1 Corinthians 7:1-7

In the first half of the letter - which consists of chapters 1-6 - Paul dealt initially with an INTERNAL matter - addressing some problems which were affecting the church's unity and witness but which were perhaps not generally known in the community. That occupied most of chapters 1-4. Then, in chapters 5-6, he dealt with some EXTERNAL matters - issues which were known to people outside the church and which were also hurting the church's unity and witness.

Two of the matters raised in chapters 5-6 were concerned with some specific cases of sexual immorality that the Corinthians were tolerating amongst themselves. With that discussion still "ringing in their ears", as it were, Paul begins - in chapter 7 - to deal with questions they have asked - and in so doing, chooses a question that was directly related to the whole matter of sexual immorality. And so, their question provides a convenient transition point for Paul's letter.

Now, before we go to the passage itself, there are a couple things you need to keep in mind, by way of preliminary observation. Firstly, as we look at these verses you need to remember that Paul is not in any way attempting to give an exhaustive view of marriage. He is only dealing with one aspect of marriage - the sexual aspect - and even then he is only talking about that in one particular manner - i.e., the sexual aspect of marriage, as it specifically relates to the matter of avoiding sexual immorality and promoting sexual purity amongst God's people.

Second, and I hate to keep doing this, but the NIV translation of this passage, in my view, is not adequate, at least as far as verse 1 of chapter 7 is concerned. Now this is not a criticism of the Bible - which IS God's inspired and inerrant word - but rather it is a criticism of the translation of the greek to english, in this particular place.

So, in verse 1 the NIV has translated the Greek as, "...It is good for a man not to marry..." The problem with that translation is this: In every other place where we have a record of it, the words found here are always used to talk about sexual relations and never about marriage. And so, given the history of how these Greek words are used, and more importantly, given the immediate context of these words, a better translation of verse 1, in my judgment, is not "It is good for a man not to marry" but rather, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman".

That is what some of the Corinthians (not Paul) are saying and promoting. Which leads to the next preliminary observation, namely this: the Corinthian Church is a very divided church. There are all kinds of different factions and groups and emphases. Some of their divisions were along the lines of personal loyalties - as we saw at the very beginning of our study. In other words, some of the people were identifying themselves with Paul, others with Peter, others with Apollos, etc. Remember that? Those were personality divisions. But those were not the ONLY divisions.

In chapters 5-6, we saw how there was apparently a group of people within the Corinthian Church whose "clocks were all wrong" (as Dick Lucas says) with regard to God's timetable - thinking and acting as if their rule and reign with Christ had already begun. For a people such as that who mistakenly believe that the end of the ages has come, and who take to heart Jesus words in Luke 20, which we looked at last week, "Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage ... they are like angels" - for those Corinthians who think that "that age" is right now, and take Jesus' words about marriage in "that age" to heart now, then it is not hard to see how they could have reached some of their conclusions.

But that was just one issue. Many of these same people were also apparently those who had some misunderstandings about the meaning of God's GRACE and who, on top of all that, also seemed to have a strange view of the body and material things. In short, while some of the divisions in the Corinthian Church WERE along personality lines, other divisions were along theological lines.

Well, what we discover as we turn to this new section of 1 Corinthians, in chapter 7, is that there is at least one more group that existed in Corinth and which has not, as yet, appeared on our radar screen. This group is a great contrast - at least in their practices and commitments - to the group we saw in chapters 5-6, although it is very possible that theologically they were coming from the same viewpoint so that what distinguished the people addressed in 5-6 and the people here in chapter 7 was how they applied their common theology.

So, in addition to dividing along personal and theological lines, the Corinthians apparently were divided also along what you might call applicational lines. Now, if you remember, the people in chapters 5-6, because they thought that the spirit was all that mattered and that the body was a temporary irrelevance that had no eternal significance - because they held that view they felt free to INDULGE the flesh - especially in the area of sex.

However, the same perspective, as I've just said, can produce the opposite result. In other words, if the spirit is all that matters and the body is an irrelevance, then one could also choose to suppress the bodily passions and desires, rather than indulge them. In this view, the body is something which "drags the spirit down", so to speak, and as such should not be encouraged to be more of a distraction than it already is. The label we can apply to this kind of thinking is Christian Asceticism - a kind of self-denial that was alleged to be spiritually driven but was really derived from secular philosophies and practices already current in Corinthian society.

So this different group within Corinth - driven partially by a wrong view of the end times, and driven partially by their decidedly un-biblical disdain for the body, are now going about, touting their favorite slogan, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman". This group was apparently going about, pushing this view of Christian asceticism on all who will hear - including those who were already married.

This is the point where Paul enters the fray, and is the issue about which Paul is being questioned and is what he chooses, because of its similarity to the previous discussion, as his entry point to the remainder of the letter.

With that as an introduction, let me then pray for our time, read the passage out loud, and then we'll go about seeing how Paul responds to the issues raised.

(Pray and read 1 Cor 7:1-7)

Now the approach I'd like to take this morning is to simply give a kind of summary of Paul's response to the position being taken by this particular group as regards sex between husbands and wives - and in doing that I will gather together Paul's thoughts from the whole of verses 1-7. Then, after giving you a kind of summary of Paul's answer, what I'd like to do for the remainder of our time is think through some of the particulars of Paul's response and how they apply to our own day.

