# 27: 4-24-15 E

First Corinthians 7:1-9

As Paul continues his letter, he now begins to address issues that the Corinthian church had raised with him
in a previous letter that they sent to him.
Presumably, this letter was delivered to Paul in Ephesus by members of the Corinthian church, whom we
encounter only at the very end of the letter (1 Cor 16:15-18). These men were involved in the ministry in
Corinth, and were also likely the source of the unofficial report to Paul on the alarming developments in
the church there - many of which he has just addressed in this letter.
The letter from the church in Corinth apparently contained quite a few questions for Paul, as he was the
apostle who had founded their church, having brought the gospel to Corinth. We would tend to assume that
the Corinthian believers were seeking out Pauls wise counsel on various matters, in recognition of his
authority over them, in the Lord.
But with the Corinthians, we need to be careful what we assume. We have already seen evidence in this
letter that many of the Corinthian believers were tampering with the gospel that Paul preached to them
(1:18-31); that they despised Pauls teaching style, as well as his emphasis with them on the fundamentals
(2:1-5; 3:1-4); that they sat in judgment on Paul (4:1-5); and that they had even begun to regard him as
inferior to themselves, spiritually (4:8-13).
Meanwhile, their so-called spiritual superiority had led to them tolerating heinous sin in their assembly
(5:1-5), failing to exercise discernment over their members (5:9-6:8), and possibly even to revisiting their
former lifestyle of sexual perversity (6:12-20).
We also remember that there had already been at least one exchange of letters between the Corinthian
church and Paul, and the current letter makes it clear that the Corinthian believers were misconstruing
Pauls former counsel - perhaps deliberately so, in order to promote their own agenda (5:9-11).
What this all suggests is that the questions that the Corinthians raised in their letter to Paul were less likely
to be a matter of seeking his counsel, and more likely to be additional challenges to his authority. Perhaps
they were seeking loopholes in what Paul had previously taught them, in order to continue to advance
their newly styled philosophical gospel, with which they were so enamored. Based on what weve seen so
far, these questions may have come from the various camps of new thinking in Corinth, led by certain
prominent individuals, each with their own favorite version of Greek philosophy.
As we begin chapter 7, we encounter Pauls first reference to one of the questions that the Corinthians
posed to him in their letter. Later on in this chapter, we come upon a reference to another of their
questions, in verse 25. In both cases, we dont have the original questions; but to some extent, we can
reconstruct them based on Pauls answers.
Notice that both of these questions apparently pertained to sexual relations between men and women. Now,
what was it that Paul had been writing about last, in chapter 6? About sexual immorality - fornication which also deals with sexual relations between men and women.
We can surmise, then, that Paul deliberately chose these two questions from among those which the
Corinthians had posed to him in their letter, and he put these questions back-to-back with this issue of
fornication, in their assembly. In this way, as Paul is showing the Corinthians how to conduct themselves
righteously in their sexual relations with one another, he is illustrating it in contrast to their former
unrighteous conduct.

# 27: 4-24-15 E

So now, well begin with Pauls first response, to the Corinthians, found in verses 1-16. Well be looking
closely at just the first nine verses of it today.
[First Corinthians 7:1-16]
So in this passage, Paul is discussing marital status and appropriate sexual relations, between men and
women. In fact, almost the entire chapter is devoted to that subject.
If you have read through the chapter, one impression you may have had is that Paul was rambling a bit,
from group to group: the married, the unmarried, widows, believers married to unbelievers - then
circumcision and slavery thrown in for some reason - then back to virgins, the married, and ending up on
widows, again. Seems kind of random, at first.
Another impression you may have had is that Paul was saying it is better to be unmarried than married.
This impression begins with the very first verse, where we read, It is good for a man not to touch a
woman.
But thats not specifically a statement about marriage, is it? That is a statement about sexual relations.
And down in verse 8, Paul doesnt say that being unmarried is better; he merely says, its good.
It turns out that neither of the impressions mentioned is correct. Paul doesnt advocate singleness over
marriage; and the passage is actually carefully constructed around a certain theme.
To see this - and to understand the passage correctly - we must consider how Paul has structured this entire
passage, and remember that he is answering a question or two of the Corinthians.
In verse 17, we find Paul summing up the lengthy response we just read into one concise statement. Lets
read that.
v. 17 The idea is to walk - conduct yourself - according to what God has graced you with - whether He
intended you to be single, or to be married. Conduct yourself accordingly.
As Paul continues from there, he speaks of circumcision, and then sums that up, in verse 20.
v. 20 Its the same idea - remain as you are.
Then he speaks about slavery, and then sums that up.
v. 24 Stay as you are, when you were called.
It turns out the whole passage is marked by this theme; for the believer to be content with what God has
graced him with - whatever culture, or abilities, or circumstances, or social status - including marital status.
Paul is saying to the believers in Corinth, remain as you are - particularly in regard to their marital
circumstances (v. 8, 10-11, 12-13, 26, 27, 40).
So what does that tell you about what the church in Corinth was asking Paul? That their question had to do
with changing their what? Their marital circumstances. But with Pauls introductory remark in verse 1, we
understand that their key issue did not have to do with the state of being married; but instead, with the
relations which are associated with marriage - specifically sexual relations.

