Category Archives: Sexuality and Marriage

Paul, Sex and Marriage 4: Discourse Structure of 1 Corinthians

Posted on by
Reply

This is part 4 of my 1988 essay What did Paul really say about sex and marriage? 1 Corinthians 7:1-16. The Greek text here is adjusted as in part 3.

This in fact concludes the part of the essay which is most likely to be of interest to readers in 2006. So, while I do intend to complete this series (as well as my unfinished series on Kingdom Thermodynamics), I may do so rather more slowly than up to this point.

4. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF 1 CORINTHIANS

A further requirement for a correct linguistic understanding of the passage is to determine its relationship to the surrounding material, the co-text, within the structure of the complete discourse, in this case the whole of 1 Corinthians. Therefore, an analysis of the main discourse components in the whole letter is necessary, and it must be based on linguistic criteria, rather than the theological presuppositions which often determine commentators’ analyses.

4.1. The Traditional Understanding

It is generally agreed by commentators that much of 1 Corinthians is a response by Paul to issues brought up in the letter sent to him by the Corinthians – although some of the issues he deals with came to his notice through other reports from Corinth (e.g. 1:11). The traditional view, expressed by Hurd (p. 48), is that 7:1 introduces the answers to a series of questions which the Corinthians had asked Paul in their letter, and indeed that most of the material from 7:1 to 16:12 is in answer to specific questions. By contrast, 1:10 to 6:20 is generally taken (e.g. by Barrett, p. 28) as written in response to the other reports.

Fee questions this standard view. He sees the combative style of the supposed replies as showing that Paul is not answering their questions but challenging their statements (pp. 5-6). This accords with the conclusion of Jeremias, originally on chapter 8 but also applying in chapters 6 and 7, that Paul repeatedly quotes a statement from the Corinthians and then takes issue with it.

In every commentator’s analysis, it seems, a new main section starts at 7:1, indicating the start of Paul’s replies to the Corinthian questions; some make an equally important division at 5:1. It would be necessary to take 7:1 as such an important new start if the second part of the verse were not a quotation from the Corinthian letter, for then the first part would refer to every matter raised in that letter, including those dealt with in the chapters following chapter 7. But if it is indeed a quotation, the second part serves to specify as the subject of the section starting at 7:1 one particular issue amongst those raised by the Corinthians, the issue of sexual relations; and Paul’s response to this issue does not continue beyond the end of chapter 7.

Although he rejects most of its basis, Fee sticks to the most extreme form of the traditional analysis, in which the section starting at 7:1 continues right through to 15:12. His most important argument for keeping to this analysis is based on the repeated opening phrase Περὶ δὲ [But about], found at 7:1,25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1,12, which he takes as introducing some, but not all, of Paul’s responses to the Corinthians’ points (p. 267). Yet Fee recognises the close affinity between 6:12-20 and chapter 7, and that already at 6:12 Paul quotes and corrects a Corinthian position (p. 250 note 8); but he relegates this important point to a footnote and does not let it affect his overall analysis.

4.2. Major Discourse Markers

The main linguistic criterion for analysis of this letter is the occurrence in it of discourse markers, such as recurring introductory formulae.

The formula Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί [But I encourage you, brothers], found in 1 Corinthians at 1:10. 4:16 (modified) and 16:15, is recognised as a commonly occurring introductory formula in Greek letters and official documents (see Fee, p. 52). It is found in Paul’s letters also in 1 Thessalonians 4:1,10, 5:14, where it is used to introduce three of a series of six mostly ethical exhortations; there, the fullest form Λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν [Then finally, brothers, I ask and encourage you] is found introducing the first exhortation (4:1), and the other five are introduced by various abbreviated forms including Οὐ θέλομεν δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, περὶ [But I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about] (4:13, cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1, 12:1), and, most briefly, Περὶ δὲ [But about] (5:1). It can be concluded that similarly in 1 Corinthians the fullest formula is a high level discourse marker and the shorter forms are lower level markers.

According to the traditional analysis of 1 Corinthians, the formula at 1:10 introduces a new main division of the letter – as indeed it must do since it follows the conventional thanksgiving which opens the letter. The occurrences of the same formula at 4:16 and at 16:15 are not generally recognised as of equivalent importance, but linguistic considerations suggest that they should be. There is some difficulty about making a division at 4:16 because the οὖν [therefore] looks backwards. A better understanding of this division can be obtained by looking at the subject matter of the section starting at 1:10, an exhortation that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you (1:10, NASB); this subject is carried through, with a digression on wisdom, at least to 3:23, and there then follows a practical conclusion (4:1-5a) and a brief doxology (4:5b), a conventional closing discourse marker. Thus the main division is at 4:6, which is the start of a link passage stretching to 4:15, taken up by the οὖν [therefore] of 4:16.

The exhortation of 4:16 has as its content μιμηταί μου γίνεσθε [become imitators of me], which forms an inclusio with the identical statement in 11:1, which is rounded off by καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ [as also I of Christ]. There is little unity in the subject matter of 4:16-11:1, but its unity as a discourse component can be defended by its distinctness from the preceding and succeeding long sections, on divisions and on worship respectively, as well as from the discourse markers; the material is also united in being dominated by ethical exhortations on immorality and on idolatry, always closely linked in the New Testament.

At 11:2 a new section begins with an ironical pun, all the more striking if it is based on a quotation from the Corinthians’ letter. In view of the preceding verse, the praise which Paul would have preferred to have been able to give was πάντα μου μεμίμησθε, you have imitated me in all things; but instead he uses the very similar words πάντα μου μέμνησθε, you have remembered me in all things – somewhat fainter praise. He continues the irony with the double-edged word κατέχω, which can have the meaning as in Romans 1:18 of suppress rather than hold to. This introduces the new section, whose subject is τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε [you hold to/suppress the traditions], in both senses: received practices are in view in chapters 11-14, 16 and received teaching in chapter 15. The section closes at 16:13,14 with a summary. 16:15-18 is a brief final exhortation, again introduced by the standard discourse marker, and the letter closes with final greetings.

4.3. Immorality, Idolatry and Other Evils

The section from 4:16 to 11:1 can be analysed further by consideration of the discourse markers. 6:12 marks an abrupt new start: the quotation from the Corinthians is brought in with no conjunction – asyndeton, relatively uncommon in Greek. This verse matches 10:23, and can be taken as paired with it to form an inclusio, so that 6:12 to 10:23 becomes a section on its own. It serves to confirm this that all the quotations already identified from the Corinthian letter with which Paul takes issue are found within this inclusio. 10:24-33 is a closing summary with specific practical instructions, omitted earlier perhaps to avoid confusion with general principles. An inclusio can also be discerned marking off 4:18 to 6:11 as a separate section, for it begins and ends on the subject of the kingdom of God – not a frequent theme in Paul’s writings.

