"good" or "better"
B. Ward Powers
bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Thu Jun 27 03:46:08 EDT 2002
Dear Iver,
At 10:42 AM 020625 +0200, Iver Larsen wrote:
>Dear Ward
>
>As we draw this dialogue to a close, I'd like to express myself in a more
>positive way by setting forth how I understand Paul's comments rather than
>just opposing your understanding. Our disagreement is not on Greek words or
>their meanings, but on how to put a puzzle together from the various pieces,
>especially the whole context of chapters 5-7, but trying to exclude if
>possible our own theological background presuppositions.
Agreed.
>I am used to a method of linguistic analysis and description where one first
>gathers all the linguistic data (not necessarily commentators' views)
Fine.
>In gathering the linguistic data I am not ignoring chapters 5-7. Especially
>the last part of 6 where Paul strongly admonishes his readers against
>PORNEIA (v. 13, 18). I take PORNEIA to refer to a sexual relationship with
>anyone who is not one's spouse. This word is used 5 times in 1 Cor, and it
>is interesting to see where: 5:1 (twice), 6:13,19; 7:2. The masculine PORNOS
>occurs 4 times in 1 Cor (5:9,10,11; 6:9) and the feminine PORNH occurs twice
>in 1 Cor (6:15,16). Paul does not mince his words when he says that those
>who practice fornication, idolatry, adultery, male prostitution,
>homosexuality, theft, greed etc. will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven
>(6:9-10). The verb PORNEUW is used in 6:18. So, PORNEIA is clearly a key
>topic of chapters 5-7. This topic is referenced as the backdrop for chapter
>7 (through the DIA TAS PRONEIAS in v. 2), but otherwise this group of words
>do not occur, so the topic in 7 is not PORNEIA as such, but rather an almost
>Shakespearian question "to be married or not to be married?", and how
>marriage may help some people to avoid PORNEIA. For the sake of
>clarification, I understand PORNOS/PORNH to be a person who is practicing
>illicit sex whether he/she is married or not, thereby sinning against
>his/her own body (and God), whereas MOICEUW refers to breaking the marriage
>vow, thereby sinning against his wife/her husband (and God). An unmarried
>man doing this is a PORNOS, and a married man doing so is both a PORNOS and
>a MOICOS.
We are in agreement about this.
[SNIP]
7:1 KALON ANQRWPWi GUNAIKOS MH hAPTESQAI
>- it is commendable for a person(man) not to "touch" a woman
Agreed. [But we differ re the meaning of GUNH.]
>7:8 LEGW DE TOIS AGAMOIS KAI TOIS CHRAIS,
> KALON AUTOIS EAN MEINWSIN hWS KAGW
>- it is commendable for them (widowers and widows) if they remain as I did
>(i.e. not remarrying)
We are agreed.
>7:25-26 PERI DE TWN PARQENWN - concerning those who have never been
>married: .....KALON ANQRWPWi TO hOUTWS EINAI
>- it is good for a person to be like this (that is unmarried).
This is widely taken to mean, "It is good for a person to remain as he is",
and if that person is PARQENOS, then that does mean "remain unmarried". But
note that this is DIA THN ENESTWSAN ANAGKHN, "because of the present
crisis/necessity/emergency" - and, I take it, only for the duration of the
present emergency: it does not overrule 7:2 that every person is to have
their own spouse, which statement is not qualified in any way.
>What I think Paul is doing in chapter 7 is correcting an extreme position in
>Corinth that was an overreaction to and caricature of what Paul had said
>himself, namely that it is praiseworthy to abstain from marriage in order to
>live for God in a hostile world that is soon coming to its end.
Hmm. I do not interpret Paul's comments in 1 Cor 7 as meaning Paul thought
the hostile world was soon coming to its end. But that is another topic
which we can put to one side. This apart, we are agreed.
>He would
>never say that everybody MUST do so. Some had drawn the wrong conclusion
>that sex as a whole was then bad or unspiritual, and they said that even for
>married people it was more spiritual not to have sex.
Yes, indeed. This is an important point, upon which we can agree.
>Paul now presents a balanced picture in chapter 7.
>IMO, he first admits in v. 1. something which he repeats in verses 7,8 and
>26: that it is praiseworthy to live in celibacy (for various reasons that he
>also expounds in the chapter).
I am uneasy about the implication of this. I do not see the evidence as
indicating a general favouring by Paul of celibacy (but only in limited
circumstances). I would want to qualify this statement carefully.
>BUT, it is only for those who have the gift
>of celibacy, that is, those who can live like this without being tempted all
>the time to fall into PORNEIA. AND, it is no sin for a person who does not
>have this specific gift, to marry.
Yes, I agree with this, but I would wish to avoid giving any endorsement to
the view that marriage is "a remedy for PORNEIA". I do not consider that
that is a correct biblical view of what marriage is all about, or that that
is what Paul thought or taught. Rather, I see him as saying that abstaining
from a sexual relationship in marriage (as distinct from a sexual act on a
given occasion) will leave the spouse open to the temptation to PORNEIA (in
the wider sense you have mentioned). Therefore we must not follow the
Corinthians' proposal. Instead, he says (7:2), "each man should have his
own wife, and each woman her own husband" - which is the dead opposite of
the Corinthians' proposal.
>I do see a contrast in the beginning of v. 2 signalled by DE and hinging on
>the DIA phrase. It is not a new topic, but a clarification against an
>extreme position held by some in Corinth. So, Paul says - in my analysis
>where I look at verses 1-2 together with 7-9 and 25ff - Yes, it is
>praiseworthy for an [unmarried - either never married or formerly married]
>person to live in celibacy,
I feel "praiseworthy" is too strong in the circumstances. If you have the
gift of living celibate, then by all means do so. But I see that as being
the teaching of 7:7, not 7:1.
>BUT because of the temptation towards PORNEIA
>(v. 2a, 5b), those who do not have this gift should marry (v. 9), and those
>who ARE married must fulfill their marital obligations (v. 2-5).
Absolutely agree.
>Also, "to
>have his own woman/wife" is equivalent to "sleeping with the woman who is
>one's wife" and it is different from "to take a woman/wife", which is the
>same as "to marry".
Absolutely agree.
>Thanks for the dialogue. It was stimulating and helpful to me.
>
>Iver Larsen
Yes, indeed. I enjoy chatting with you.
There remain differences between us (primarily as to whether it was Paul or
the Corinthians who said "It is good for a man not to touch a GUNH", and
then as to what GUNH means in this context), but it is instructive to see
the extent to which there is underlying agreement between us.
Every good wish,
Ward
http://www.netspace.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-8714-7255
259A Trafalgar Street Phone (Australia): (02) 8714-7255
PETERSHAM NSW 2049 email: bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
AUSTRALIA. Director, Tyndale College
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list