Sermon Preached on October 21, 2018
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
1 Corinthians 7:1-16
Last week the sermon was called “What Our Bodies are For.” I might have called this one “What Marriage is For,” but that would be very misleading because marriage is for more than what we have in this passage. But this is certainly an important part. Paul will also have much to say about the place of singles and children in the body of Christ. There is even an important qualification in this passage about criteria for a justifiable divorce and the implications of that for remarriage. But as much as we might want to settle all those very practical questions, there is a clearer, more crucial “big picture” to this passage. It can be divided into three discernible parts.
Sex for Spiritual Warfare
Singleness for Mission
Staying Together for Salvation
Doctrine. Christ redeems our relationship to the opposite sex as a means of advancing his kingdom and saving your soul.
I was originally going to say that God designed this relationship in this way and that. The trouble there is that this would imply too much overlap between the creational and new creational spheres where, recall, grace always perfects nature. It never destroys nature; yet it also creates new, special callings. We must also bear in mind the historical context of Corinth. This was a pre-Christian culture. America is rapidly moving into a post-Christian culture. What these have in common is a lot of cultural chaos, where the people coming in and out of the church are going to bring their cultural norms.
Sex for Spiritual Warfare
He says, ‘Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (v. 1). Notice first the quotation marks. This was the statement in the prior letter to which Paul was responding. The word GOOD is relative to that context. If a chief Roman virtue was the glory of dominating others, the other extreme reaction was a life of world-renouncing “asceticism and severity to the body” (Col. 2:23). It is not unlikely that whoever wrote the letter was in that party. They were ready to go all the way, in the other way, and say, as the disciples misheard Jesus: “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Mat. 19:10). If the original design is messed up, and if hard times are ahead, and Jesus calls us to be soldiers of the cross, well then marriage will just hold us all down. So the reasoning is simple: It is good not to be married. However, in the widest context of creation, God says the exact opposite: What was NOT GOOD was “for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). This was the original design. Clearly Paul’s particular audience in Corinth is in the early learning stage: hearing at the extremes. Jesus and Paul were both making marriage-renouncing-kingdom-callings the exception. A good exception, but an exception nonetheless.
Now another balance is called for. Even the design of the exception—even the great spiritual good that marriage hinders—that mission has its own hindrance. Because this is so, most people are not fit for this “spiritual special ops force,” if one chooses to think about it in those terms. ‘But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband’ (v. 2). The point is not that the single soldiers of Christ are “more spiritual” (as in much medieval teaching), but rather that it is a specific calling that calls for a specific abstinence. That should be obvious.
Notice that once married, there are two things that do not go away: things which some more naive might think are promised to go away. Marriage is not meant to pretend that either no longer exist. First, there is still a higher spiritual calling. Second, the temptations of improper relations are not eradicated by marriage magic. Different people will be predisposed to mishear either one or the other claim. Those who persist in denial of Paul’s doctrine here will do so to their own delusion and at their own eventual burnout.
Paul tackles the first head on, and in a very practical, and surprisingly earthy, way: ‘The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does’ (vv. 3-4). What might get lost in the shuffle of this counsel from Paul—the sort that we might expect to find in a counselor’s office and not in the Bible—is the revolutionary ethic that comes from it. Remember what I just said about how Roman sexual ethics was only a portion of the broader Roman distortion of glory as a lording it over others. This extended to property, and the consideration of others as one’s property.
What does Paul say here? The man and the woman equally belong to each other. Their bodies are “proper” to each other, so that neither one claims sexual rights for themselves. Rather, each is the servant of the other. Now that would have been strange for a Roman man to hear. Now think of all the nonsense you hear today about how Christianity views women. As a matter of fact, the report is all backwards. The freedoms and healthy attitudes (such as there are still some) that we enjoy today were not brought to us by the secular world. There was one actual women’s liberation movement in human history. It was called Christianity. But do not miss the practical punchline. Husbands and wives do not look to the other to answer to their own rights; but the ideal of self-sacrificial love extends even to their intimate relations.
I promised that there was a spiritual warfare dimension to all this. Here it is: ‘Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control’ (v. 5). I referred to both the single and the married as “Christian soldiers.” Now I am no expert on military matters, but I know enough to know that there is a strict code of conduct about fraternization and sexual immorality while on duty and in wartime. At least there used to be. The reason is obvious enough: discipline. That is why Paul uses the metaphor to Timothy: “No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:4). One might say, “OK, I see what that has to do with singleness. Marriage was the ‘entanglement’ in view.”