Furthermore, the sections 4:18-6:11 and 6:12-10:23 are linked in that the latter takes up the list of evils with which the former ends, in 6:9,10. In 6:12-20 Paul expands on his reminder to the Corinthians not to be πόρνοι [immoral people]; in 8:1-13 and 10:14-22 they are not to be εἰδωλολάτραι [idolaters]; in 7:1-40 not μοιχοί [idolaters]; 9:1-27 perhaps reminds them not to be λοίδοροι [slanderers]; πλεονέκται [greedy people] and μέθυσοι [drunkards] are considered later, in 11:21,33-34. Homosexuality and theft are not dealt with explicitly, but Paul hints at the latter in chapter 9 and possibly the former in 11:2-16. There is another list of vices in 10:7-10; the first two are clearly those dealt with in chapter 8 and in 6:12-7:40 respectively, and the last two probably relate to chapter 9. Thus Immorality, Idolatry and Other Evils would be an appropriate title for 6:12-10:23.

4.4. Chapter 7 in the Discourse

Within the inclusio of 6:12-10:23 the clearest discourse marker is the repeated introductory formula Περὶ δὲ [But about], found at 7:1,25, 8:1. An important conclusion from the analysis already made is that the first of these markers should not be taken, despite the traditional commentators’ analysis, to have a special status as marking the start of a primary division of the letter. From the start of chapter 9 the situation becomes more complex, and will not be considered here. 7:17-24 is somewhat anomalous: it is a unit in itself, with the repeated ἕκαστος [each] (7:17,20,24) giving a general principle which is illustrated by two pairs of examples; it is linked back to the advice of 7:8-16, and especially the appeal for peace on the basis of the Christian calling in 7:15; but its principles are applied in 7:25-40. Therefore it seems best to take chapter 7 as three discourse elements, 7:1-16, 7:17-24 and 7:25-40. The first and the last of these are separate elements and should be treated as such, although much of the subject matter is in common, and one can reasonably expect a consistent treatment of it within this small part of the letter, in addition to conformity in both sections to the general principles of 7:17-24. Only the first of these elements is considered further in this essay.

4.5. Concluding Observations

The above discourse analysis of 1 Corinthians, using linguistic criteria alone, is very different from the traditional commentators’ analysis. Only if the evidence for a new analysis were overwhelming could one expect such a widely held traditional view to be overturned. This essay does not claim to provide the required conclusive evidence, but only to suggest the alternative as worthy of further consideration. The final conclusions in Section 6 are not greatly affected by the choice of analysis, except on the one point assumed, and agreed by Fee, that the Περὶ δὲ [But about] formula of 7:1 serves to introduce only part of chapter 7 and not the majority of the letter.

Paul, Sex and Marriage 3: The Letter from the Corinthians and Paul’s response

Posted on by
Reply

This is part 3 of my 1988 essay What did Paul really say about sex and marriage? 1 Corinthians 7:1-16. The Greek text here is fully accented, although in the original essay accents were omitted for technical reasons. For the benefit of the many of you, my readers, who don’t know Greek, I have added (in square brackets) my own rather literal translations; with their help you can probably understand most of my argument.

3. THE LETTER FROM THE CORINTHIANS AND PAUL’S RESPONSE

3.1. Acknowledged Quotations

Modern commentators generally agree that 1 Corinthians incorporates quotations from the letter of the Corinthians to Paul, to which Paul is writing in part in response. Hurd surveyed 24 studies before 1965, and found eight widely accepted quotations and one doubtful one (pp. 67-68). Sometimes commentators choose to find quotations as a way to avoid theological difficulties; the study by the well-known New Testament scholar Jeremias has special value because he limits himself to linguistic arguments and, from the point of view of the student of chapter 7, because he is not concerned with explaining this chapter but rather finds quotations in it as a by-product of his study of chapter 8.

The widely accepted quotations (Hurd’s list with the addition of 7:26, which he elsewhere suggests as a statement of the Corinthians’ position (p. 179)) are as follows:

6:12 BFHJ πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν … πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν [all things are permissible to me … all things are permissible to me]
6:13 bFHJ τὰ βρώματα τῇ κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασιν, [the foods for the stomach and the stomach for the foods]
? bf ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταῦτα καταργήσει [but God will destroy both these and these]
6:18 ?bfh πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν [every sin which a person (anthropos) might do is outside the body]
7:1 BFHJ καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι [good for a person (anthropos) not to touch a woman]
7:26 BFhJ τοῦτο καλὸν ὑπάρχειν … καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι [this to be good … good for a person (anthropos) to be like this]
8:1 BFHJ πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν [we all have knowledge]
8:4 BFHJ οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ … οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς [nothing an idol in the world … no one a God if not one]
8:5,6 ? bH εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ [if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (TNIV)]
8:8 BFHJ βρῶμα … ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ θεῷ, [food … will not present us to God]
FHj οὔτε ἐὰν μὴ φάγωμεν ὑστερούμεθα, οὔτε ἐὰν φάγωμεν περισσεύομεν [neither if we do not eat do we lack, nor if we eat do we abound]
10:23 BFHJ πάντα ἔξεστιν … πάντα ἔξεστιν [all things are permissible … all things are permissible]
11:2 BfH πάντα μου μέμνησθε καὶ, καθὼς παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, τὰς παραδόσεις κατέχετε [in everything you remember me and, as I passed on to you, you hold the traditions]

 

Italics indicate probable alterations to the Corinthians’ text. B, F, H and J indicate that quotations are acknowledged by Barrett, Fee, Hurd and Jeremias respectively; lower case letters are used where these authors are uncertain. Jeremias does not consider every passage. For the purposes of this essay it will be assumed that these passages are indeed quotations from the Corinthians; the ones indicated with question marks will be considered uncertain.

3.2. Linguistic characteristics

Even in the limited amount of quoted material already identified some unifying linguistic characteristics can be found.

The first to be considered is the use of καλός [good]. This word occurs 39 times in the Pauline letters, but only four times is the neuter καλόν used with the dative, indicating what is good for someone to do; all four are in 1 Corinthians, three in chapter 7 and two in the quotations already identified, 7:1,26. It seems clear therefore that καλόν with the dative was a Corinthian idiom. Thus καλὸν αὐτοῖς ἐὰν μείνωσιν ὡς κἀγώ [good for them if they remain as also me] in 7:8 is most probably a further adapted quotation from the Corinthian letter; in 9:15 Paul echoes their language in καλὸν … μοι [good … for me].

A second characteristic is the use of ἄνθρωπος [person (anthropos)] in both 7:1 and 7:26 for man as opposed to woman, where ἀνήρ [man (aner)] is normally expected. These are the only unambiguous examples in Pauline writing of this use, except in Ephesians 5:31 where Genesis 2:24 is quoted. This provides added evidence that there is a quotation in 6:18, for in context the ἄνθρωπος in this verse is probably male. The similar use of ἄνθρωπος in 7:7, contrasting with the regular pairing of references to men and women in 7:1-16, strongly suggests that here also there is an adapted quotation from the Corinthians: θέλω δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν [but I want all people (anthropos) to be as also myself]. The similarity of this to καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι [good for a person (anthropos) to be like this] in the acknowledged quotation of 7:26 is more evidence for this further quotation.