# 27: 4-24-15 E

Lets read verse 1 again.

v. 1 Remember that the Corinthians have posed several questions to Paul, in his letter. How would they
know which question Paul was answering? Paul would have to cite their question, or a key word or phrase
from it, right? And that is what hes doing, in verse 1.
So what we understand is that its not Paul who is saying, It is good for a man not to touch a woman; the
Corinthians had posed that, in a question to Paul. The word touch here is a euphemism for sexual
relations. So to paraphrase, the question may have been, Paul, wouldnt you agree it is good for a man not
to have sexual relations with a woman?
Wait a minute. Are these the same Corinthians we just learned about in chapter 6 - the ones who were
considering revisiting their former manner of life, of fornicating with prostitutes? The answer to that is, yes
and no.
All the Corinthian believers had been members of a sexually promiscuous society. Virtually all of them
would have maintained their philosophers degraded view of the human body, as inferior to soul or spirit of
man.
But their philosophers were divided into two main camps as to how one then conducted oneself, in the
body. The Epicurean philosophers believed that the desires of the body were to be fulfilled in every way indulge the desires of the body, because the body is degraded, unimportant; live for pleasure. Thats the
thinking behind fornicating with prostitutes in chapter 6.
But the Stoic philosophers felt that the basic desires of the body must be denied - ignore the needs of the
body, because the body is degraded, unimportant; the wise man is indifferent to such needs. And thats the
thinking behind the question in chapter 7; to deny the body in its sexual need; to abstain from it.
Now, based on Pauls lengthy answer, it would seem that this camp of Corinthian believers was taking the
idea of abstinence and elevating it in their minds to a high level - we could even say, to a pseudo-spiritual
level.
We can see they were considering abstaining from sexual relations in their marriages (v.1-6); they were
considering even dissolving their marriages, through divorce (v.10-11) - and certainly so, if their spouse is
an unbeliever (v.12-16). Then later in the chapter, we can see they had questions about virgins - surely they
shouldnt marry (v.25-38).
So their thinking was that just as the human body is degraded, so also would be sexual relations in the
human body. The truly spiritual person is above such things. After all, they have a high calling, in Christ
Jesus (Phil 3:14). They are to only mind the things above (Col 3:2), right? And look at Paul - he himself
was unmarried - surely that says something. So they thought.
You can see how especially for the Corinthians, this thinking might appeal to them as a way to transcend
their promiscuous culture, and their former manner of life. The thought is to control the sexual desires of
the body, by denying them entirely.
But the human body does have real needs. God designed the body that way, as well as providing the means
by which bodily needs could be satisfied - in a right manner. To utterly deny the body of a real need
actually causes sin to abound (Rm 5:20) - in lust. And this is what Paul brings out next.

# 27: 4-24-15 E

v. 2-4 This is the beginning of Pauls response to the Corinthian thinking concerning abstinence. Its
important to absorb that Paul is NOT presenting marriage as some kind of condescension from the ideal
of abstinence, because of the prevalence of fornication in Corinth - Well, because your culture is so
promiscuous, you better not try to abstain; youll just have to get married.
Could Paul have such a thought, when God Himself ordained marriage from the very beginning, as part of
His plan to have sons of God (Gen 1:27-28; 3:18-24)? Of course not. Instead, what we see is that these
three verses go together as a single qualification to the Corinthian thinking concerning abstinence: that is,
abstinence does not belong in marriage.
Literally, verse 2 reads, Let each man be having his own wife, and each woman be having her own
husband. Paul is speaking to those already married; and he is insisting on full sexual relations, within its
proper context: the marriage between one man and one woman.
There must be no deprivation of sexual relations for either spouse; otherwise, the result is likely to be what
Paul already addressed in the latter part of chapter 6 - fornication, of some kind.
Notice how Paul addresses the husband and the wife here. The equality in the marriage union is clearly
seen; he speaks in a virtually identical manner concerning each spouse.
In verse 3, Paul says that each spouse is to render the affection due to the other. By using the term
affection here, Paul is continuing to use subtle language to speak of the sexual relationship, but he is also
introducing the idea of it as benevolence, which is what the word affection means.
Benevolence literally means good will. Paul is showing that sexual relations require an act of the will - a
willingness, on behalf of each spouse, for the good of the other. And what is that willingness based on? Its
based on love, for the other.
The terms render and due both speak undeniably of an obligation; a debt. The marriage union procures
benefits for both marriage partners. These are benefits which they pay to one another - their debt of love,
for each other, which includes its physical expression.
Once a man and a woman have been joined in marriage, they no longer are the sole proprietors of their
bodies. In fact, their spouse has the say over it, in terms of availability, for sexual relations.
Notice in verse 3 that Paul names the wife first - that she does not have authority over her own body. Its
unusual to name the woman before the man, in writing of the day. The fact that Paul names the wife first
may suggest that it was the wives in Corinth who were more inclined to view abstinence as part of their
new freedom in Christ - as an expression of their spirituality.
Paul says, not so; the husband has authority over his wifes body - and she has no right to deprive him of it.
In fact, it is her means of fulfilling her debt of love. Thats her freedom, in Christ.
And Paul indicates equally that the husband does not have authority over his own body - like to take it to
the prostitutes. His body is to be available to his wife only. You can see that this requires mutual and equal
submission, on the part of both husband and wife.
As Paul continues, we will see that he now allows for one exception in marriage, for abstinence.

