Restoring God’s Pattern for the Home #5
Bertrand Russell, the notoriously immoral English agnostic, was vicious and unrelenting in his attacks against the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality. He argued that the Bible’s warped ideas about sex could be understood only if one knew what was occurring in the Roman Empire at the time the New Testament was written. Of course, Russell and his first wife, Dora, did not want anyone interfering with their sexual escapades. Incidentally, Dora Russell was just as immoral as her famous husband. Oddly enough, Bertrand Russell objected to his daughter’s being sexually promiscuous like he and his first wife had been. It does make a difference in a father’s views about sex, when he loves his daughter. But I wonder if Russell ever thought about fathers whose daughters were his sexual consorts.
Does the Bible have a pattern for sexual expressions within the marriage relationship? There are many passages in the Bible which deal with sex, but I want to direct your attention today to 1 Corinthians 7. Please listen carefully as I read to you the first nine verses of this powerful teaching on the intimate aspect of marriage. “Now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife has not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power over his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one the other, except it be with consent for a season, that you may give yourselves to fasting and to prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinence. But I speak this by permission and not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them to abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: it is better to marry than to burn.”
There
are many very significant truths recorded in these nine verses, but I shall not
have time today to examine all of them.
But please pay special attention to the following information. If you listened to our reading of 1
Corinthians 7:1-9, you could not avoid noticing the emphasis on sexual
exclusiveness in the marriage covenant.
“Let every man have his own wife, and let every husband have her own
husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). When we pledge
our love to our mates for life, sexual relations outside marriage are sinful,
destructive and eternally damning. “They
which do such things shall not inherit the
God
demands that married men “drink waters from their own cistern, running water
from their own well” (Prov.
My
friends, I am not saying that the Bible ignores the physical penalties which
often accompany sexual immorality.
Solomon raised these questions with regard to sexual misconduct: “Can a
man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go on hot coals, and his feet not be
scorched? So he who goes in to his
neighbor’s wife and touches her shall not be innocent... He who commits adultery with a woman lacks
understanding: he who does it destroys his own soul. A wound and dishonor shall he get; and his
reproach shall not be wiped away” (Prov.
According
to the scriptures--including 1 Corinthians 7--God’s arrangement for sexual
fulfillment in the marriage act was designed for human enjoyment and not just
for reproduction of the human race.
Please notice Solomon’s colorful language. “Rejoice with the wife of your youth...Let
her breasts satisfy you at all times, and be infatuated with her love” (Prov.
Christians
and all other people should remember that one’s sexual conduct does not escape
the Lord’s attention. “For man’s way are
before the eyes of the Lord, and he watches all his paths” (Prov.
Now please turn to 1 Corinthians 7. The Corinthians had sent a number of questions about marriage to the apostle Paul. We are not able to give an exact formulation to these questions, but one of the questions related to the legitimacy of sexual expressions of love in the marriage relationship. Paul opened his discussion by affirming: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor. 7:1). Unfortunately, this verse has been used to downgrade the sexual relationship, although the verse has nothing to do with that topic. Paul is discussing the legitimacy of marriage--not what married couples do in marriage. He really is teaching that it is good for a man not to get married.
This
verse has been used by certain religious leaders to exalt celibacy. But Paul is not teaching that being single is
a higher and holier state than being married.
Celibacy is certainly the right of each individual--as Paul clearly
teaches in this chapter--but it is not a more righteous choice than getting
married. One point needs to be stressed
in passing. The decision to remain single
is your choice--not someone else’s choice.
No church has a right to require anyone to remain single. You might be a better
Paul
uses the word “good” in verse one. In
some contexts, the word means morally good, wholesome, God-approved. But it does not mean that in this verse. Let me show you from this chapter why I have
arrived at that conclusion. If “good” (kalon
in the Greek) means morally good in reference to remaining single, then
marriage would be morally evil. If that
were true, then the Lord’s observation in Genesis
The
apostle Paul had a right to marry, but chose not to exercise that right (1 Cor.
