|
About Jesus - Steve (Stephen) Sweetman Paul
And Marital Sexuality I once teased my pastor
friend by suggesting that he dedicate a Sunday morning message to a
detailed, exegetical explanation of 1 Corinthians 7:1 through 5.
"It's not necessary to provide an explicit multi-media
presentation," I assured him. "Just
don't hold back anything. Stimulate
us with all of the glorious details so we can get home and start
practicing what you've preached."
He answered by saying, "I'll let someone else preach that
message." So here's that
passage. "But since sexual
immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his
own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
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. 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." Okay, I get why my
pastor friend declined to provide a detailed exposition of how we could
apply this passage in real time today.
I too will leave the mental imagery of this passage for you to
process. There is, however, a
reason why I bring Paul's words to our attention.
Over the past few months I have written on why I believe Paul was
not anti women as many think he was. This
passage is yet another reason for my belief.
From my study of
first-century, Greco/Roman sexuality, I can safely say that for the most
part it was a male dominated sexual world.
A husband viewed his wife as a baby making machine that would
prolong his family lineage. Personal
gratification was not his reason for sexual union with his wife.
Sexual pleasure was found with both male and female prostitutes and
his friends. He taught his
pre-adolescent sons to follow his example by involving them in his
extra-marital pleasure. With
this in mind, what Paul wrote in the above passage would have been
culturally unacceptable among men. Paul taught that a man
must only have sexual intimacy with his own wife.
Men would have viewed this as culturally unacceptable.
He taught that the wife had authority over her husband's body.
Men would have viewed this as culturally unacceptable.
He taught that sexual intimacy between a husband and wife was to be
a matter of mutual consent. Men
would have viewed this as culturally unacceptable.
The only thing Paul taught that would have been culturally
acceptable among men was that the man had authority over his wife's body.
Christians are to be a
counter-cultural community that is in stark contrast to all other
communities, and that is clearly seen in Paul's teaching concerning
marital sexuality. Maybe you
will agree with me when I say this passage provides yet another proof that
Paul was not anti woman as is commonly thought.
He portrayed the husband wife sexual relationship as being mutually
consenting and not male dominating. As
a matter of Biblical fact, marital co-dependence in all areas of their
relationship was God's will at creation (Genesis 2:20 - 25) which Paul
confirmed in 1 Corinthians 11:11. "Nevertheless, in
the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of
woman." Paul was not anti woman,
not misogynistic.
He was pro woman. He was ahead
of his day when it comes to women's issues.
|