Another remarkably common word in the acknowledged quotations is πάντα [all things], occurring seven times (although four are in the repeated quotation πάντα ἔξεστιν [all things are permissible]), with other forms of πᾶς [all] occurring twice, and again in 7:7. It is difficult to conclude much from such a generally common word, but it is especially common in 1 Corinthians in comparison to Paul’s other letters (used as a pronoun 38 times in this letter and only 55 times in all the others), and therefore it does seem to have been something of a Corinthian catch-word.

3.3. Paul’s Responses to the Corinthians’ Points

Jeremias concluded that in the case of each of the quotations in chapter 8, Paul quotes a statement from the Corinthians and then takes issue with it. This seems to apply equally to all of the quotations identified, except for 11:2, which has a different character and purpose from the others. Paul’s responses are as follows, in bold print:

6:12 πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει· [all things are permissible for me but not all things benefit;
πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος. all things are permissible for me but I will not be mastered by anything.]
6:13 τὰ βρώματα τῇ κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασιν, [the foods for the stomach and the stomach for the foods,
? ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταῦτα καταργήσει. but God will destroy both these and these.
τὸ δὲ σῶμα οὐ τῇ πορνείᾳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ κύριος τῷ σώματι· But the body not for immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body;
6:14 ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ τὸν κύριον ἤγειρεν καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐξεγερεῖ … but God both raised the Lord and will raise us out …]
6:18 ? πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν· [every sin which a person might do is outside the body;
ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει. but the one doing immorality sins against his/her own body.]
7:1 Περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε, καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι· [Now about the things you wrote, good for a person not to touch a woman;
7:2 διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω … but because of immmoralities each (man) should have his own wife …]
7:7 θέλω δὲ πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν· [but I want all people to be as also myself;
ἀλλὰ ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα ἐκ θεοῦ, ὁ μὲν οὕτως, ὁ δὲ οὕτως. but each has his/her own gift from God, one like this, but another like this.]
7:8 … καλὸν αὐτοῖς ἐὰν μείνωσιν ὡς κἀγώ· [… good for them if they remain as also me;
7:9 εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἐγκρατεύονται, γαμησάτωσαν, κρεῖττον γάρ ἐστιν γαμῆσαι ἢ πυροῦσθαι. but if they are not controlled, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.]
7:25 Περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων … [Now about the virgins …
7:26 Νομίζω οὖν τοῦτο καλὸν ὑπάρχειν … ὅτι καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι … Therefore I consider this to be good … that good for a person to be like this …
7:28 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ γαμήσῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες· καὶ ἐὰν γήμῃ ἡ παρθένος, οὐχ ἥμαρτεν … but if you also marry, you did not sin; and if the virgin marries, she did not sin …]
8:1 Περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, οἴδαμεν ὅτι πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν. [Now about the idol-sacrificed things, we know that we all have knowledge.
ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ … Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up …]
8:4 Περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, οἴδαμεν ὅτι [So then, about the food sacrificed to idols: we know that
οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ, καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς. “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.”
8:5 ? καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
8:6 ? ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
8:7 Ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡ γνῶσις· τινὲς δὲ τῇ συνηθείᾳ ἕως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου ὡς εἰδωλόθυτον ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτῶν ἀσθενὴς οὖσα μολύνεται. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. (TNIV)]
8:8 βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ θεῷ, [but food will not present us to God,
οὔτε ἐὰν μὴ φάγωμεν ὑστερούμεθα, οὔτε ἐὰν φάγωμεν περισσεύομεν neither if we do not eat do we lack, nor if we eat do we abound
8:9 βλέπετε δὲ μή πως ἡ ἐξουσία ὑμῶν αὕτη πρόσκομμα γένηται τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν … but look lest somehow your authority itself becomes a stumbling-block for the weak …]
10:23 πάντα ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει· [all things are permissible but not all things benefit;
πάντα ἔξεστιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα οἰκοδομεῖ. all things are permissible but not all things build up.]

 

Several of Paul’s responses begin with ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα [but not all things] or ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν [but not in everyone]; with these Paul gives qualified assent to the Corinthian statement but points out restrictions on its validity; the response in 7:7 is semantically similar. Most of the other responses begin with δὲ [and/but], which most commonly has a mild adversative force; again it would seem that Paul is giving his own more balanced statement without completely rejecting the Corinthians’ view – no doubt his language would have been more forceful and explicit, as at 6:15-18a, if he had wished to do so. In 6:13-14, the contrasts are complex: the strongest one is οὐ τῇ πορνείᾳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κυρίῳ [not for immorality but for the Lord], but Paul is making his point through a weaker contrast, in which he affirms the Corinthians’ slogan about food and the stomach but rejects their implied – or perhaps explicit in their letter – extension of the same principle to sexual behaviour.

In 8:1 there is no immediate δὲ, for Paul starts his response with a consequence of the Corinthian position, not using a conjunction, before using δὲ to introduce his own mildly contrasting position. In 8:5,6 there is again an interlude explaining the Corinthian position, here perhaps in their own words and introduced with καὶ γὰρ [for also], before Paul expresses his main point of response to 8:4 in 8:7. In 7:25-28 there is a similar structure, it seems: 7:27, with no conjunction, gives specific cases of the Corinthian position, before Paul gives his own mildly contrasting position in 7:28 (for in the second part of the verse Paul shows that he is not totally rejecting the Corinthian view). 7:27 seems to be in Paul’s words, not the Corinthians’, for it is very similar to 7:18,21, and that confirms that Paul is in agreement. Thus Paul is not rejecting what the Corinthians had said, but is putting it in perspective, as advice in the present situation rather than a command the breaking of which would be a sin.

Paul, Sex and Marriage 2: The Presupposition Pool

Posted on by
2

This is part 2 of my 1988 essay What did Paul really say about sex and marriage? 1 Corinthians 7:1-16.

2. THE PRESUPPOSITION POOL

For a correct understanding of the passage it is necessary to determine the presuppositions shared by Paul and the Corinthian recipients of the letter. This presupposition pool is in two parts. Firstly, Paul and the recipients shared a common Hellenistic culture, although combined with disparate non-Greek influences, Roman at Corinth and Jewish for Paul; thus a certain shared understanding of marriage and sexual relations could be assumed by Paul as he wrote. Secondly, this letter is not the first contact between Paul and the Corinthians – Paul had spent eighteen months in the city (Acts 18:11), founding and establishing the church there, and he had sent at least one previous letter to the Corinthians (5:9) and had received at least one from them (7:1) – and Paul could presuppose at least some memory and understanding of what had been said and done previously.

