"good" or "better"
B. Ward Powers
bwpowers at optusnet.com.au
Thu Jun 27 05:37:58 EDT 2002
At 08:53 PM 020625 +0000, Mark Wilson wrote:
[SNIP]
[Mark Wilson considers the question of what Paul may have taught to the
Corinthians during his time there. We may indeed wonder about this. But I
would dissent from Mark's speculations from that point on.]
>Here's my reconstruct of Paul's teaching during his first
>18 month stay there. He would have taught: it is not only good,
>but required, that no man touch a woman outside of marriage. He
>would no doubt have sanctioned sexual intimacy within marriage.
>This I believe would have been everyone's understanding of Paul's
>teaching on sex, outside and within marriage, when he finally left
>Corinth.
Whatever Paul may have taught while there, there was obviously a need for
him to state the whole situation re illicit sex quite clearly: which he
does in 1 Cor 6.
>So, Paul did say that it was required and good that no man touch
>a woman OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. This would have been the CONTEXT in
>which Paul actually uttered these very words.
Paul has already dealt with sex outside marriage in chapter 6. In 7:1 he
says he is responding to what the Corinthians wrote. If what they wrote
were a question about sex apart from marriage, the place for him to mention
their letter and deal with that question would be at some point in chapter
6. But he has left that topic behind and PERI DE - he is now going on to
something different that they wrote about.
>As was/is always the case, people soon began
>to question or wonder how something would apply in this or that
>situation. Over time, a question arose that the Corinthians wanted
>Paul to once again clarify. So, the Corinthians ask Paul a question, found
>in 7:1: Is it good for a man not to touch a woman? (I do believe this is a
>question
>not a statement. But it nevertheless was the very words that Paul
>spoke, but of course, within a specific context, of those unmarried.)
I can see no basis for believing it question, or that it was the words of Paul.
>I do not really see this being a significant issue within those
>married in Corinth; this primarily dealt with the unmarried, as
>verse 9 reiterates. So Paul simply answers their question, but in
>a fashion complete and exhaustive to avoid the need to address such
>a question again... a question that reflected that some had twisted
>this simple and basic Christian teaching by applying words spoken
>within a specific context to a completely unrelated issue.
>
>It would not surprise me if this question was primarily being
>challenged by the unmarried, who felt their sexual desires could
>not be fulfilled.
It would surprise me. Paul has already dealt with sex outside marriage in
chapter 6, and now moves on.
>What was happening in Corinth regarding the difficulty with
>sexual abstinence outside of marriage was a prevalent then as now.
>Nothing has changed in 2000 years; same issues, same answers.
>So, Paul answers this question of 7:1: to avoid sexual immorality (which
>of course necessitates that many were struggling with this issue
>of "no sex outside marriage"), the answer is: get marriage.
>In fact, if you can not control your sexual urges, that is your
>indicator to marry.... or to say it another way... you do not have
>the gift of celibacy. For Paul, if your body clearly must have
>sex, then get married for Pete's sake :o ) (Who is this Pete?)
I think it a very low view of marriage, and of Paul's understanding of the
meaning and role of marriage in God's plan and purpose, to see it as no
more than "to avoid immorality" and "if you can not control your sexual
urges". And I believe the Bible teaches a rather different view of marriage
than this.
>If Paul has been told of a problem of married couples unclear of
>the role of sex within the marriage, it seems to have been a very
>minor problem/issue, one Paul quickly resolves.
I am not aware of anyone who says that Paul was targetting "married couples
unclear of the role of sex within marriage". It's a question of whether it
is a good thing for people to give up sex, even in marriage (not the same
thing). That's the issue that Paul addresses. Actually, hardly a minor
issue. For those affected by it. Paul says, "No, fulfil your marital role."
Yes, I suppose that resolves the issue quickly.
>My thoughts,
>
>Mark Wilson
My response.
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