Prevailing Winds "For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom . . ." 2 Cor. 3:17, TNIV

September 1, 2011

Examining First Corinthians, Marriage, And Roles

Filed under: Uncategorized — keelyem @ 3:22 am

I received this a few days ago from a correspondent taking issue, respectfully, with my insistence that Paul’s discourse on marriage in 1 Corinthians is a beautiful, more accessible, less-likely-to-be-misapplied Scripture on marriage than the Ephesians 5 verses so often used to encourage wives’ subordination to their husbands — in defiance of Eph. 5:21, which sets the context by insisting on mutual submission. I’m printing Rob’s response in its entirety, with my comments interspersed.

First, though, I want to apologize for taking so long to answer Rob. I wasn’t feeling well and yet had to superintend a yard sale Saturday, and I was wiped out Sunday and Monday. I cleaned up the house and made dinner early Tuesday, and then my Internet service went on the fritz. Now, I’m rested, the house is in great shape, the dinner dishes are cleared, and my Internet is back up. I want to strike now while the iron is hot!

And, with a few exceptions, I’ll be posting tomorrow (September 1) through the 18th strictly on Mark Driscoll, macho-masculinist Christianity, the Wilson/Driscoll “Grace Agenda” conference in Moscow Sept. 16-18, and other subjects and people distressing to anyone who holds a view of Christianity that comports with the person and message of Jesus Christ. But now, on to Rob’s comments, with my thanks —

(ROB) In reading your post on 1 Corinthians 7, I struggle to see your application. Perhaps you could clarify. My understanding of your post is that you take Paul’s teaching on sexual purity and the benefit/costs of marriage in I Cor 7 as a balance to the text in Gal 5, where Paul teaches on marital roles, love and respect. Am I correct?

(Keely) Thanks for your comments. I assume you mean Ephesians 5, not Galatians 5, in your first paragraph; I will also disagree with your contention that ch. 7 deals primarily with marital sex, and correct your view on 7:9, which does not state that people “will burn with passion,” but instead says that IF they cannot control themselves — that is, IF they burn with passion — then marriage is advisable. The condition here is vital to the application and I’m wondering why you maintain otherwise.

(ROB) As I have studied these two passages, both are being written to churches in an emerging Christian cultures. As such, there are frequent admonitions to the Greeks in these epistles to leave behind their former ways and to be inwardly and outwardly transformed; mind and body, evidenced through their redeemed relationships.

Paul’s emphasis in 1 Cor 5-7 deals with “the body” (soma) and its role in our spiritual walk.

(KEELY) I agree that ch. 5-7 deal with issues of the physical body, but also within the Body of Christ; that is, how its members treat one another. In fact, I think the corporate expression of Christian conduct here is more clear than the individual admonitions to abstain from previous pagan behaviors, although, of course, no one would argue that individual conduct doesn’t affect the Body. Further, the “drumbeat of mutuality” in the first 15 verses of ch. 7 are not only exceedingly clear for us today, but also for this Church in its own emergent culture — and the message of mutual love, mutual power, mutual subjection, and mutual benefits and responsibilities in marriage was utterly revolutionary to both pagans and to the Church coming out from among them. It shouldn’t be revolutionary to us 2,000 years later, and it surely ought not be overlooked by those who favor marital, gender-based hierarchy.

(ROB)It matters how we eat (6:13), and particularly who we have sex with (6:15+). This was quite important, as the Greeks thought in mind/body dualistic terms, and the new Christians needed a holistic understanding. Clearly something was broken if a man was married to his MIL (1 Cor 5). Paul opines that the optimal condition for people in ministry, especially during troubled times, was to remain celibate (7: 7, 35, 40). Next, Paul provides a logical argument for the necessity of marriage, especially shocking to our modern ears. He states that there is a problem with “immorality” (7:2), and that people will “burn with passion” (7:9). The solution? Marriage, where the wife has the right of the husband’s body, and vice-versa. Sex in marriage satisfies desires and enables believers to avoid immorality (7:5).