2.1. Cultural Presuppositions

The city of Corinth, abandoned for a century, had been refounded in 44 B.C. as a Roman colony. It was repopulated initially by Italians, but as it grew rapidly it attracted settlers, and therefore cultural influences, from all over the Empire. The church, to which this letter is addressed, had attracted a broad cross-section of the community, it seems from the limited evidence; some of the believers had a Jewish background, and some had Latin names, but much in the letter points to a predominantly Greek readership. The relevant cultural presuppositions are therefore neither Jewish ones nor specifically Roman ones, but those of the Hellenistic cultural mix which dominated the eastern half of the Empire.

Collins argues that singleness was very rare in Hellenistic culture, pointing to laws of Augustus penalising unmarried Roman citizens. They were more highly taxed and were forbidden to inherit; the purpose was to increase the birth rate (see Lewis and Reinhold, pp. 47-52). Yet there was widespread evasion and opposition to these laws: Tacitus wrote that people were not driven thereby to marriage and the rearing of children in any great numbers, so powerful were the attractions of the childless state (Annals III.xxv, quoted by Lewis and Reinhold, p. 50). Thus the laws are in fact evidence that singleness was known and culturally acceptable. Confirmation of this comes from the Stoics. Musonius, a contemporary of Paul, and his pupil Epictetus agreed that marriage is a duty for most men but that for a few in special circumstances it is not advantageous as it can distract from higher pursuits (Balch, pp. 433-434). Epictetus condemned as subversive of the state, destructive of the family the teaching that people ought not to marry (III.vii, p. 55). Thus this teaching was known; and the general Hellenistic attitude was far from that of the Jewish rabbis: He who has no wife is not a proper man (quoted by Collins, p. 424).

Divorce was certainly easy, at least for the husband, and was very common, so that some men and women had several partners in turn (Oepke, pp. 779-780). Sexual relations outside marriage were also more-or-less acceptable, again at least for the man, who could take a concubine or go to prostitutes. These cultural presuppositions were clearly challenged by Paul’s teaching; yet his views on them have precedents in the teaching of pagan philosophers as well as of Jews. Remarriage was considered generally desirable for the widowed and for the divorced; indeed the laws of Augustus sought to enforce remarriage of women after a suitable interval. There were few suggestions that remarriage was improper in either case.

2.2. Presuppositions from Previous Contact

Paul should have been able to presuppose that the Corinthians understood the basic Christian teaching he had given them. But he had already found that in fact he could not do this, for they were still mere infants in Christ … not yet ready for solid food, more advanced teaching (3:1,2). In continuing to give them milk in this letter he surely avoided assuming understanding of his previous teaching, whether given during his stay in Corinth or in the earlier letter which they had so seriously misunderstood (5:9,10). Paul did speak of specific personal circumstances, of which a common knowledge could be presupposed, in 1 Corinthians (e.g. 5:1-5), but this is unlikely to be a factor in chapter 7, with its very general language.

Therefore the only important shared presuppositions from previous contact were those relating to the letter Paul had received from the Corinthians (7:1). The basic point is that Paul could presuppose that the Corinthians would immediately recognise when he quoted from or alluded to their letter. Yet today these cannot be recognised directly, as their letter is not available; one must rely on the linguistic and theological evidence in Paul’s letter. Unfortunately on the important points in chapter 7 the theological evidence is disputable. Therefore in the following section the linguistic evidence is examined in order to determine as far as possible where Paul was quoting from the Corinthians’ letter.

Paul, Sex and Marriage 1: Contents and Introduction

Posted on by
Reply

Over the last few days, as part of my Bible translation work, I have been looking at 1 Corinthians. This reminded me of an essay which I wrote about this book, nearly 20 years ago, in fact in 1988. At the time I was a student at London Bible College, now London School of Theology. Studying for this essay helped me to form some of my current views about issues of sex and marriage, as well as about the structure of the book. And I have found myself referring back to this essay a number of times, including in the last few days.

For some time I have meant to put this essay on the Internet. This is because at least some of the questions which I raise and methods by which I answer them (see especially the last paragraph of the Introduction, at the end of this first part) are very relevant to recent discussions here, and on other bl0gs including the Better Bibles Blog.

So, here is the essay, at least the first part – with links to further parts to be added later. This is based on a scan of my printed copy of the essay, as unfortunately my original computer files were lost. I have retyped the Greek and/or copied the text from computer files of the New Testament text. The text has not been edited only to correct scanning errors. I have attempted to preserve the bold and italic marking of the original, except in section headings, but not the page layout.

WHAT DID PAUL REALLY SAY ABOUT SEX AND MARRIAGE?
1 CORINTHIANS 7:1-16

by
Peter Richard KIRK

Essay submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the B.A. degree of the Council for National Academic Awards

London Bible College
B.A. Part Two
Linguistics
Lecturer: Dr. F.P. Cotterell

23rd February, 1988

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THE PRESUPPOSITION POOL

2.1. Cultural Presuppositions

2.2. Presuppositions from Previous Contact

3. THE LETTER FROM THE CORINTHIANS AND PAUL’S RESPONSE

3.1. Acknowledged Quotations

3.2. Linguistic Characteristics

3.3. Paul’s Responses to the Corinthians’ Points

4. DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF 1 CORINTHIANS

4.1. The Traditional Understanding

4.2. Major Discourse Markers

4.3. Immorality, Idolatry and Other Evils

4.4. Chapter 7 in the Discourse

4.5. Concluding Observations

5. SEMANTIC ANALYSIS OF 7:1-16

7:1

7:2-4

7:5

7:6

7:7

7:8,9

7:10,11

7:12,13

7:14

7:15

7:16

6. CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX – Semantic Display of 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 [External link to a PDF file]

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

1. INTRODUCTION

The popular image of the apostle Paul is that he was a misogynist who disapproved of marriage, sex, and in general of everything enjoyable in life. On the basis of this caricature many have rejected the Christian faith, and many others who call themselves Christians have rejected Paul’s teaching in favour of a religion of love and liberty which, equally simplistically, they take as the true or original Christian message.

Most of the passages from Paul to which such people take exception are in his first letter to the Corinthians. In it there are two passages, 11:2-16 and 14:34-35, which seem to be degrading women, at least in their place in the church, and there is a whole long chapter on marriage and sexual relations, chapter 7, which has traditionally been taken as disapproving of both and allowing them only as grudging concessions to human weakness. Yet modern commentators have produced very different interpretations of these contentious passages. For example, Fee, summing up chapter 7, says: Does not Scripture say in fact that singleness is better than marriage? To which the answer is No (p. 357); on 11:2-16 he concludes that such a “church custom” … is not to be raised to Canon Law (p. 530); and on 14:34-35 that it is not authentic … certainly not binding for Christians (p. 708).