# 27: 4-24-15 E

v. 5-6 The word for deprive in verse 5 is the same word that was translated cheat back in chapter 6 (v.
7, 8). It means to willfully defraud another of what rightfully belongs to him. What rightfully belongs to
each spouse? The body of the other. They are not to defraud one another of the use of that body, for sexual
relations.
Paul then names an exception, and in the Greek, it is a hypothetical one. So this is just a possible
concession, to abstention. It is for a time to be devoted to the Lord; to fasting and prayer.
The idea of the two combined suggests an intensive time, free of earthly cares and distractions, when the
couple would devote themselves together to seeking the Lord.
Notice that Paul makes it clear this must be by mutual consent - why would that be? So that one spouse
does not use it as a means of manipulation within the marriage relationship - Im taking some time off, for
spiritual pursuits. If both agree, and are pursuing time together with the Lord, this cant happen.
Also, Paul indicates that it is only to be for a limited time - meaning a short time. Why only a short time?
Because otherwise, the very thing that they are abstaining from to keep from distraction will become a
distraction.
And not only does extended abstinence become a distraction. Notice how Paul indicates depriving one
another can bring about the very thing that sexual relations in marriage is designed to prevent - fornication.
Since the sexual needs of the body are normally being fulfilled through the marriage relationship,
abstention in the marriage can generate a desire to fulfill those needs elsewhere.
Through the temptations in his world system, Satan can use abstinence as a means of tempting spouses to
fulfill their sexual desires outside of the marriage relationship. He has crafted many avenues to fulfill the
lust of the flesh - and they were readily available, in Corinth, just as they are today. So Paul makes it clear
that, if a couple agrees to abstain, they should be sure to do so only for a short time.
So Paul is conceding to them that they may abstain for a time, if they both agree; but he is not commanding
abstention. The norm is to have sexual relations. Paul is not commanding them to take time off; he is
commanding them to be available to each other. They are to remain as they are - married, with full
conjugal relations.
It is likely that the Corinthians brought up in their letter the fact that Paul was unmarried, to support their
case for abstention. Now Paul addresses his own situation.
v. 7 So what do you think Paul means when he says that he wishes all men - all people - were even as
himself? He cant mean single, or unmarried, can he? God certainly intends some people to be married;
He established marriage Himself.
So what would Paul mean? He would mean that he wishes all people had the self-control that he possessed;
he is speaking particularly about sexual restraint, here. Because Paul had learned to yield himself and his
body to God, Paul had mastery over his bodys desires.
But in addition, Paul means here that he experienced complete freedom from sexual need - because notice
what he says about that next. It was a gift from God; the word in the Greek is charisma, which speaks of
an unmerited grace of the Spirit. Paul knows that it is God who graced him with this freedom from sexual
need, enabling him to live a celibate life, as a single man; and he recognizes the good in that life; hell
explain that more, later in this letter