Let us try and frame the question that Paul is being asked because it does not specifically appear here in question form. Now, keeping in mind the opening comments, and making use of the clues we have in the text before us, the question he was being asked must have been something along these lines: "Many of our people here in Corinth are starting to believe and teach that it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman - but we are curious what you think about this sort of teaching, Paul.?" That, or something very similar, is surely the question that Paul is being asked. So, how does Paul respond?

Well, interestingly, he starts out by saying, "But...", an observation which may not seem all that earth-shattering but which, I believe, is significant. And the significance is this: it seems to me that Paul's answer here comes across as a qualification of what they are saying, rather than an outright rejection of it. And this, in turn, says to me that what we have here is probably another situation, as we saw in 6:12-20, where the Corinthians are taking something that Paul has previously said, on a different occasion and in a different context, and applying that saying of Paul in a way which was not legitimate. In other words, they were using Paul's words in a way which he himself never would have done.

The clue for all of that is this word, "but". In other words, Paul does not just dismiss this slogan of theirs by saying, "How ridiculous!" or "What a stupid idea" rather he responds to it in a way which suggests, as I've said, that it's a qualification of a statement that has some truth, when made in the right context, but it is not universally true nor does it universally apply to all people. As if to say, "Granted that the statement ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman' may be true in some circumstances, the reality is that ... because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband...."

The sense of those words there in verse 2, in context, is that each man, tempted to such sexual immorality, should have his own wife, and vice versa. Because, you see, Paul is not saying that because of the possibility of sexual immorality every person ought to be married - that would flatly contradict what he says later on. He is saying that every person for whom sexual immorality is a real and constant temptation and danger - every man or woman who does not have the gift of sexual abstinence - people like that, peole for whom that sort of thing is true, ought to be married. That is the sense of what is being said here.

The reason for pointing all this out is because of what Paul will say later on about celibacy, which he only hints at in the verses before us this morning. There are some for whom the slogan they are throwing around would be true - it is good and right and appropriate for one who had the gift of sexual abstinence not to have sexual relations with a woman. That is certainly true. But to take a statement like that and begin to apply it to all believers as if it was universally true and desirable is a mistake. And that is evidently what some of the Corinthians were doing.

So, with all of that in mind, Paul's response to this idea of sexual abstinence even within marriage, can be summarized like this:

1) Looking at verse 7 we see that, although Paul personally wishes that all people had this gift of sexual abstinence or "celibacy" - for reasons which we will see later in this chapter - he realizes that not everyone HAS been given this gift. And so, it is quite wrong for some of these Corinthians to be going around trying to get everybody to be what they clearly are not and to behave in ways which are contrary to the way that God has put them together.

2) Not only is it wrong for these Corinthians to push this idea upon their married brothers and sisters it is, ultimately, stupid and even perilous for them to do so because by suppressing the sexual component of their marriage, husbands and wives will make themselves much more vulnerable to the attacks of Satan as he lures them into all kinds of sexual immorality.

3) So, in short, Paul's assessment is: What some of the Corinthians are doing is unbiblical, dangerous, and stupid.

That, in a nutshell, is Paul's response to this situation about which he has been asked. For the remainder of our time then, let me just draw out a few particulars of what Paul says here in the hopes of clarifying some of the ways in which these remarks made to the Corinthians are still very much relevant to circumstances in our own day.

First, let us think about what Paul says - admittedly in a very limited way - about the issue of celibacy or sexual abstinence or, as some have described it "the gift of extraordinary self control in matters pertaining to sexuality".

Now, as I've already said, this is something that we will look at in greater detail later on in this chapter - and especially as we see how this gift of celibacy relates to the circumstance of singleness. These two things - the gift of celibacy and the circumstance of singleness - are sometimes equated and tied together in ways that are not helpful. We'll say more about that issue later on.

However, for now, I think it is enough to note what Paul says here - not everybody has this gift. And this means that the church should never create a situation where people are required to take upon themselves "vows of celibacy" without the certainty of having actually received this gift. For any church to require celibacy for a class of people - such as ministers - would be wrong because celibacy is not a function of class but of God's gifting.

Even further, to require celibacy in this way creates at least two problems: 1) It denies to a church the services of those who are not celibate but who are clearly gifted for the ministry and 2) It places those who are not "wired" to be celibate in the position of trying to be what they are not, and thus leaves them in a position of grave temptation and spiritual peril as they are required to maintain this artificial standard for unbiblical reasons. The end result of such a system is as disastrous as it is predictable. Paul feared that implementing such a system in Corinth would only result in further sexual immorality. Events in our own day and age have seen the realization of Paul's fears and, surely, one of the morals to this story is that correct theology matters - a lot.