Are such reinterpretations valid? Or are they a case of making the bible fit one’s cultural presuppositions? One way of answering this question is to analyse the contentious passages in their context using linguistic criteria, rather than by theological ones which tend to be coloured by traditional interpretations. This essay is an attempt to answer the question in this way for chapter 7, by analysing the first sixteen verses; the remainder of the chapter is both more obscure and less directly relevant to the central question: did Paul disapprove of all marriage and all sexual relations, or did he not?

The non-negotiables of the faith, including gender distinctions?

Posted on by
Reply

Adrian Warnock has been reporting on the Desiring God 2006 conference, entitled “Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World”.

Now let me first say that I have a lot of respect for the ministry of Desiring God and its leader John Piper. They are doing a great work by emphasising the importance for Christians of desiring God and seeking “a passion for the supremacy of God in all things”. I also greatly appreciate Piper’s support for exercise of the gifts of the Spirit in a properly balanced way.

But Piper is not as careful as he should be at distinguishing between biblical standards and the cultural norms of conservative America. I am not the only one to suggest this. For example, Suzanne McCarthy has referred to a list of roles which Piper considers as suitable for women. I commented as follows on her posting:

Are these rules supposed to be Christian and derived from the Bible? It sounds to me as if they come from a 19th century manual of etiquette. That doesn’t make them necessarily wrong, but nor does it make them right. Piper, Grudem and friends need to distinguish between Christian values and old-fashioned conservative cultural ones. A good course in cross-cultural evangelism, or some in depth first hand experience of a very different culture, would do them a world of good.

and also:

I just read the first half sentence of Piper’s book, and I think this gives the real key to his thinking. That first half sentence is “When I was a boy growing up in Greenville, South Carolina“. It was in that conservative environment, around 50 years ago (according to Wikipedia he was born in 1946, actually in Tennessee), that his cultural values were formed. In the second paragraph we learn that they attended a Southern Baptist church, and that of course further explains the formation of his cultural values. He goes on to describe supposed differences between men and women which he claims “go to the root of our personhood“, but which it seems to me are at least very largely conditioned by the specific cultural and religious context in which Piper grew up. …To summarise, Piper is making the mistake which I am afraid is so common among Americans, especially conservative ones but not only Christians, of simply assuming that their own cultural values are objectively and absolutely right, … There is a woeful failure to understand the distinction between cultural norms and absolute morality.

So, I was really interested to see that Desiring God was taking on the issue of relating to a postmodern world whose cultural norms are very different from those of the conservative South in which Piper grew up.

And what do I find? I am basing this mainly on Adrian’s rather brief summaries of others’ reports, but these are the points which some have considered significant. I have also looked at some of Tim Challies‘ more detailed first hand reports.

The controversial preacher Mark Driscoll spoke about: (as summarised by Adrian, condensing a report by Ricky Alcantar):

Nine issues to contend for:

1) The Bible.

2) The sovereignty of God.

3) The virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

4) We must argue against pelagianism, a denial of original sin.

5) We must contend for penal substitutionary atonement.

6) The exclusivity of Jesus.

7) We must contend for male and female roles.

8) We must contend for hell.

9) We must contend that kingdom is priority over culture.

John Piper, in comments on Driscoll’s talk, spoke as follows about these nine issues (as reported by Josh Harris and quoted by Adrian):

He referenced a point Driscoll had made in his talk about the importance of holding certain unchanging truths in our left hand that are the non-negotiables of the faith while being willing to contextualize and differ on secondary issues and stylistically (these are “right hand” issues).

In principle Piper is making an excellent point here on relating to postmodern culture. But I find it very interesting that what Piper affirms as “the non-negotiables of the faith” are apparently these particular nine points listed originally by Driscoll. Most of these nine points I can accept as important and non-negotiable (although I would want to ask for clarification about point 4, and I would argue that penal substitutionary atonement is only one among several good biblical models of the atonement). But this list is revealing both for what it includes and for what it omits.

For example, it omits any mention of several things which are clearly taught and commanded in the New Testament as norms for all believers, such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I refer not to the details of how these are to be administered and what they mean, but their very existence. If such things are not listed as non-negotiables, does that imply that they are secondary issues on which we can differ and which we can abandon for the sake of “contextualisation”, in other words in order to make our Christian faith more palatable to, for example, a postmodern generation? Or are they simply additional non-negotiables, thus implying that this list nine points is to be consider as incomplete?

But my main point here is the inclusion in this list of one item, “7) We must contend for male and female roles”, which seems to me totally out of place here. Tim Challies‘ version of this is “6) We must contend for gender distinctions”, but he actually lists this before “7) We must contend for the exclusivity of Christ”, as if gender roles more important than the exclusivity of Christ! Well, what exactly are the “male and female roles” or “gender distinctions” which we must contend for? Ricky Alcantar’s report says a little more here:

7) We must contend for male and female roleswe’re different. Male elders are to govern. We do not endorse homosexuality.

If Driscoll and Piper’s main point is that Christians should oppose homosexual practice and same-sex “marriage”, I would not disagree with them. But I would wonder why opposing these is listed as a “non-negotiable of the faith” when there is no mention of opposition to any other sins, such as heterosexual sex outside marriage, or greed, or pride. Why is homosexuality considered to be a much worse sin than these others? Is there really a biblical basis for this, or is this a case where (despite “non-negotiable” 9) cultural values are being put before kingdom values?

But it seems that what Driscoll and Piper largely have in mind is gender distinctions in the church, that “Male elders are to govern.” Now it is well known to regular readers here and at Better Bibles Blog that I differ from Piper, and implicitly also from Driscoll, on such issues and on the principles of interpretation of Bible passages which are alleged to teach this. I won’t repeat those arguments here, but will restrict my comments to wondering why they make such a big thing out of this. After all, there are in fact only a very few passages in the New Testament which teach about such gender roles. There is probably more teaching which favours slavery, but I don’t see “We must contend for slavery” among the non-negotiables! It might well have been on similar lists in the early 19th century, but anyone looking at such a list today would recognise how dependent it was on cultural norms which have now been abandoned.

There are many issues which are given far more prominence in the Bible than gender roles but have been omitted from this list of non-negotiables. For example, Paul devotes two long chapters of 1 Corinthians to spiritual gifts, and commands elsewhere

Do not put out the Spirit’s fire. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject whatever is harmful.

(1 Thessalonians 5:19-22, TNIV)

But Driscoll and Piper do not list acceptance of spiritual gifts including prophecy as a non-negotiable. Why not? Piper accepts these gifts himself, but maybe he is afraid of upsetting a large part of his audience, cessationists who disagree on this, by stressing their importance. But he doesn’t seem afraid of upsetting those who reject his approach to gender issues. Or is it because he accepts that cessationist arguments are strong enough that this should be considered a legitimate area for disagreement among Christians? Well, the cessationist arguments, largely an indefensible interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:10, seem to me much weaker than the arguments for alternative interpretations of passages on gender roles in the church. So why can’t Piper and friends accept that here too there is a legitimate area for disagreement among Christians?