9:5). His decision not to marry was
his decision but he made it in view of his service in the
There are people who are so able to control their sexual appetites that they have no wish or need to get married. The great apostle Paul is a good example. But not everyone is so constituted. I, for one, am very glad of that fact that I am able to be a married man. If everyone chose to stay single--which is not likely to happen--the human race would come to a screeching halt. For those who would have difficulty controlling their sexual appetites if they do not marry, Paul gave this inspired advice: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Why did the so-called “church fathers”--Origen, Augustine, Tertullian and Jerome--ignore the plain teaching of this verse? Many of those men were literally eaten alive with sexual desires, but they chose to turn aside from the Bible’s simple remedy for burning passions--getting married.
Betrand Russell, the British agnostic, severely criticized Paul for his statement in verse 2. He accused Paul of belittling marriage when he mentioned marriage as a prevention, or a cure, for sexual immorality. But how could Russell or any other unbeliever recognize any absolute standard of right and wrong? How could Russell condemn anyone for doing anything? But Bertrand Russell misunderstood Paul or else he deliberately misinterpreted him. If Paul had said that avoiding sexual immorality was the sole reason for getting married, Russell might have some basis for objecting to Paul’s writings, but Paul did not say that. The Bible--including Paul’s writings--gives a number of good reasons for getting married, but one of these--and a legitimate one, too,--is avoiding sexual immorality.
Suppose your physicians says to you, “I want you to drink a glass of orange juice every day.” If you were to ask why, he might say, “The vitamin C should help to fortify you against colds.” Would you react by saying, “But that is a negative reason for drinking orange juice. I want a positive reason.” The truth is that orange juice tastes good and is good for you, but it also helps you to avoid colds and perhaps other illnesses as well. We also eat because food tastes good and to avoid getting sick and dying. Betrand Russell’s objections to Paul’s teaching about marriage are ill-founded and probably biased.
While we are examining verse 2, I want to say a few words about the word “fornication.” The Greek word porneia just simply means “any kind of sexual immorality”--not just premarital sex, as many preachers and others have incorrectly taught. Many Bible students know that adultery usually means illicit sexual union between two people--one of whom is married. They conclude, then, that fornication is illicit sex between two unmarried people. But that is not a correct reading of the Greek. Fornication is used, in the Bible, of incest (1 Cor. 5:1), of adultery (Mt. 19:9) and of homosexuality (Jude 7). With these bible facts in mind, where does the bible condemn--or does it condemn--premarital sex? Would it surprise you that theologians like John Shelby Spong, Victor Paul Furnish, Joseph Fletcher and a host of others do not condemn premarital sex? It does not surprise me, but it does disturb me tremendously. Just think of the damage these compromising theologians do to our young people. The spread of genital herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis and AIDS must be laid at the feet of such theologians and those who follow their radical advice.
In the early 1970’s, Dr. John Dedek, a Roman Catholic priest and a seminary professor, wrote a little book with the title, Contemporary Sexual Morality (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, 1971). Dr. Dedek, an obviously capable scholar, affirms that the churches are taking a much more liberal view of premarital sex. More and more preachers seem to believe that churches ought to be more accepting and less judgmental and that preaching against sin and discussing hell make people feel guilty (p. 20). I do have some questions regarding Dr. Dedek’s statements. Do churches have a right to take a more liberal view of premarital sex? If so, who gave them that right? The Bible certainly does not take a soft line on premarital sex. How do preachers arrive at the position that they should not discuss sin and hell? Should preachers make people feel guilty--if they are guilty?
Dr. Dedek discusses the meaning of the word “fornication” and then says” “It is not clear that this word ever designates simple fornication” (p. 28). He doubts that the New Testament ever forbids all sexual relations outside of marriage (p. 28). Dr. Dedek may have some doubts, but there is no room for such doubts. Let me read again these words from 1 Corinthians 7:2: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Please look at the verse very carefully and answer a question: “To whom was Paul addressing this verse?” He is not addressing married people; they already have their wives and husbands. He is speaking specifically to unmarried people. He said very simply, “If you cannot control your sexual appetite, then get married. If you do not get married you might be tempted to engage in fornication--which in this verse, means premarital sex. Please listen carefully to another of Paul’s statements: “But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor. 7:9). My friends, is it a part of God’s pattern for the home that both men and women should be morally pure when they enter the marriage bond? You know it is because the Bible makes that truth too plain for anyone to doubt. Besides, if you marry someone who has been sexually immoral, how do you know he or she does not have AIDS?
Winford Claiborne
The International Gospel Hour
P.O. Box 118
Fayetteville, TN 37334
Back to Home Page
Back to Transcripts Titles