Taught by
Stephen ArmstrongAccess all of our teaching materials through our smartphone apps conveniently and quickly.
Taught by
Stephen ArmstrongTo this point in Paul’s letter, we’ve followed him as he admonished the church for various mistakes they’ve been making in arrogance and immaturity
That was part 1 of Paul’s letter comprising Chapters 1–6 of the book
The rest of the letter is reserved for another set of issues
These are issues the church itself posed to Paul through Chloe
The church asked Paul six questions on a variety of church life issues
Paul will use the rest of his letter to address these questions
He’ll also venture off into a few tangents along the way, because answering their questions often requires covering background issues
Since the issues in this section are issues the church itself raised, Paul’s tone will soften considerably from the first part of the letter
He isn’t admonishing as much as he is teaching
Remember, admonishing is teaching while correcting
But now Paul backs off the admonishing and moves to just teaching on the questions they pose to him
It’s difficult to teach while at the same time demonstrating dissatisfaction with someone
You may insult them to the point they won’t listen to the teaching
We can all appreciate the danger of writing words that impede our ability to get our point across to someone
So we’ll notice Paul making an effort to speak with compassion throughout this section, softening the blow of his earlier critique
My joke also serves to introduce the topic of this chapter which is marital relationships
We don’t know the exact questions Paul received, but because Paul will introduce each new topic or answer with the phrase “Now concerning…”, we can infer what the question may have been
In this case, we know Paul was asked to elaborate in various ways on the nature of Christian marriage
From Paul’s opening statement, we can tell the original question revolved around the proper boundaries of marital relationships
As you would expect given the sensitive nature of this topic, Paul’s approach is uncharacteristically soft and deferential
He uses phrases like “by concession, not command” and “I say, not the Lord”, to suggest a soft approach to his counsel
Secondly, Paul moves back and forth between man and woman a total of 12 times, creating a perfect balance or harmony in his teaching
So there is no hint of inequality on this issue
That in itself was very revolutionary in a culture where male dominance was never more evident than in marriage
Finally, Paul leaves plenty of room for personal preferences and different styles within marriage
Paul begins with the statement it is good for a man not to touch a woman
To the young ladies in the room, this is a good verse to pull out when dealing with annoying brothers or unwanted advances
The Greek word for good is kalos, which means beautiful or commendable
And the Greek word for touch literally means to cling to, which is a reference back to Genesis 2:24
In reality, Paul is saying it is commendable for a man to forgo marriage
Singleness can be a preferred Christian lifestyle, but it won’t be the right thing for everyone
Throughout this discussion, Paul is going to speak in terms of tradeoffs and concessions
There are few absolutes in this chapter
So different Christian couples and individuals will land in different places on these questions
While in a few cases, the rules are the same for everyone
Nevertheless, for all Christians, the goal in marriage is always godliness and serving Christ with our lives
So we should seek whatever relationship advances those goals best
And as Paul will explain later in this chapter, singleness can have significant advantages
But meanwhile, in v.2 Paul says if living a life of singleness leaves us tempted to immoralities like fornication, then by all means it’s better to seek for marriage instead
Marriage is the one and only way we may enjoy sexual relationships
And every marriage must itself confirm to the Biblical pattern for marriage
A man may have one wife
A wife may have one husband
We cannot use our lack of self-control as an excuse to justify entering into illegitimate marriage relationships of one kind or another
One sin does not excuse another
But in general, we should marry if we cannot demonstrate self-control outside marriage
Furthermore, our behavior in our marriages must be consistent with the purpose of marriage
And as Genesis 2:24 says, the core purpose in marriage is for two to become one flesh
Therefore, Paul says in v.3 that both the husband and wife incur an obligation or duty to their spouse of showing sexual intimacy
That duty to our spouse is not optional but neither is it absolute
In v.4, Paul begins by explaining that neither the wife nor husband have sole authority over their own bodies
The right to sole authority over our own body is something we voluntarily give up when we enter into marriage
We agree to share our body with our spouse, in keeping with the one-flesh principle of marriage
In a spiritual sense, our flesh becomes their flesh too, and vice versa
So we must consider their interests and desires when making decisions about our body
We are expected to make ourselves available to our spouse regularly, so that the benefits of marriage might be enjoyed as expected
That’s why in v.5, Paul commands that married partners not deprive one another of intimacy
The Greek word for deprive is the same word for defraud or cheat
That’s a good way to understand the effect of one person denying sexual intimacy to the other
It’s cheating or defrauding a spouse of something they have right to expect in a marriage as God intended
Furthermore, when we deprive our spouse, we are creating the conditions where they may be tempted to act on immoral desires
Paul isn’t suggesting that we would share blame if our spouse makes a decision to sin outside the marriage
But our sin of depriving our spouse can become opportunity for Satan to tempt our spouse into unfaithfulness
So naturally, why would we want to do anything to make that outcome more likely?