It seems to me that Driscoll and Piper are picking and choosing among biblical commands, and not to find issues which really are central to the Christian faith and should really be considered non-negotiable. Instead they have selected a list of points which fit with their personal presuppositions about what is central to the faith, based on their culture as much as on the Bible. Their approach on such matters seems to be similar to that of the scribes and Pharisees of Mark 7, who no doubt justified their teachings from Scripture, but of whom Jesus said:

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.

(Mark 7:8, TNIV)

So, what should we do? I nearly finished this post here, but decided that this was too negative. I would challenge Driscoll and Piper (if they would listen to me!), and others who might agree with them, to go back to the drawing board and reexamine what really are the central non-negotiables of the Christian faith, the points which are not culturally relative and which are also central to the Good News of Christ. And these are the things which I would recommend them to concentrate on in their preaching to a postmodern generation. Then there will be other things which they will also hold as non-negotiable in principle but in practice might allow to take a less prominent position; here I might include baptism, the Lord’s Supper, spiritual gifts, and (from Driscoll’s original list) the virgin birth and hell. Finally, I would remind them to base their contextualisation on Paul’s biblical model:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

(1 Corinthians 9:19-23, TNIV)

Singleness: Köstenberger versus Maken

Posted on by
Reply

Although I don’t always agree with Andreas Köstenberger on gender-related issues, I appreciate what he has to say about singleness, part 1 and part 2. But I don’t appreciate Debbie Maken’s response, preaching that for most people it is wrong to remain single.

Unlike either of these two protagonists, but like significant Christian leaders such as John Stott and Mike Pilavachi, leader of the event I just got back from, I am single myself. This is neither from deliberate choice nor from a settled conviction that God has called me to singleness. In fact I rather believe that God has called me to get married at some time. But, from a combination of circumstances and a belief at various times that now was not the right time to look for a partner, this has not yet happened, even though I have now passed 50. A few years ago I was engaged briefly, but it didn’t last. More recently I signed up for a short time with Christian Connection, a dating agency, and made a few friends through it but it didn’t seem right to pursue anything. I continue to struggle with loneliness, as one of the very few singles anywhere near my age in my church or among my friends. And the attitude of the church is not always helpful. But for the moment I also appreciate the freedom from other responsibilities that gives me time to serve God, and to pursue other interests which are mostly related to God’s work. And I continue to trust God to bring the right marriage partner into my life at the right time if that is right, and to continue to provide for me as a single man if that is his better way for me.

The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible, Part 5: Scholarly Application

Posted on by
8

I introduced this series by looking at Al Mohler’s change of mind. In part 2 I described the fundamentalist approach to the Bible, and in part 3 and part 4 I looked at the first of the two main stages of the scholarly approach, exegesis. In this part I am moving on to the second main stage, application.

I will start by continuing the quotation which I started in part 4 from Think Again about Church Leaders (1 Timothy 2:8-3:16) by Bruce Fleming, now from p.88 and concerning “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3:2:

The instructions in the Bible apply to all people in all
cultures. However, in my work as a missionary
professor I came across three different, distinct and
mutually exclusive interpretations of this phrase in 3:2:

In the United States I heard:

No divorced and remarried man may be an
overseer – one may have only “one wife.”

In France I heard:

Bachelors may not be overseers because they
are not “husbands” and do not have “one wife.”

In Africa I heard:

No polygamist may be an overseer because
one must have only “one wife,” not many.

When the original meaning of verse 2 is understood
as a comment on being a “faithful spouse,” it applies to
all marriage situations wherever one may live. Single
persons may be overseers. If married, either husbands
or wives may be overseers, but in married life they must
be a “faithful spouse.”

This is a good illustration of how the same exegesis of a passage, as meaning literally “husband of one wife”, can lead to different applications. Fleming seems to consider that his alternative exegesis, “faithful spouse”, solves the application issue. Well, maybe it does in this particular case, but the problem is not solved in principle.

Study of the principles of how a Bible passage (or any other text) may be applied today is known as hermeneutics. And this is a very complex field of study. All I can do here is to outline some of the issues which relate to Titus 1:6 and its near parallel 1 Timothy 3:2.

The first thing which needs to be established is whether the text has any kind of authority today. Christians accept the New Testament as in some sense the foundation document of the church, but there are many different views on how far it is authoritative today. I take the evangelical position that what is explicitly taught in the Bible is authoritative for Christians today, and that anything in it which is intended to be a normative or binding rule for Christians should be obeyed – although I would not take the stronger position that the Bible is inerrant on all matters of fact. Some scholars argue (and with some good reasons) that the Pastoral Letters (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were not in fact written by the Apostle Paul and so should be seen as less authoritative than other parts of the New Testament. While I would not be dogmatic about authorship, I accept these books as part of the Bible and so authoritative regardless of authorship. Where in this series I write “Paul”, this should be understood as “Paul or whoever actually wrote this letter”.

It is then necessary to establish whether the rules laid down in these letters are to be understood as normative for the church today. At this point I need to lay to rest one argument. Christians who hold the cessationist position, that the gifts of the Spirit ceased to operate in the church at the end of the apostolic period or when the canon of the Bible was closed, apparently argue that certain commands of the apostle Paul, such as “eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy” (1 Corinthians 14:1, TNIV) and “be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:39, TNIV) no longer apply to the church today. Concerning these passages, Adrian Warnock writes to cessationists:

Why, on the one hand, are we at liberty to ignore Paul’s clear commands to the Corinthians … when, on the other hand, we are expected to accept all of his other commands to local churches as applying to us today? If these two commands do not apply to us, which other of Paul’s commands also do not apply? How are we then meant to decide which of Paul’s commands we are going to obey and which we are going to ignore?

Perhaps someone could argue that Paul didn’t allow women elders while spiritual gifts were in operation, because they were not equipped to direct these gifts, but there is no reason to continue this prohibition in the post-apostolic era. With this kind of argument cessationism can be used to negate any biblical command. But, as I am not a cessationist, I will assume that there is no time limit on any biblical command.

But there is a more difficult issue here. Should Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus about elders and overseers be understood as applicable only to the recipients’ specific situations, in Ephesus and Crete respectively? Here the issue becomes very complex. Paul’s original intention in writing may have been only for the specific situations. But the letters were preserved by the church and incorporated into the Bible on the understanding that this was authoritative teaching for all situations, not just the specific one which Paul addressed.

At this point I turn again to Gordon Fee, and to chapter 4 of the excellent book which he wrote together with Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (the link is to the edition which I have, which is not the latest). Fee sets out two rules for proper hermeneutics, in the context of the New Testament letters:

a text cannot mean what it never could have meant to its author or his or her readers (p.64).

Whenever we share comparable particulars (i.e., similar specific life situations) with the first-century setting, God’s Word to us is the same as his Word to them (p.65).