Paul would actually not approve of that hearing of his words. The married man (and the married woman) are still enlisted and on duty and targets of the devil; and how will Satan take you, the married man or woman, off the battlefield? You and your spouse are a package deal. He will take you out now as a marriage. In fact, that would actually cause much greater harm to the body of Christ, and so much the better for the devil. But in case there is still any doubt that marriage is not simply a “tolerated secondary good” here, or worse, a “necessary evil,” listen to the Scripture elsewhere:
Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous (Heb. 13:4).
We will see that it is not only marital intimacy which is a life raft on a sea of lust. Other allures or seasons of wandering are avoided by this domestic grace.
Singleness for Mission
I mentioned in passing the medieval view, or at least the majority view in the Middle Ages. Calvin made reference to it in saying that “even the Papists, those little saints, are offended with this doctrine, and would gladly have a contest with Paul, on the ground of his keeping married persons in mutual cohabitation, and not allowing them to turn aside to a life of celibacy.”1 Plainly monasticism had a different mission in mind than Paul. They could, of course, appeal to Paul’s language that the time was short and, moreover, that the idea of them “burning” was the great danger for which marriage was the reluctant remedy.
This assumes that the life of celibacy is essentially the life of purity, so that the monastery or convent is a superior means of quenching the fire than marriage. This further assumes that concupiscence, at least with regard to the lust of the body, is entirely or supremely a matter of bodily proximity or the inundation of the senses. I will not disturb anyone’s sensibilities with the reminder of other forms of sexual perversion that this can, and plainly has, led to for Romanist priests.
‘Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another’ (vv. 6-7). You have heard of the “gift of singleness.” This really is a calling. Whatever labels one uses, one thing is for sure. This text annihilates the very one-dimensional notion that one must be married to be qualified for service, and even leadership, in the body of Christ. Just add to that the next words:
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion (vv. 8-9).
Paul was unmarried. Whether he was married earlier, as a Pharisee, that is another matter. We can speculate about whether he was a widower or whether there were alternative practices within levels of Pharisaism. But one thing we can be certain of is that Paul (like Jesus) was single. It is important not to fly off the handle to either extreme. On the one hand, there is a reason for elder qualifications being what they are in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Domestic leadership is God’s normal testing ground for ecclesial leadership. So no one is arguing here that this exception is anything other than an exception. However, we do not hold the line between exceptions and rules by denying either, but by better understanding both.
Staying Together for Salvation
It is a significant clue that Paul addresses the woman first, in instructions that apply to men and women. Paul never does that. Paul always addresses the head of the home first. Again, massive clue that Paul is addressing extenuating circumstances: ‘To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife’ (vv. 10-11). From where does he derive these words of Jesus? The Synoptic Gospels each contain a version of the teaching.
Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery (Lk. 16:18).
At this point we must address a difficulty—not of the text-critical sort—but of more general apologetics and even as a refutation against so-called “liberal” or “progressive” Christianity. Some have used these verses as a linchpin text in the attempt to pit Paul against Jesus. In fact, the Apostle is paying deference to Jesus. We must ask what kind of deference, however, because one nuance in these crowds comes in the form of claiming that he is only taking his lower position in the hierarchy, and thus placing his own words beneath the words of Jesus as a matter of authoritative teaching. Thus, as a universal rule—by virtue of the rule being that of out Lord’s—there is no exception to divorce, so that even if one is legitimately the victim, one must at least live the rest of life in singleness. Then follows the next words:
To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him (vv. 12-13).
The meaning of the contrast, “not I, but the Lord” (v. 10) and “I, not the Lord” (v. 12) is not to arrange the two teachings in a hierarchy of authority, but rather to relate them as a unity between that which has already been taught, that is, by the Lord, and that which gives additional information. If the two teachings seem to have contradicted, then attempting some other unity would be reasonable. I am well-aware of the claim to that very thing. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus does indeed offer an exception—that is, “sexual immorality” or “adultery”—and so the one making this claim has assumed (with no clear ground) that Jesus was disallowing any additional ground. Yet the teaching there in the Sermon on the Mount was no more comprehensive than Paul’s is meant to be here.
In the “Jesus-versus-Paul” viewpoint, this remaining audience “the rest” may now receive this supplemental instruction by Paul. We must ask: In what sense is there any audience leftover from those addressed by Jesus. It seems most reasonable to conclude that all husbands and all wives are covered both by Jesus and by Paul. Something certainly does seem to hinge on this expression “to the rest.” Perhaps further context will help us.