(KEELY) Again, Paul does not say people WILL burn with passion and so, therefore, marriage is a “necessity” (your word, not his). He says that marriage, unlike celibacy, burdens the believer with distractions in their Kingdom living that single people don’t have, and he only prescribes marriage for those people who ARE “burning” with lust and passion and unable to control themselves; he never forbids marriage, but neither does he command it. You seem to betray a decided bias for marriage as a norm, if not a near-imperative, and I find that complementarianism is a belief system that not only favors but requires “marriage-as-the-norm,” perhaps because it severely limits women’s choices, which I presume are, for the Christian woman, Spirit-led in God-given autonomy.

(ROB) This is where you lose me; I agree that there is “mutuality” (your word) in 1 Cor 7 in the sharing of bodies. But how does this change the distinct and “complementary” (a word you dislike) roles found in the relationship of marriage, as described in Ephesians 5? Both texts clearly discuss marriage, but the emphasis and line of thought in Eph 5 is quite different.

(KEELY) There are eight examples of “as for the husband, so for the wife; as for the wife, so for the husband” in the first 15 verses of ch. 7, and while the context is marriage, where gender relations are most immediately and intimately played out, Paul makes it clear that the reciprocity, mutuality, and lack of hierarchy based on gender is the Christian ideal for marriage. So, frankly, does Ephesians 5:21-28, but only if v. 21 — “submit to one another out of reverence to Christ” — is considered as the context-setting introduction to the verses that follow. Certainly wives are to submit to their husbands and husbands are to love their wives. But, as I’ve said before, would you really argue that ONLY wives are to submit if that logically leads to the idea that ONLY husbands have to love — and particularly with verse 21’s command that spouses submit ONE TO ANOTHER? If the submission is unilateral, so is the love; neither example of unilateral conduct is tenable logically, nor is it in keeping with a reasonable hermeneutic. To suggest that Ephesians 5 and the gender relationships it speaks of is an easy, confusion-free, crystal-clear passage is perhaps only believable when spoken among other complementarians, and even they surely must wrestle with how far the husband’s responsibility to present his wife as a clear and blemish-free specimen of sanctification, which elsewhere in Scripture (and remember the first rule of hermeneutics, “the unclear is explained by the clear”) is confidently spoken as the providence of the Spirit.

(ROB) In essence, 1 Cor 7 basically makes allowance for sex in marriage to avoid sin through collateral claims, whereas Eph 5 describes a mutual sacrificial blessing through the complementary exhortations to love and respect, and roles of headship and yielding.

(KEELY) You are aware, I hope, that “head” in Ephesians 5 — kephale — is more likely translated “source,” as in “God is the source of Christ,” as Christ “proceeds” from the Father. Paul could have used the words he uses elsewhere for master/servant or “obeying” relationships, and yet he doesn’t. Christ as the “head” or “source” of the Church, particularly given the body imagery Paul uses so freely in his Epistles, could be seen as the “literal head” of the “literal body” knit to him in love. This is consistent with the first male, the man A’dam, as the “source” of the first female, Ish-sha, or the one who proceeds from him. Paul simply doesn’t use the many Greek words at his command in describing the hierarchy of the relationships portrayed in Ephesians 5, not between Jesus Christ and Yahweh, and not between women and men. Unless, of course, you’re a subordinationist, someone who flirts with the Arian heresy by insisting that in his eternal Being, and not just in the Incarnation, Christ is subject to the Father in the Trinity. Further, this passage is one that discusses Christ’s emptying of himself — his servanthood and even submission — to his people; it seems clear that the parallel here, absent the “master/servant” language Paul avoids, is the husband’s revolutionary and counter-culture (and counter-intuitive!) sacrificial pouring out of himself for his wife, not the wife’s “obedience” paralleled with Christ’s.

(ROB) I think that it’s been well summarized elsewhere — distinct in role, equal in value.