Fee warns that we must be very careful with extending applications into areas beyond comparable contexts. But he does accept that even where there is no directly comparable modern context there may be a principle which can be applied to

genuinely comparable situations (p.68).

Fee then turns to the problem of cultural relativity. He notes that some Christians do not seem to recognise cultural relativity but

argue for a wholesale adoption of first-century culture as the divine norm (p.71).

My own take on this is that whereas many Muslims take this approach, with the 7th century Arabian culture of Mohammed as the norm, in practice the culture which Christians take as normative is something from the 19th or early 20th century, which they read back into the New Testament. As an example, I would cite John Piper’s Vision of Biblical Complementarity, discussed on the Better Bibles Blog; it seems to me that Piper is not so much Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as recovering Victorian manhood and womanhood. But my position is the same as Fee’s, that

there is no such thing as a divinely ordained culture… the recognition of a degree of cultural relativity is a valid hermeneutical procedure (p.71).

Fee notes that there are basic lists of sins concerning which the New Testament witness is consistent and unambiguous, and that these prohibitions should be considered applicable to all. But in other matters such as women’s ministry and the retention of wealth there is more variation, and this suggests that these are cultural rather than moral matters. He also writes that

The degree to which a New Testament writer agrees with a cultural situation in which there is only one option increases the possibility of the cultural relativity of such a position (p.73).

Thus slavery is accepted in the Bible because it was accepted by all in the cultural context, but this does not imply that it is normative for Christians.

On these principles Fee argues that the prohibition on women teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 may be culturally relative and so applicable only to Timothy’s specific situation (p.75).

But I think it would be much harder for him to argue the same about “husband of one wife” in Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:2,12. For this condition for church leadership is repeated in several places in relation to differently named church offices and without any restriction to specific contexts. So I would conclude that this phrase is applicable to church leaders today, and without restriction to specific named offices. But it can only be applied today in accordance with its meaning as determined by good exegesis.

As I have previously concluded, Paul’s teaching at this point is not about the gender of church leaders but about their sexual activity. Titus 1:6 did not mean to Paul or Titus that women must not be elders, so it cannot mean the same to us today. What it does mean today is what it meant to Titus, that married male elders must be faithful to their wives – and by extension to genuinely comparable situations, it may also mean that married female elders must be faithful to their husbands, and that single and widowed elders must be celibate. At least, this is the conclusion to which I am led by the scholarly approach to the Bible.

This concludes my discussion of this scholarly approach, but I do have some more, possibly surprising, things to say about approaches to the Bible in part 6: Conclusions.

The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible, Part 4: Exegesis of Titus 1:6

Posted on by
31

After the introduction to this series which looked at Al Mohler’s change of mind, in part 2 I described the fundamentalist approach to the Bible, and in part 3 I started on the scholarly approach. This scholarly approach can be divided into exegesis (understanding the text) and application. In this part I will apply the principles of exegesis to Titus 1:6, and especially to the phrase sometimes translated “husband of one wife”. In the next part I will move on to how this may be applied in the modern world.

The first of the principles of exegesis which I outlined in part 3 is to get an overview of the whole document. For this I have just read the entire book of Titus, in my current favourite translation, TNIV. (At this point I am glad that I didn’t choose a verse from Acts as my example!) I can then look at the communication situation: the apostle Paul is writing to encourage and instruct his long term associate Titus, who he has left in charge of the Christian mission in Crete.

I then need to find a self-contained unit for exegesis. This is important because it avoids looking at a verse or two out of context. Clearly 1:6 is not a self-contained unit. It is in fact part of a unit 1:5-9 concerning appointment of elders, which is clearly separate from the preceding formal greeting, and is distinguished from what follows by an abrupt change of subject matter. I have read through this passage in the Greek and in the Good News Bible, the New Living Translation, and The Message (which leaves out “husband of one wife” completely!) I won’t attempt my own version of the passage, although that would help with the exegetical process.

There are a number of questions which could be formulated about this passage, such as the relationship between “overseer” (or “bishop”) in verse 7 and “elder” in verse 5. But for the purpose of this exercise I will concentrate on the one question: what did Paul mean by “husband of one wife”?

I was surprised to find “establish the text” so far down the list of principles which I summarised in part 3. I would in fact have preferred to do this at the beginning, or at least as soon as I had identified the passage. In this case, there are no textual variants which are relevant to “husband of one wife”.

The small section we are focusing on consists of just three words in Greek, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ mias gunaikos anēr, “(of) one woman/wife man/husband”. Perhaps two of these three words need word studies: ἀνήρ anēr (genitive ἀνδρός andros, as in “polyandry” and “androgynous”), meaning “man” or “husband”, and γυνή gunē (genitive γυναικός gunaikos, as in “gynaecology” and again “androgynous”), meaning “woman” or “wife”. At this point I will not do detailed word studies, but I will note that whereas ἀνήρ anēr most commonly means “man” as opposed to “woman”, it can also mean “human being” as opposed to “god” or “adult” as opposed to “youth”. This is clear from the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon of classical Greek: in this 19th century lexicon (the link is to a 1940 revision) the gloss for sense A.II, “man, opp. god“, was written at a time when “man” was used routinely in a gender generic sense. However, it does seem clear that in this case, where ἀνήρ anēr and γυνή gunē are used together, that the senses of the words being used here are “husband” and “wife”. But see what I write below about Deiss’ research into this phrase.

At this point I will skip the use of other reference books. While in general this is a good principle for exegesis, it is not so helpful in a case like this on which there is such controversy. As for relationships between words and between larger units, I will simply note that these three words form one item in a short list of complements of “anyone is”, within a conditional clause which appears to be laying down conditions for anyone to be appointed as an elder.

I now move on to looking at parallel passages using the same expression. As I noted in part 2, the same expression occurs in 1 Timothy 3:2,12, and a similar expression but with “husband” and “wife” reversed in 1 Timothy 5:9. In 1 Timothy 3:2 this expression is a similar condition for someone to be an overseer or “bishop”, and in 3:12 (where it occurs in the plural) it is a condition for deacons; the expression in 5:9 is a condition for a widow to be enrolled.

These parallel uses do tend to restrict how the expression can be understood. For example, 5:9 rules out a strictly present understanding: the widow must be someone who was “wife of one husband” before she became a widow, and so it is reasonable to argue that “husband of one wife” cannot exclude widowers from being elders, overseers or deacons.

More controversially, as I noted in part 2, according to Romans 16:1 the woman Phoebe was a deacon, and indeed the most natural interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:11 is also a reference to women deacons. In this case, “husband of one wife” in 3:12 cannot be understood as a rule applicable everywhere allowing only men to be deacons. And as the phrase surely has the same meaning in 3:2 and Titus 1:6 these verses cannot be understood as forbidding any women from being overseers or elders; for precisely the same condition is applied to all three, or two, types of Christian ministry.