# 27: 4-24-15 E

Jesus also spoke of the value of celibacy. Turn to Matthew chapter 19. This follows a parallel passage to
the one we looked at in Marks gospel last week, in which the Pharisees were testing Jesus concerning
divorce, and Jesus spoke to them of the permanence of the marriage union.
Jesus spoke of the one who divorces and remarries as committing adultery - which well talk about next
time. His statement prompted an interesting response from His disciples.
[Matthew 19:10-12]
v. 10 The disciples are saying this because divorce was so common in their day; men divorced their wives
at the slightest provocation. But their response gave Jesus an opportunity to teach them something about
the single life.
v. 11-12 Eunuch literally means one who is alone in bed. It can refer to a man who is impotent from
birth - who Jesus is referring to as born thus from their mothers womb. It can also refer to a man who
has been castrated, such as those employed to keep the harems of kings in the Ancient East, or even
ministers of court - these are who Jesus is calling those who were made eunuchs by men.
But then Jesus names a third group - those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heavens sake; those who have chosen a celibate life, in order to fully devote themselves to the service of
God. That would be like the apostle Paul, wouldnt it?
But notice what Jesus said in verse 11 - all cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been
given. This is precisely what Paul is saying in our passage - it is not something that a man can will for
himself, but is a charisma, a spiritual grace that God gives to a man, as God wills.
[Return to First Corinthians 7]
So both Jesus and Paul spoke of the good of a celibate life, but it doesnt follow that if one is not celibate,
that is not good; or even less good.
We see in verse 7 that although Paul was graced with celibacy, he realizes that God has not so graced
everyone; not everyone is free from these desires.
But look at what Paul says, along with this. Each one has his own gift from God - one in this manner, and
another in that. Pauls gift was celibacy - hes the one in this manner. What do you think was in his mind
when he wrote, another in that? What would that other manner be? Marriage.
Marriage is also a spiritual grace; Peter calls it the grace of life - of a shared life, together (1 Pet 3:7).
Celibacy and marriage are both spiritual graces, equally valuable, which God uses for His profit - as a
means of bringing forth sons, for His kingdom - each in their own unique way.
In what way? Well, Paul for example was especially free to devote himself to the Lord, in the ministry
given him - as the apostle to the Gentiles.
And what about those who are married? Their unique love for one another can be a brilliant reflection to
the world of the love of Christ, for His church (Eph 5:22-32). And assuming the marriage union is fruitful,
the couple have a very special audience to share the gospel with, dont they? Their own children.
Having addressed his own particular case, Paul now moves on to address a different group.

# 27: 4-24-15 E

v. 8 The Greek word for unmarried is a very general term, used in both general and specific ways,
depending on context. It simply means not currently married. So it can mean never married, or once
married and then widowed, or, by extension, divorced. What well find in this passage is that we need to
pay particular attention to the context to determine who is meant; for Paul uses the term differently, in
different places.
Notice in verse 8 that Paul speaks of the unmarried and widows. If he was using the term generally, he
would not have to say widows, because widows would be included, with the unmarried.
At the time that Paul was writing, there was no separate term that was in general usage for men whose
wives had died, and so the term unmarried was commonly used to specify widowers.
We can see that it is most likely Paul was using the term in this way here, thereby indicating the two
counterparts in marriage, who had been bereft of their spouse, through death - widowers and widows.
Death is the natural way that a marriage union between and husband and a wife is dissolved. Is the
remaining spouse free to remarry? Certainly; this is made clear in the Law (Rm 7:2), and Paul will say as
much at the end of this chapter (7:39).
But look at what Paul has to say to widowers and widows: it is good for them to remain as he, Paul, is: that
is, to remain single and celibate. This is not a command; and Paul is not even saying it is better than if they
remarry; in fact, as he continues, hell indicate they may need to remarry. Paul just recognizes that if one is
graced with the ability to be celibate, as he was, then they are especially free to minister for the Lord,
without distractions or limitations.
So Paul is recommending to widowers and widows - if you can, remain as you are. But now Paul goes on
to qualify this carefully.
v. 9 The translators of the NKJV have added the words with passion following burn, and it is certainly an
appropriate addition.
As we consider Paul using the term burn here, we can think of sexual desires within the context of
marriage to be like a well-tended fire in the hearth of a home. The fire gives the home warmth, doesnt it?
But if a person has unfulfilled sexual desires, and has no ability to control them, the fire instead rages out of
control; and like a wildfire, it is destructive.
Widowers and widows were once married; they once had been in the circumstance in life in which their
sexual needs were met, by their marriage partner. Now they no longer have that partner - but do they still
have that natural desire? They may very well still have it - and thats not wrong.
But if they are finding that they lack the power to control their sexual desires, it is evident that the God has
not graced them with celibacy. Therefore, they should not aspire to lead a celibate life; they should instead
remarry. For them, that is the better thing; that is whats good.
Pauls point is that celibacy is only for the celibate; it is only for those whom God has so graced. It is no
more and no less spiritual than marriage; both are the gift of God, to be used for His good purposes. And in
order to be part of those purposes, each believer must accept what God has given to them. As the Lord has
called each one, so let him walk.
Reading: 1 Cor 7, Mat 19:1-12, Mk 10:1-12, 1 Pet 3:1-7.