- “Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.” Notice the phrasing: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” rather than “It is not good for a man to have sexual relations with a woman”. Paul is not saying sex is bad but rather abstinence is good (for a period, see v5). He also says people should satisfy their sexual drive to keep them from sexual immorality and to do so within the acceptable confines of marriage. How would you summarise Paul’s thinking behind his advice? What is the outcome that he is prioritising? Do you think this line of thinking may be applied in other contexts (within reason) that may have a hold on us, like food, exercise or other areas of interest?
Sexual drive is powerful and should be kept manageable; otherwise immoral behaviour may result. In Paul’s mind, bottling things up and keeping a tight lid on the sexual drive is the wrong approach. This means that he acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with our sexual drive, whether strong or weak; but it needs to be respected and managed.
Yes, I think so. These days there are so many things that vie for our time and attention that are not wrong in themselves but can go out of control and drive us to bad decisions and behaviour. We need to manage our emotions and drives rather than deny them outright but the important outcome is that we must be in control of our mind and body.
- “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” In other words a spouse should not withhold sexual pleasure (again, within reason) from their partner in marriage for the sake of the other. Do you think Paul is authorising spousal abuse or is “marital duty” broader than sex and extends to love and care?
Scripturally the proper place for sexual relations is within marriage and spouses should take care of each other’s needs. One must never misunderstand Paul’s point to say that a spouse has the right to do anything to the other. They owe each other a duty of care and that includes sex.
- “Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. … Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” “Unmarried” is more likely “previously married” rather than “never married” (see also v11). Paul assumes a lack of self-control in his readers and advises them to do the necessary to maintain control. The assumed outcome of a lack of control is “sexual immorality” (v2) which is probably resorting to prostitutes. Once again, what are Paul’s priorities?
Don’t let the situation get out of hand. If you cannot control your sexual urges, marry. Isn’t this a poor reason for marriage? Obviously there are duties that come with marriage, chief of which is the duty to love (and the bible regards love in action rather than emotion), and we must not neglect them. This does go against the notion prevalent among modern Christians that our marriage partner is God’s choice for us. Paul, however, views marriage as “burdensome” in view of our duty towards our spouse and rather that we remain unattached if we can. Again that seems to run counter to prevalent views of marriage among modern Christians.
- Paul shares his thinking on matters that are not black and white but more in the realm of “good and not so good”. The overarching thought is what he shared in chapter 6: “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. Are there issues and situations you are in that may drag you down and lead you to sin if uncontrolled? How can Paul’s advice help?
Paul’s view that marriage is well and good but being free of the obligations of marriage to pursue God is better is fairly unique in the modern era. Along with this would probably be the area of employment and the pursuit of wealth. Our talents might have taken us far in the working world but we choose to have more time for family and church. Some couples might choose to delay having children so as to serve in the mission field.
Personally I seem to be able to cope well as a single man earning enough to get by on my own. It certainly it gives me a lot of leeway and space to do God’s work. I’m not sure that I had consciously chosen this life though.
- “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” Paul clearly states God’s command: no divorce but separation is permissible. What do you think?
Personally I think it is a bit harsh. It is not possible to guarantee that the person you married will remain the person you knew them to be. There may be psychological issues and there may be spousal abuse. Yes, separation is an option but no divorce precludes a fresh start especially when there are also children involved. Raising children on your own is tough, especially if you also have to work. These days divorce usually requires child support from the other party and separation alone would deny that source of help.
I don’t quite know how to approach this because Paul makes it clear that this is God’s command. It is very harsh on the spouse who is usually the victim in such circumstances. The only thing I can think of is that the church must step in to help but that is usually very limited.
I guess the practical approach is to consider the core intent of the command as sound, in that marriage before the Lord must be protected as best as possible. The concession of separation tells me that extenuating circumstances need to be considered and taken into account. However, the breadth of the command, with no qualification whatsoever, must come under question. If so perhaps the modern practice of providing spousal and child support could be considered a significant change in circumstances that render separation alone to be ill-advised. Still, I suppose matters have to be approached on a case-by-case basis.
So, basically not questioning the command and God’s intent, but allowing that circumstances must be considered rather than a blanket principle applied regardless of circumstance. I think this approach is possible because Paul is in the context of applying God’s command in specific situations and therefore we should not take what was said here as literal and universal.
- “To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord) …” Anything else (basically), Paul offers his opinion and makes it clear that it does not have the strength of a divine command. What is the thinking behind Paul’s advice? What are his priorities?
Paul deals with the situation where one spouse is an unbeliever; a situation that can occur when one spouse becomes a Christian but not the other. Paul basically advises the marriage to go on unless the other spouse demands a divorce. In other words the issue arose by circumstance and the resolution must not be bound by the principle of the permanence of marriage vows.
In Paul’s mind it does not reduce the sanctity of the marriage vows before God but since one party does not acknowledge God then the situation has to take that into consideration.
This, I think, gives room for the concerns I raised in Q5.
- The clarity of a marriage between Christian partners and the foundations of their pledge to each other before God (marital duty) gives rise to a clear prohibition of divorce while allowing separation. Seeing that even Christians may sin and be unfaithful and may abandon their marital duties, do you think God’s prohibition of divorce (while permitting separation) is fair and workable? What do we need to be careful of to ensure that our marriage does not have to face the question of divorce?
My thoughts on this are worked through in Q5. If we take the matter of the sanctity of marriage vows as seriously as Paul outlines here (and we should), then we must be careful to ensure that the person we marry is not only a Christian, not only someone who respects the vows that they will make, but also someone whom we can build a life together for the foreseeable future. In other words, don’t enter into marriage lightly. This has to inform what Paul said earlier about marrying rather than burn with passion.