Sexual temptations are the chief concern behind Paul’s comments in vs.7-9
He repeats his wishes that all men could be like him in serving God in singleness
He addresses these comments to those who are eligible for marriage
To the unmarried and those who were married but their spouse has died
He says for these groups, it is beneficial or commendable to seek for a single life
Once again, we’ll learn the benefits of singleness later in the chapter
But then Paul acknowledges that singleness isn’t for everyone
In fact, it’s a gift Paul says
We must be gifted by the Spirit before we will be content in singleness
Without that gift, we should expect to experience a natural desire for intimacy
But if we deny ourselves marriage, we need to judge our own hearts honestly before taking that route
If we know we have desire for sexual intimacy in marriage, then by all means marry
Otherwise, Paul says our passions will remain a distraction and possibly a source of sin
And in that case, our singleness will be of no value in serving God
There is nothing noble or pious in remaining single
The value of singleness is a simple a matter of greater time and opportunity to serve
But if our passions get in the way, we won’t be any good to God even in our singleness
If we do marry, we share our body with our spouse, though we don’t forfeit all authority over our own bodies
Even as we grant our spouse authority over our body, we still retain a degree of authority ourselves
Each member of the marriage has a right to express desires, preferences and limitations for intimacy
And spouses should respect these things
Furthermore, physical limitations, illnesses, emotional stress and the like will come along from time to time to preclude intimacy
We also know that sexual desires naturally diminish with age
Even just the occasional marital conflict will impact fellowship in the marriage
Whatever the reason for the interruption in intimacy, Paul says the interruption should be by mutual agreement and temporary
In v.6 Paul says ceasing intimacy is a matter of concession, not command
The right of couples to put sexual activity on hold for whatever reason is a concession to the needs of the situation, but it’s not a command
Meaning, it’s not a requirement that one partner can unilaterally impose on the other
One partner should never require the other partner to go without intimacy beyond what’s absolutely necessary or desired
To put it simply, Christian couples are expected to participate in normal, periodic sexual intimacy by mutual consent
The goal isn’t to achieve some idealistic pattern of intimacy, for everyone will be different to a degree
Rather our concern should be to accommodate our spouse’s desires in the interest of maintaining a healthy, loving marriage
Because our body is not our own
This principle of our spouse having authority over our body extends into other areas of married life, not just to one context
How a husband or wife cares for his or her body is a matter of common interest in the marriage
The decisions of what we eat, how we maintain our health, how much sleep we get, how we respond to illness, even the risks we are willing to take are decisions our spouse has a vested interest in
When we dismiss our marriage partner’s concerns for our body’s wellbeing, we’re not only dismissing potentially good advice, we’re acting selfishly
In fact, abusing our body or neglecting our health to the detriment of our spouse’s interests is a sin
We sin in the same way we would if we were denying anyone the rightful use and enjoyment of their property
In fact, this is one exception to a husband’s authority in the home
A wife has an equal interest in the husband’s body
And male headship doesn’t trump a wife’s rights to her husband’s body
Next, Paul turns to general guidelines for the sanctity of marriage:
Paul prefaces his teaching in this chapter on marriage by reminding us of the biblical standard for every marriage
The Lord teaches the church that a wife is not to leave her husband, and a husband is not to divorce his wife
Notice Paul uses the word “leave” for a wife and “divorce” for a husband
In Greek society, the wife had no legal standing and therefore could not legally initiate divorce proceedings
But if she was determined to leave the marriage, she might leave her husband by running away
She might hope to start her life again somewhere else
A man, on the other hand, could divorce his wife according to Roman law if he found some dissatisfaction with her
But in either case, the Lord has said that it is wrong for us to end a marriage
Paul adds that these instructions are from the Lord
He isn’t suggesting that this particular teaching is more authoritative than other things he has taught
Paul is pointing out that we have no latitude in applying these instructions
In contrast to his teaching from a moment earlier when he was giving options and concessions
These expectations are unbendable and apply equally to all Christians
We are not permitted to bend the rules to suit our desires
Even Paul’s comment in v.11 is noteworthy because it says something about the strength of a marriage bond from God’s point of view
Even if a woman should leave her husband, perhaps because he abuses her or the children, still she must remain unmarried
This tells us that though we may encounter extreme circumstances where separation is preferable to remaining together
Nevertheless no matter the reason for the separation, a marriage cannot be dissolved
Marriage is until death do you part
Paul referred to Jesus’ teaching on the matter, so let’s consult the teaching Paul was referencing
Jesus taught that divorce and remarriage inevitably involves an act of adultery
He isn’t saying a second marriage is illegitimate; it is a true marriage
But that marriage is established through an act of adultery, because it is a betrayal of the one-flesh relationship formed in the original marriage
Therefore we should not seek to remarry so long as our first spouse is alive
But what about Jesus’ inclusion of the exception for immorality?
