumably by clouding the mind so the period must be brief. Paul wishes they were all like him and celibate, but he realizes that not all are able to push sexual desire aside to pursue God and his kingdom.[5]

Paul moves on to address widows. He states that they should stay single if they can, but recognizes that not all are able to do so and permits remarriage in those cases.

Next Paul moves on to divorce. His main point is pretty clear. If you're married, stay that way if you can, but if you have a spouse who is not a Christian and they wish to divorce you, that's ok. In this case the divorcee is not bound any longer and can remarry if they wish. However, they should try to stay together if they can as they bring holiness into their family, both towards their spouse and children, and some of that holiness gets communicated. And who knows, it could even lead to salvation for the other spouse!

[1] I think it hardly worth saying that in the Christian tradition, any sex outside of marriage has been looked down upon from the earliest days. Whether or not the tradition has had good reasons in all cases is not the point of discussion here.

[2] Both Thisleton and Ciampa and Rosner have excellent discussions of this point. I will note though, that both commentaries (and Thiselton moreso) are a little blindly androcentric in the discussion.

[3] Neither commentary makes a guess at why, but presumably, if they believe they're living in the last days, they don't want to be occupied with children.

[4] So, Ciampa and Rosner. This point elevates the status of women who typically were the sexual property of their husbands. Their husbands were now just as much their property.

[5] According to both Thiselton and Ciampa and Rosner Paul is not wishing all were celibate but that all had the mastery over sexual urges to avoid distraction.


Popular posts from this blog

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…