The second particular that I want you to focus on follows from the first. Paul makes it quite clear that the ability to abstain from sexual relations with a man or woman without being wrecked by that abstention, without being consumed by it, or obsessed with it, or controlled by it in any way - the ability to do that and be "celibate " is a GIFT. And, as we've already seen, you either have that gift, as verse 7 says, or you do not. If you don't have that gift, you should not act as if you do, nor should you treat your partner as if he/she does. Rather - and this is really the heart of this second particular - if you are married, you should treat your partner as someone whom you are to serve in this area to help prevent him/her from being led into sexual immorality.

That is what all the language of verses 2-4 is all about. The husband should not selfishly regard his body as his own possession but, with regard to this whole matter of sexuality, as the possession of his wife. His body is something that is "given" to her. And notice the direction of this movement as this is absolutely crucial.

It is not the wife that should have to demand that her husband serve her in this way, rather it is the responsibility of the husband to be proactive in this area, to gladly and willingly serve his wife by giving himself to her in a sexual way.

The same thing is true for the wife. She is not to selfishly regard her body as her own possession but, with regard to this whole matter of sexuality, as the possession of her husband. Her body is something that is "given" to him. And, once again, notice the direction of this movement. It is not the husband that should have to demand that she give her body or that she serve him in this way, rather it is the responsibility of the wife to be proactive in this area, to gladly and willingly serve her husband by giving herself to him in a sexual way.

The service that husband and wife perform for one another in this area is not perfunctory. It is not about going through the motions to assuage your conscience or so that you can claim that you have "done your duty". To be sure, there may be times when problems in a marriage mean that the whole matter of "duty" may have to be addressed in this particular area. But that is always the last resort and the least desirable response. The issue is not of "fulfilling a duty" but of sacrificial, self-giving, glad service to one another - seeking your partner's joy, seeking your partner's satisfaction, seeking to provide for your partner in this area and in such a way that it, among other things, acts as a strong safeguard against Satan's attempts to lead your partner into sexual immorality. Christian husbands and wives are not to deprive one another in this way. Regular, consistent giving of yourselves to each other is to be the normal pattern.

There is, however, an exception to this - a concession that Paul allows. Note, it's not a command. He's not saying that people must interrupt their normal pattern of sexual relations, but he is providing the conditions under which this might happen, if a couple so chooses.

First, he says, it is to be by mutual consent. Both husband and wife must agree that it is a good idea. This agreement is not to be the result of coercion or "emotional blackmail" or anything like that. It is to be a mutual consent - mutually arrived at and mutually agreed upon. So, one partner cannot use the granting or withholding of sex as a tool for manipulation or punishment or as some sort of bargaining chip in the relationship.

Second, this abstention, if occurs, is only to be for a limited time period. The husband and wife can choose to abstain from sexual relations "for a time....", meaning a set time period, but then at the end of that time they are to "come together again", as verse 5 says. And so, while there are no time limits given, it is clear that "open-ended" decisions to forego sex are out of bounds and that, on the contrary, the intent of the passage is to make the time period as small as possibly and not to drag it out un-necessarily.

The third condition is that the purpose of this abstention is a spiritual one -- so that "you may devote yourselves to prayer". Now obviously, these words do not have in mind the sort of short-term seasons of prayer that one might engage in on any given day - i.e., 20 minutes here, ten minutes there. Those sorts of things would not require a couple to forego sexual relations. What Paul must have in mind, then, is times of special prayer and devotion. Perhaps you may be facing a big decision or wrestling with a difficult issue and, as a result, you decide to engage in some extended prayer, a personal retreat of sorts. You might even include some fasting.

So, for the purposes of these spiritual exercises, you decide with your husband/wife that you both want as little distraction as possible so that you can give your full attention to the spiritual matter before you. This, it would seem, is more like the kind of circumstance that Paul would have had in mind. And so, says Paul, in those kinds of circumstances, with those kinds of purposes, to abstain from sexual relations for a short time might be useful.

Please notice what this says about not only the sexual aspect of a marriage but also the spiritual aspect of a marriage. The fact that Paul uses THIS as an example and a reason for making a concession is very telling, isn't it? It presupposes a marriage that has a spiritual center that is vital enough and strong enough to even dislodge something as important as sex within a marriage.

But you can see Paul's heart in this, can't you? And you can see the heart and attitude that husbands and wives are to have for one another in this, right? Just as, by analogy, Christ did not regard his body as "his own" but selflessly gave up his body for his bride, the church - sacrificing himself to make her clean and whole, giving himself up for her, putting her interests ahead of his own - in the same manner, husbands and wives are to give themselves up FOR each other and TO each other in every area - seeking their partners good and protection and purity in every way - including in the area of sex.

I dare say that if you were to search among the smoldering ruins of many a wrecked marriage, you would find in the ashes, among other things, the signature of this very issue. This is a very important matter. And, to be sure, there is no such thing as an adultery proof marriage or an adultery proof church. And giving oneself sexually to your partner and serving your partner in this way is not a guarantee that sexual immorality will not become a problem in a marriage. But, friends, if we were to take Paul's teaching to heart, and husbands and wives were to model Christ's self-giving love and begin to really serve one another in this way, and in this particular area, while we will never have an adultery proof church - we will at least have an adultery resistant one. And what a blessing that could be for the work of the Gospel and the witness of the Gospel, in this city.