Now I have not come to any definite conclusion on the vexed issue of whether this phrase should be understood as “husband of one wife” in the sense of not being polygamous, or “faithful to his wife” as in TNIV; nor whether it should be understood as forbidding unmarried elders (although I have ruled out a prohibition on widowed elders). My own preference is for understanding the phrase as requiring the elder to avoid any kind of sexual activity outside a monogamous marriage. But I don’t claim to have justified this fully.

I have however cast serious doubt on whether this verse can be understood as restricting eldership to men. I have three strictly exegetical reasons for this, quite apart from the application issues which I will move on to in the next part. The first reason is as above, that the same condition is applied to deacons but there do seem to have been women deacons.

The second reason is that the point which Paul was making here was not about gender but about sexual activity. Paul may have assumed that Titus would appoint only men, as was perhaps culturally appropriate (compare 2:6 where his grounds for requiring women to “be subject to their husbands” is to be culturally sensitive, “so that no-one will malign the word of God” (TNIV)). But it is unlikely that he was intending to teach two separate things in this one three word phrase – that is not how language works. And the positive point which he was making is clearly related to sexual activity. Now there is some value in looking at the biblical authors’ presuppositions as well as at their direct teaching. But, as I will consider further when I look at application, it is dangerous to take the apostle’s presuppositions as normative for the church today.

My third reason for not interpreting this verse as prohibiting women elders is based on a something apparently written by the French biblical scholar Lucien Deiss. (Thanks to Ruud Vermeij for reminding me about this and providing some links.) In Think Again about Church Leaders (1 Timothy 2:8-3:16), page 87 of this online edition, Bruce Fleming writes, on 1 Timothy 3:2:

The second qualification in the list deals with the overseer’s married life. Careful research has shown that this qualification means that whether one is a husband or a wife it is important to be a “faithful spouse.” It requires that an overseer, if married, be faithful and be “a one-spouse kind of person.”According to Lucien Deiss (notes to the French Bible, the TOB, Edition Intégrale, p. 646, note a), this Greek phrase was used in Asia Minor, on both Jewish and pagan gravestone inscriptions, to designate a woman or a man, who was faithful to his or her spouse in a way characterized by “a particularly fervent conjugal love.”

When I read Deiss’ comment about how this phrase was used on ancient grave inscriptions in Turkey, where Paul and Timothy ministered, I confirmed it with him myself, reaching him by telephone in Vaucresson, France.

Some might find this insight into 1 Timothy 3:2 surprising because modern versions of the Bible translate this Greek phrase as – “husband of one wife” – making this qualification appear to be restricted to men only! Instead, rightly understood, this qualification is about faithfulness in marriage by a Christian spouse. It is not saying that oversight is “for men only.”

I regret that I have not been able to confirm what Deiss wrote or the inscriptions reported by him. But it does seem clear that this scholar has written this, and in a Bible edition, TOB, Edition Intégrale, produced jointly by the Société Biblique Française (French Bible Society) which should ensure proper scholarly standards.

I thus conclude that from an exegetical point of view (and quite apart from the issue of application today) it cannot be maintained that Paul was setting for Titus a condition that the elders he appointed must be male.

In part 5: Scholarly Application I will look at the scholarly principles of how this passage might be applied within the church today.

The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible, Part 2: The Fundamentalist Approach

Posted on by
10

In Part 1 of this series I looked at how Al Mohler became a complementarian, and in doing so apparently rejected the scholarly arguments which were dominant at his seminary on the basis of a fundamentalist appeal to “the clear teaching of Scripture“.

In this part I will look at the fundamentalist approach to studying the Bible, and prepare the way for describing what I see as the proper scholarly approach. I will do this in the context of what must have been one of the Bible passages which Mohler studied before becoming complementarian. On this blog I have previously looked at 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and so on this occasion I will look at another passage, in fact just a short phrase, which is translated very literally “the husband of one wife” in RSV, but less literally “faithful to his wife” in TNIV. This phrase is found in Titus 1:6, where it refers to elders, and in 1 Timothy 3:2,12 referring to “bishops” or overseers and to deacons respectively. As Lingamish notes in his original discussion of this phrase, in 1 Timothy 5:9 there is an opposite phrase translated “the wife of one husband” in RSV and “faithful to her husband” in TNIV. I will concentrate on Titus 1:6 because it is here that the phrase is applied to elders or presbyters, and most Christian traditions seem to understand modern pastors or priests as in some equivalent to biblical elders.

So let’s start by looking at Titus 1:6 from the fundamentalist approach to the Bible. On this approach, it is indeed a simple matter. This verse gives some conditions for anyone to be appointed as an elder, and one of these is that an elder must be “the husband of one wife“. As a husband must be male, the implication is very simple: elders must be male. And, from the same approach to 1 Timothy 3:2,12, “bishops” and deacons must also be male. I am sure that it was in passages like this that Carl Henry found “the clear teaching of Scripture” about which he challenged Al Mohler.

It is interesting, however, that not many traditions also take the position, equally clear from this verse on this method of interpretation, that “bishops”, elders and deacons must be married. It is also interesting that this interpretation when applied to deacons contradicts another Bible passage, Romans 16:1, where Paul writes approvingly of Phoebe, a woman deacon. Yes, “deacon” (TNIV) is the correct translation here, not “deaconess” (RSV), nor “servant” (NIV, ESV), for she is described with the same grammatically masculine Greek word used for “deacon” in 1 Timothy.

This illustrates the weakness of the fundamentalist approach to Scripture. It can be highly selective; an interpreter can choose to give great importance to small phrases, even the tiniest grammatical details, which support the position which he or (more rarely!) she supports, while ignoring the main teaching point of the passage in question. It can also be highly ingenious in finding excuses to dismiss other passages which seem to be contradictory – while rejecting similar attempts to dismiss the original interpretation as “deny[ing] the clear teaching of Scripture“. In the case of Romans 16:1, the ingenious attempt to dismiss “the clear teaching of Scripture” that Phoebe was a deacon has even been written into several Bible translations. A further weakness of fundamentalist Bible interpretation, not seen so clearly in this example, is that fundamentalists often take verses entirely out of their original context.

In fact, it is possible to support almost any position on any issue of current controversy in the church with this kind of interpretation of Scripture. (Yes, I could even put together an argument for gay bishops if I wanted to!) An interpreter can take a verse of two out of context, selectively latch on to small points within those verses, and use them as support for any teaching they might choose to promote. They then use their ingenuity to reinterpret any verses which might seem to contradict their position. And when anyone tries to disagree with them, they resort to ad hominem arguments like “how … could [you] possibly deny the clear teaching of Scripture on this question[?]“, sometimes even hinting that someone who doesn’t accept their argument might not be saved.

I wish this were a caricature of fundamentalists, but unfortunately I have seen far too many arguments which are just like this, not just on the blogosphere but even in works which people like Mohler claim to be scholarly.

In part 3: Principles of Scholarly Exegesis I will, by way of contrast, start to look at the proper scholarly way of interpreting the phrase in Titus 1:6.