To understand the passage properly, we must take special note of the Greek word used for the word "immorality" or unchastity
Matthew recorded Jesus' words using the Greek word porneia, which is the Greek word for fornication, sex before marriage
Matthew did not use the Greek word for adultery (moichao), which is infidelity after a marriage has been formed
In Jesus' day a marriage officially began when a couple was betrothed or engaged
During the engagement period, a couple was considered legally married even though they had not yet conducted a wedding ceremony nor had they consummated the marriage
The engagement period often lasted a year or longer
The only way to end the engagement was through a legal divorce
If during this time one of the engaged partners committed fornication, it was considered an act of unfaithfulness and the engagement would end in divorce
This was the exception Jesus was speaking about
We have an example of this situation given to us in the Gospels
Joseph was prepared to "send away" Mary when she was found to be with Child
The Greek word for “send” is apoluo which is the word for divorce
Because Joseph believed Mary had been unfaithful during their engagement period, he was prepared to divorce her
Her unfaithfulness was one of porneia, fornication, not moichao, which is adultery
This is the one and only time that a divorce is permitted by Jesus
This interpretation is consistent with the Bible's teaching concerning a married couple becoming "one flesh"
During the engagement period, "one flesh" has not yet been established through sexual relations
Therefore, divorce is permissible because the one-flesh relationship isn’t being broken
But after a marriage has consummated, this exception no longer applies
The one-flesh relationship of the marriage is to remain intact forever
Today you may hear a common interpretation of Jesus' words that proposes adultery in any form justifies divorce and remarriage
This interpretation fails to appreciate the special Jewish marriage ritual
It sees Jesus teaching that the marriage covenant is dissolved by infidelity after consummation
By this interpretation, an act of infidelity by one partner nullifies the marriage vows and frees the other partner to remarry without committing adultery as well
Not only does this interpretation misuses Jesus’ words concerning unfaithfulness, it is contrary to the entire counsel of Scripture concerning marriage and to the one-flesh principle of Genesis 2:24
Even worse, it leads to a slippery slope of contradictory interpretation and application concerning marriage
For example, every other scriptural reference to marriage – whether by Jesus or by the Epistle writers – consistently teaches that the marriage bond is unbreakable
For as long as both partners are living, a one-flesh relationship exists
Jesus’ own words are this:
If Jesus says that no man can separate a marriage once the one-flesh relationship has been established, then not even a philandering husband or cheating wife can dissolve that bond
Thirdly, such an interpretation introduces new problems
For example, if adultery by one partner dissolves the marriage bond, then it must (by logical necessity) permit both partners to remarry
I find this conclusion troubling, since it seems to give biblical license to an unfaithful spouse to remarry as a result of their own sinful behavior
According to this interpretive logic, Jesus would permit a husband who cheats to divorce and remarry yet He requires a faithful spouse abandoned by their partner to remain single
How can one sin of adultery make the sin of divorce and remarriage permissible?
It’s not even a logical conclusion
So if we believe that unfaithfulness in marriage invalidates a marriage covenant and permits remarriage, then what should we conclude about spiritual unfaithfulness to Christ?
We are implying that our salvation in Christ is only secure so long as we remain faithful to our "Husband”
Fortunately, Scripture teaches the opposite:
The marriage bond is just as secure as our bond with Christ, and therefore we must approach our entrance into marriage with the same understanding
If you have yet to marry, consider whether you have the gift to remain single without temptation to sin
If marriage is for you, then remain chaste while waiting for your husband or wife to come along
When you think you have found the right man or woman, be sure you enter the covenant of marriage understanding Christ’s expectations
Marriage is for life, so choose wisely
We only get one marriage relationship at a time, so if your marriage doesn’t last for any reason, you are to remain single thereafter until death do you part
If a member of the marriage is unfaithful, that act of unfaithfulness is a sin
Nevertheless, that sin doesn’t end the first marriage
The Bible asks for us to forgive, reconcile if possible
Lastly, if a Christian divorces and remarries, that new marriage is formed through an act of adultery
Of course, the sin of adultery is forgiven by the blood of Christ, as is every sin
We do not hold some sins in special categories or above others
No one is perfect, and therefore no one can stand in judgment over any other Christian
That second marriage may have been formed in adultery, but it is no less legitimate and must be honored like any marriage
Throughout the rest of the chapter, Paul teaches on other difficult situations related to marriage, including explaining why singleness has such advantages to the believer
We’ll cover this when we get to it