‘For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy’ (v. 14). The word HOLY here means to be considered special by God. It does not mean that the unbelieving spouse or children are somehow saved without believing. Salvation by family ties! No, not at all. Once again, we must not fly to the other extreme and make it mean nothing. God treats the entire family of believing parents differently than He does people in the world. This may seem like a tiny “footnote” verse in the overall case for covenantal infant baptism, but actually it is more like a window into a very normal way that the New Testament talks: cf. Eph. 6:1, 1 Jn. 2:19, Heb. 10:29. Now if you want another window into how God views children in the new covenant, take a look back to how God viewed divorce at the end of the old covenant:
And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth (Mal. 2:15).
So why does God hate divorce so much? It tells a lie about the place of his Son and the church in the world. God’s ultimate mission in this age is the expansion of His kingdom.
Here now is the ground for exception: ‘But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace’ (v. 15). Two extremes that this helps us avoid: Exceptions are real, but exceptions are exceptional. Exceptions are real, but exceptions are often not exhaustive. In other words, there is principle behind them: a reason that makes it so, and therefore may very well explain other like exceptions.
Paul lands on his real punchline: staying together is for salvation. ‘For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?’ (v. 16) Now, again, this is instrumental speech. He is not commending “Salvation by family.” But consider other places where Paul uses such strong language to speak of various instruments God uses in our salvation process: “Yet [women] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim. 2:15); “Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:16).
Furthermore, Paul is not making light of abuse. Often times we will hear extreme cases—hint: more exceptions—of a situation in which the greater spiritual good (the children’s faith or respect for the man’s authority) as the substance of the lone counsel given to a woman who is undergoing real abuse. I want to ask any Bible-believing Christian whether they think Paul, under the influence of the same Spirit who was in Christ, would wink at such abuse by means of such counsel. If not, then let us not dress up some cult, or even a legitimately traumatic experience, in the Apostle’s words. If it is said in response, “But that’s exactly what they did! They used Paul’s words!” or “They used Jesus’s words!” Well, then don’t let them have those words! Do not agree with them in practice by conceding to them the very words of God!
Most importantly, however, this “who knows” is not willy-nilly. It is a divine call to “think about it.” He who saves in general saves here as well. He saves through marriages. We have heard our fill of warnings about the “idol of marriage,” as anything can technically be made into an idol, but we have neglected the vulnerability to alternative gospels outside of marriage. I will say a word about this by way of application.
Practical Use of the Doctrine
Use 1. Admonition. For very different reasons in our culture, the idea of marriage is becoming increasingly intimidating for young men. The cost of living is rising. The age of maturity is being delayed. Video games has obliterated the ability of many young men to relate to others in public settings. On the other side, the number of young women marketing themselves for the cubicles of their liberated mothers has increased threefold or more. Far worse, for a newly normalized soft pornographic industry on the internet, where money can be had discretely and with no strings or (for now) social stigma attached—all of this will drastically reduce the pool of female purity. With all of this, we now have the rise of the so-called INCEL (involuntary celibate) movement online. Whatever else it has become in terms of a potentially violent group of young males, what matters for us is how it represents the repulsion toward marriage.
Young men, if you wait for marriage, the conditions will not get better. They will all get worse. Your masculine urge to shape things will turn, effeminately, from this thing to that.
Young women, if you wait for marriage, your natural feminine instinct to nurture will be misplaced on people and things that are aimed to use your body and exhaust your soul.
If you have the gift to which Paul alludes, it will be confirmed by godly friends in the local church context, and it will manifest itself by a ministry-life that has no space for other things, not only for marriage. If it takes any other shape, it isn’t the same thing. Of course you should be praying and asking others to pray for you—for wisdom, for patience, for all that God knows you need while you are single; but such a waiting on the Lord must not be used as an excuse for waiting on one’s culturally-informed options.
Use 2. Consolation. Marriage is like the ark. It wasn’t really Noah’s boat-building expertise that saved him and his family, anymore than Noah’s righteousness impressed God. Moreover, God made promises to Noah about his family, but of course each one of them still had to believe to be saved. God uses means to save spouses. He uses means to save children. He uses means to save marriages. The very means that we think are so mundane or even profane, He transforms into the holy and the special and the effective. All of these are instruments. If we depended on our own use of the instruments God gives us to be saved, we would never be saved. On the other hand, if we put more stock into what God makes the mission for which the times and seasons and struggles of our relations are merely the circumstances, then we will find more redeemed that we would have thought.
_____________________________________
1. Calvin, Commentaries, XX:230.
