The Christian Science Bible Lesson has a section on marriage this week and the protection it provides for sexual relations. I found a translation of Paul’s words in “The Message,” especially helpful in understanding his thoughts.
I think the passage speaks for itself.
Paul wrote:
“Now, getting down to the questions you asked in your letter to me. First, Is it a good thing to have sexual relations?
Certainly–but only within a certain context. It’s good for a man to have a wife, and for a woman to have a husband. Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality–the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to “stand up for your rights.” Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it’s for the purposes of prayer and fasting–but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I’m not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence–only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.
Sometimes I wish everyone were single like me–a simpler life in many ways! But celibacy is not for everyone any more than marriage is. God gives the gift of the single life to some, the gift of the married life to others.
I do, though, tell the unmarried and widows that singleness might well be the best thing for them, as it has been for me. But if they can’t manage their desires and emotions, they should by all means go ahead and get married. The difficulties of marriage are preferable by far to a sexually tortured life as a single.” I Corinthians 7
Loved that translation, thanks for sharing it!
I like it as well. And, I don’t want to appear to have missed the point of this– because I didn’t.
However, it bothers me a little that Paul refers to singleness as a simpler life. It may appear simpler in some ways but in others it is equally/far more challenging. (At least in today’s world. Maybe it was different in Paul’s time though I suspect not for women). It’s not that I think there is anything wrong with the single life — it’s a wonderful blessing just like marriage. But it seems to me that statement feeds a general misperception about singleness just like some of Paul’s statements about women often feed misperceptions.
That’s what I love about MBE. Having experienced the good and bad of both she learned to rely solely on God. What a model!
This is a very good translation, I agree.
However. That was Paul’s opinion and good for him, he was entitled to it. But I fail to see why one man’s opinion should rule what billions of Christians do in practice.
My opinion is that this is a very limiting way of thinking about intimate relationships. Only 2 choices? There’s more choice in what to eat for breakfast!!
“In a world of sexual disorder…” , where the goal is spirituality, two choices are enough. Defeating the carnal mind, sensuality, and attaining purity and clarity of the divine Mind, requires an orderly life, and the avoidance of the complexities that follow in the grim social pain of emotions run amuck.
Thanks for your thoughts, Anon, I think we must be living in 2 different worlds. The ‘sexual disorder’ I see has often been caused by abuse of power which doesn’t have much to do with whether one is single or in a hetereosexual marriage. Sadly.
Thank you Evan for once again providing an honest and open forum. Please see S&H 82:31….
“In a world of sin and sensuality hastening to a
greater development of power, it is wise earnestly to
consider whether it is the human mind or the divine
Mind which is influencing one.”
I often refer to this passage to measure my intentions. Seeking to experience any type of pleasure absent divine connection always leads to pain. No exceptions. Humbling ourselves at the onset brings rich experiences that no mortal desire could possibly imagine. No exceptions.