|
THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER VOLUME 4, NUMBER 10, MARCH 7, 2004 QUESTIONS ABOUT 1 CORINTHIANS 7 1 Corinthians 7 is a chapter about which a great deal is written and said. There are statements made in the chapter that can be difficult to understand and concerning which there is some disagreement. What I would like to do is address the meaning of some of the more difficult or obscure statements found in the chapter. Verses 1 through 7 focuses upon marital obligations. It is apparent that the Corinthians had written to Paul and asked him certain questions concerning marriage. No one is exactly certain what those questions were. However, Paul began his answer by writing in verses 1-2, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me; It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Many have taken Paul’s statement in verse 1 and used it to minimize marriage and to elevate celibacy to a higher, more honorable, purer and holier state. Paul’s statement must be understood in light of all that the scriptures say about the state of marriage. (1) God said, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18). Marriage originated from God and is therefore a divinely ordained institution. (2) Hebrews 13:4 says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled…” The marriage relationship cannot, therefore, be considered less spiritual than any other relationship. (3) In 1 Timothy 4:3 those who forbid marriage are said to be departing from the faith, teaching the doctrines of devils. (4) In Ephesians 5 Paul compared the relationship of Christ and the church to the husband and wife relationship. In view of these scriptural facts it is foolish and inconsistent to think that Paul is minimizing or depreciating marriage at all. There are several possible explanations that make a great deal more sense and are consistent with the overall Biblical view of marriage. For instance, maybe the Corinthians had asked if celibacy was good or evil in light of the Gnosticism that was so prevalent at the time. Paul was simply saying that celibacy was good. A second explanation would be in context with the “present distress” that Paul mentions in verse 26. In view of the persecutions the Corinthians were facing, or would soon come to face, to be unmarried would be preferable (or more expedient) than being married. Under such circumstances one who was married with a family would have more concerns. A third explanation, present distress or not, is that those who are married are necessarily more concerned about the things of this world. That is neither good nor bad, it is just the way that it is. In verses 32-34 of this chapter, Paul wrote, “But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” Any of these 3 explanations, or a combination of them all, makes sense to me. Celibacy is good but it is not inherently better than marriage. In certain circumstances it might have been more expedient. Verses 5 – 6 have presented some problems. They say, “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. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Some have used verse 5 to teach that legal separations are fine in the eyes of God. The physical obligations of a marriage constitute a debt. To fail to pay that debt is to withhold from one what is due him or her. The word “defraud” means “to rob, or steal.” One is robbing his mate when he or she refuses to have physical relations. The decision to go without physical relations cannot be made by one party of a marriage without consulting the other. Both parties must be willing to forego and even than, it must be for only “a time”. The word translated “a time” means for a fixed, definite period. The purpose for such a time of physical inactivity is devotion to God. It would be a period of special devotion, and this is just a possibility, not a command. Such a period of physical inactivity must end. Marriages in which two physically healthy people constantly refrain from any intimate physical relations is not as God planned it or wants it to be. Any prolonged abstinence from physical gratification in a marriage places those involved at a disadvantage to Satan. No marriage partner should ever wish to subject his or her spouse to such a disadvantage. Paul’s comment in verse 6 means that what he had just written about periods of abstinence is something that was allowed but not commanded. In what way did Paul wish that all men were as he was? (V. 7). Probably unmarried. Because of the present distress he probably wished that all men were unencumbered by the concerns that come with marriage. It is also possible that Paul wished all men were as he was as far as control over their physical passions were concerned. However, I think the first, “unmarried” is the best explanation. We will have more to say about 1 Corinthians 7. Greg Litmer
|