With all of the above in mind, we now get into the sex and marriage ethics part of the letter.
This entire section is, of course, heteronormative—but of course it is. Paul had no concept of sexual orientation as we understand it. The vast majority of same-sex relationships in the Greco-Roman world were non-consensual, pederastic, and/or abusive—temple prostitution, sex slavery, the exploitation of boys by older men. That was the only framework Paul had. The heteronormativity of the passage is not the same as saying it describes the only possible way of being, any more than the Bible's descriptions of sea voyages mean that airplanes are immoral.
Verse 1 has been misread for centuries. If you look at all the different translations (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%207%3A1) you can see that the older ones don't include the quotation marks. But the NRSVue is almost certainly right to include them. "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" is Paul quoting the Corinthians back to themselves, not stating his own view. He will now correct them.
Verse 2. Remember that "cases of sexual immorality" is not talking about mere premarital sex. Chapter 5 starts by talking about a case of incestuous rape. "Sexual immorality" (Greek: porneia) usually has more to do with sex being sold or issues of abuse and non-consent.
Verses 3 and 4 are radically egalitarian compared to the sexual ethics of the day. Women had few legal rights and were considered the property of their husbands. There are no contemporary parallels to Paul's words here, suggesting that a woman had rights to her own body and to the body of her husband. I can understand if you grimace at this talk of possessing another person's body, but in terms of the mutuality of marriage, this is radical. And if taught properly, it could prevent any possible biblical justification for marital rape.
Verse 5. Apparently, not only was there an epicurean/sensualist movement in Corinth, but there was also an ascetic movement. Avoid sex, deny the body, etc. From what we know about trendy Greek philosophies, this makes sense—people tend to go one way or the other. (This happens in modern culture as well.) Paul is saying that the ascetic extreme is also wrong. Sex is good.
Verse 7 is often used as proof that Paul is anti-marriage. However, it must be read alongside verse 26, which we'll get to later: "I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is good for you to remain as you are." Paul is giving specific advice for a specific time, not laying down a universal rule against marriage.
Verse 8. One of my New Testament professors argued that this verse implies Paul himself was a widower. This is a minority scholarly position, but it does make sense of why a middle-aged Jewish Pharisee did not have a wife, which would have been extremely unusual.
Verse 9 is often read as being about premarital sex. However, "aflame" or "burn" was used in the Greco-Roman world to talk about justifying sexual assault. All sexual deviancy was considered the result of a person having too much sexual energy that had not been properly channeled. This is why Greco-Roman culture tolerated sex slaves, prostitution, and pederasty—they were considered outlets to "burn off" sexual energy and prevent worse crimes. Paul's solution to this problem is far simpler and far more humane: marry.
Questions for reflection
- Paul quotes "It is good for a man not to touch a woman" as the Corinthians' own slogan, then corrects it. Where do you see similar over-corrections in the church today—people reacting against sexual harm by becoming suspicious of sexuality itself?
- Verses 3–4 give wives and husbands equal authority over each other's bodies—a radically mutual vision of marriage in the ancient world. How does this mutuality challenge the way "submission" in marriage is still taught in many churches?
- The Greco-Roman world accepted sex slaves and pederasty as legitimate outlets for sexual energy. Paul rejects the entire framework. What frameworks does our own culture use to justify sexual exploitation that we've become too comfortable with?