(KEELY) It’s difficult, if not impossible, to argue that while women are ontologically equal to men (“in value”), they have “different roles” which are always subordinate. If the feature, characteristic, etc., of one person is the only ontological feature that requires that person’s eternal, fixed subordination to the other person, there clearly IS something about that characteristic — here, gender — that causes them to be considered not equal. Logic commands this, unless logic can be circumvented by toying with orthodox Christian trinitarian theology by suggesting that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, is eternally, functionally subordinate to the Father, while remaining eternal and ontologically the same. And that’s why neo-subordinationism has become so attractive to complementarians such as Wayne Grudem and John Piper and the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood — what logic and common sense doesn’t countenance can be made workable with an appeal to the sacred mystery of the economy of the Trinity. Tragically, this perversion of the doctrine of the Trinity not only does violence to the Trinity, but also is a false entry into legitimate debate on women and men in the Church.

(ROB) This is why Eph. 5 remains a beautiful text for the wedding, while 1 Cor. 7 more often has a role in marriage counseling (where couples are withholding).

I’m sure that I just invited a storm of typing with that last paragraph. Your previous blog posts quite cover your belief that Eph 5 is “murky,” with alternate Greek word meanings and such. We clearly will disagree on that point ‘til kingdom come. Instead, I am looking to know more about why you take 1 Cor 7 to apply in its context to more than just sex and fidelity.

(KEELY) Because the context is marriage, the starting point in the home for gender equality and mutuality, and the application goes further from there. First Cor. 7 is not just about sex or “withholding,” but the points Paul makes on marital sexuality all stem from a theology of egalitarian, mutual, reciprocal and non-hierarchical relationship between the husband and the wife — proceeding even further in his letter, and in others, as he insists that ALL believers are to joyfully practice sacrifice and submission to ALL other believers, for the good of the Body and its testimony to an unbelieving world. That testimony is now contaminated, in the eyes of a watching world choking on patriarchal violence, by wrongful teachings about men and women and their roles in home, church, and society. We clearly disagree, and likely will forever. But I wonder if you could tell me what egalitarian books you’ve read, or if you’d be willing to look into research like “kephale/source, or where in Genesis you see God commanding Adam to require subordination from Eve before the Fall. And while I truly would love answers to these questions, I don’t know that I’ll get them from you. Nonetheless, Rob, I appreciate the respectful tone you’ve taken, and I pray blessings on you and yours.

1 Comment »

  1. Wow, Keely, your responses are lengthy! I think that I will need to quit my job to keep up 🙂

    Responding in part: Yes, I do see marriage as the “norm”, even as the basis for God-given society as found in scripture. I get the sense that you believe otherwise. Really? Then why marriage?

    When I study scripture, I find from the creation of man and woman recorded in Gen 2 that God declares each other to be incomplete and that together they become one flesh (2:24). Additionally, I take God’s pronouncement of “very good” over this final act of creation, marriage, as indication that He’s given us the pinnacle and the foundation. This is why Christ references the same passage in Matt 19 when addressing the brokenness of divorce. Interestingly, Paul uses the very same text at the end of Eph 5 when addressing the wholly unique institutions of the Church and marriage. Paul calls these relationships mysteries, unique relationships that occur in unity of two bodies as one, of becoming one flesh. I find no other relationships in scripture that are described this way.

    On another note, you seem to read Paul’s admonition to be single (1 Cor 7)as indication it’s the better condition. Do you have other texts that you can point me to to support this? Paul’s instruction does not appear generally applicable, but to the “present distress”. Paul uses the greek word kalon for good (vs 1 and 26), meaning admirable, which reads differently than agathos or ideal. He also appears to state that this is his preference (7:40)for celibacy. Celibacy appears to be a state particular to a calling (7, 22, 24)which requires special mercy from God (7:25).

    Thanks for the stimulating conversation

    Rob Storm

    Comment by Unknown — September 2, 2011 @ 9:29 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress