17 Too Spiritual for Sex? Paul's Advice To Married Couples (1 Corinthians 7:1-6)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome to the Winston the Word Podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta and I'm really glad you joined us today. This is the podcast where we explain not only what scripture means but how we figure it out. I have a listener warning today. This particular talk concerns issues within marriage, and it may not be appropriate for young listeners. If you're listening with little ones nearby, you may want to save this podcast for later. We're gonna be studying 1 Corinthians chapter 7, verses 1 through 7 today, and this is the 17th talk in our series on 1 Corinthians. You can find lecture notes for today's talk on the link below the podcast so you don't have to worry about taking notes. Or you can find those lecture notes on my website wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 1 7. And while you're on the website, take a moment to check it out. There is no charge, no spam, no ads, only Bible study. Let's get started. As is sometimes the case, I disagree with the popular or at least the prevalent understanding of this passage. And is often the case, I believe the prevalent view results from one of two problems. It results from either a cursory reading of the verses without fully appreciating the context, and or it results from a view of Corinthians that the letter is a series of unrelated passages on a variety of topics, and so people don't even try to find the flow of thought. As you know, I believe there is a strong line of thought connecting each section of this letter, and I think that when you make an effort to follow that connection, you come up with a better understanding of each of the individual sections. Now, granted these passages are difficult, these are passages which sincere and genuine believers will disagree about. There are many interpretive decisions you have to make when translating these texts, and neither the vocabulary nor the imagery is obviously straightforward. And if that's not enough, we're in the middle of a conversation. In fact, this entire letter is the middle of a conversation. The Corinthians wrote to Paul and asked him questions, and we don't have their letter. We only have Paul's side of the conversation. So we are reading his answers to questions we don't have. And we have to guess what those questions were based on his answer. Plus, Paul received a verbal report about the situation in Corinth, and we don't have that report either. So Paul's working with a lot of information that we don't have. We only have Paul's side of the conversation and we don't even have all of his side. Paul wrote other letters to this church that did not survive. I have a blog post explaining that, which I'll link to in the lecture notes if you're interested. Even though we call this letter First Corinthians, it's not the first letter Paul wrote that church. It would be very helpful if we had the whole conversation, but we don't, so we have to work with what we've got. It's like listening to one side of a phone conversation. We can hear the answers, but we have to guess what questions they asked to elicit that particular response. I'm giving you my best shot at putting all these pieces together, but I admit I do not have all the answers. I don't have the last word, and my views don't carry any weight or authority at all. I am just one Bible student talking to another Bible student saying, hey, I put some time in on these passages, and here's what I've learned. And this is certainly a work in progress. One day we will all see clearly, but right now we have to take our best shot at what it means with the evidence we've got. The problem in this passage is that Paul seems to be damning marriage with faint praise. Paul seems to be saying, Well, if you have to marry, I guess it's okay. You're not actually sinning if you get married, but it would be better not to get married at all. If that really is what he's saying, it's kind of a lukewarm endorsement of marriage, which would be strange because marriage is something God created before the fall. As always, first we want to figure out what Paul is saying to the Corinthians about marriage, and then after understanding that we want to ask what does that mean for us? And we want to place this discussion in the flow of thought and in the argument that he has been making in the first six chapters, including what we know about the historical situation and the problems the Corinthian church was facing. Chapter seven verse one begins now concerning the things about which you wrote. And that signals a change in the letter. Paul is addressing issues which the Corinthians raised in a letter they wrote to him, and it's a letter we don't have. And this phrase now concerning will keep popping up from here on out in the letter. And it signals to us that Paul is answering a question that they asked. So we're entering a section where Paul answers a series of questions the Corinthians asked. Up to this point, he's been responding to issues raised by the verbal report he received, and now he's switching gears and he's responding to questions they asked him in the in a letter. So we see this in seven one, now concerning the matters about which he wrote, then in seven twenty-five, now concerning the betrothed, in eight one, now concerning food offered to idols, in twelve one, now concerning spiritual gifts, in sixteen one, now concerning the collection for the saints, and in sixteen twelve, now concerning our brother Apollos. So up to now, Paul's been addressing the big issue question of what is true wisdom, which has led the Corinthians to question Paul's authority as an apostle and led to these divisions in the church. Up to now, some in the church have been quite aggressive in fighting Paul and disagreeing with him, and there seemed to be a group among them who had concluded that Paul is not a legitimate apostle and they were not going to listen to him anymore. And that was the issue Paul addressed in chapters one through four. Then he addressed a situation that was going on in the church that he must have heard through the verbal report in beginning in chapter five, and from here on he's now addressing issues that they wrote to him. Some of the issues will be motivated from this rejection of Paul's teaching and some will not. Some of the questions seem to come from the perspective of legitimately wanting to know what Paul thinks, as opposed to coming from the perspective of challenging his authority and his right to speak into their lives. Now they seem to be asking, isn't this what you think? Or what do you think about this? And the first issue we're looking at in 7.1 seems to me to be a genuine question. Paul, what would you say about this? They think they're in line with him, they think they're following his advice, and they want to know if they've got it right. So what is this first issue? In 7.1, Paul says, Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. That's the New American Standard Translation. The ESV reads, it is not good for a man to have sexual relations with a woman. Now we know Paul is answering a question, a specific question that they asked, and it makes a lot of difference how you understand the question. You're going to interpret this section coming up differently based on what you think the issue is that he's responding to. Various commentators understand the question in various ways, and this verse has a long history of debate in the church. And as I said, we have to take our best guess because we only have Paul's side of the conversation. So here's option one. No, I Paul totally disagree with you, and it is good for a man not to touch a woman. So the Corinthians are saying something to the effect of, you know, we have this philosophy, if it feels good, do it. And Paul is disagreeing and saying, No, that's not right. Let me correct you. Just because it feels good does not mean you should do it. In fact, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Option number two would be, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you, Corinthians. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. So the Corinthians have decided we would all be better off if we just stayed away from sexuality altogether. And Paul's saying, right, you've got it. That's my perspective, too. So no, I disagree. Yes, I agree. And option three is well, yes and no. I, Paul, would agree that there is something good about a man not touching a woman in some circumstances, but you have misunderstood the point. And that is the position I would argue for. I think option three is the one that fits the best in the context. So I do not think the issue is, I know you guys can't wait to get married, but my advice is it's much better if you just avoid marriage altogether. I don't think that's the question being asked. Rather, the question is how far do we take this idea of purity and chastity and sexual morality? And they're saying, Paul, isn't it the case that sexuality is just so powerful and tempting that we should just avoid it altogether? We know that all things physical are dirty and base and unclean and that the really enlightened will follow this path of spirituality, and so we've concluded that given all that and the fact that we're so likely to fail in this area of sexuality, that we should just go the ascetic route and avoid it altogether. That would fit with what we know of Greek culture at the time. We know from history that there was a prevalent idea in the Greek culture that everything physical was dirty and evil, and that everything spiritual was clean and good, and that the truly enlightened, the truly spiritual would avoid physical altogether, and that took various forms all the way up to asceticism. Given that historical belief, it seems likely to mean that Christians are struggling with okay, just how far does this idea of purity and chastity go? Our culture tells us that the physical is bad. How does that square with our new Christian belief? Should we just avoid this physical stuff altogether? In a sense, I think this is the other swing of the pendulum from the issue he was addressing in chapter six that it doesn't matter what we do with our bodies at all. That was the issue in six. Now I think he's saying, but don't fall off the horse on the other side. Don't look, say at my life as a single person and my call to sexual morality and conclude that sexuality is wrong in and of itself in all circumstances and to be avoided. If my culture tells me that the physical is evil and the spirit is good, I can make two mistakes. I can conclude either it doesn't matter what I do with my body because my spirit is so enlightened and pure, so I can do whatever I want, and that's the issue he was just addressing in the previous chapter. Or I can conclude that I have to deny my body at all cost in order to avoid sin, which is I think the issue he's turning to now. And we know from history there were these two groups. There were the licentious, I can do whatever I want, and then there were the ascetics who thought you should deny your body every physical pleasure and maybe even inflict pain and punishment on it. It makes sense that Paul would address both sides of that issue. Paul is not married as he writes this letter, but Paul was not an ascetic. Paul probably was married at some point because he was a Pharisee, and Pharisees had to be married. We don't know what happened to his wife. She may have divorced him when he came to faith, or she may have died, or he may have been a rare exception and never married at all, but we know that he is single as he writes this letter. So Paul is celibate, but he's not ascetic. An ascetic sees it as more spiritual to completely deny the body all pleasures and even inflict abuse in order to purge your body from sin. Paul does not follow that line. He's going to acknowledge that there are certain advantages to being single, but he's drawing a line and saying don't take this too far. Don't go into asceticism where you believe the body is inherently evil and all physical pleasures must be avoided. So I think he's giving them a balanced response. He's going to say yes, celibacy is good. There are times when there are good reasons to remain celibate, but marriage is good, and sometimes there are times to get married. Marriage is a good thing, and sexuality has its appropriate place in marriage. So the way I put the context together in Paul's flow of thought, I think that Paul is responding to an idea they have. Their idea is it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman. And he's going to respond to that and say, let's sort that out, and that that theme is what runs through the whole chapter. And he's giving a balanced response of there is a time and place for everything. Under some circumstances, it's good for a man not to touch a woman, but under other circumstances it is not good. And the rest of the chapter is going to sort that out. When is it true? When is it not true? And how should that affect our decisions? And Paul's going to address that question in a number of situations. And we're going to look at the first one today. But it's not the only situation or circumstance he's going to address. We're going to see a number of different circumstances as we go through the chapter, and it's helpful to remember that the question is, when is it good for a man not to touch a woman and when is it okay? So here's the first issue. This is first Corinthians chapter seven verses one and two, and I'm reading the New American Standard Version. Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife and each woman is to have her own husband. Well, right off the bat we face our first real interpretive decision. It sounds like Paul is saying celibacy is best, but I know you can't handle celibacy, so you'd better just go ahead and get married so you don't fall into too much sin. And that is a common or at least prevalent popular understanding of seven two. Singleness is preferable, but for those of you who are so weak willed that you can't handle singleness, you'd better get married. That is a possible and a valid interpretation, but it is not the one that persuades me. This phrase each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Okay, what does that mean? The phrase could mean let each person get married, let each man and woman find someone and get married. And that would be a strange way to start the section because in just a few verses he's gonna argue that being single has some advantages. So it seems unlikely that he's gonna start with essentially a command or advice that everyone should get married when later in the same chapter he's gonna say, you know, singleness has some advantages in some situations. So it is possible that he starts off saying, I want everyone to get married, except here and here and here, but we don't see him arguing like that in his other letters. This phrase have his own wife is a common phrase in Greek for having sexual relations. It is a term like kind of like our making love that refers to physical intimacy, and it shows up often in the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and Paul was familiar with that translation. Just to give you one example, we see this phrase in Deuteronomy twenty eight thirty. That's the Hebrew. The Septuagint version reads, you shall take a wife, but another man shall have her. Now this is a series of curses for disobedience, and one of them is you're going to marry a woman, but another man will have her, and the idea is that someone else is going to sleep with her. And that phrase is the one we see here. That Greek phrase shows up in several places in the Septuagint to refer specifically to sexual relations. Now to be fair, this Greek phrase does not always refer to sexuality. It also shows up in context where it means simply that you're married, that he has a wife or she has a husband, that he is married and not single. So we have to decide which one of those does Paul mean here. The fact that this phrase can refer to sexual relations is not a knockdown argument that it does mean sexual relations in any particular verse. Context is king and will decide the issue. And in fact, later in this very chapter, Paul's going to use this same phrase to talk about those who have a wife, and there I think he means those who are married. So there's our first big interpretive decision. All that said, I think understanding it here as sexual relations in this context makes a whole lot more sense of the flow of thought. But again, this is one of those issues that sincere and genuine believers may disagree about. I think the context makes more sense if you presume that Paul is not addressing the question, if you're single, should you get married, but rather Paul is addressing the question, if you're married, should you avoid sexual relations? Now that seems a very strange idea in our culture today, but remember there was an ascetic group at the time that advocated that married folks ought to be celebrate. In a culture where singleness was the rare exception to the rule, and you basically had to be married once you reached a certain age, it was just unthinkable not to be married. And now you have this idea floating around that everything physical is base, and that would lead to the question, well, yeah, I know I'm married, but if I'm so spiritually enlightened that I need to avoid the physical stuff, then shouldn't I just be avoiding sexuality altogether, whether I'm married or not? And I think that's the situation Paul's addressing. This idea that now that I'm on this spiritually enlightened path of following God, I see that sexuality is a bad thing and it ought to be avoided. So despite the fact that I married before I reached this new stage of spiritual enlightenment, I should avoid my wife or my husband now, because now I've seen the light and I'm just too spiritual for all that physical stuff. So that gives you a situation where one person in the marriage has decided that he or she is too spiritual for sexuality, and that leaves the other person in the marriage involuntarily celibate. That person finds themselves married and living a celibate existence even though they don't want to. So one person has made a choice because he or she thinks living a spiritually enlightened life is better, and he or she is forcing that choice on his or her spouse. I think that understanding makes the most sense of the next two verses, and that this statement in seven two is parallel to what he's going to say next in seven three and four. So let's read those. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does, and likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. So I would see the issue in all three verses in seven, two to four, is Mary. People need to cherish a sexual relationship with their spouses. I think that makes sense if their statement, it's good for a man not to touch a woman, arises from the view that they should abstain from sexuality altogether, even in marriage. And notice how that builds. Then each verse builds on each statement. So 7-2, he says, no married people should continue to enjoy a sexual relationship. 7-3 adds the husband and wife owe this to each other because of their commitment. And 7-4 adds, the husband and wife do not have authority over their own bodies in this matter, such that one spouse can make a choice and force it on the other spouse. Okay, now let's talk about this owing and not having authority. I think this is an important idea when understood in the right way and in the right context, but it is also an idea that has been much misunderstood and much abused. Now remember, I'm starting from the premise that one spouse is saying, I know we're married, but I'm just too spiritually enlightened now to have sex with you anymore, and that that's the situation that Paul has in view. And into that situation, Paul is saying, I don't have the right to remove myself from my spouse in that way. As we talked about in the last podcast, a biblical marriage is three commitments, and one of the three is to share my whole life with my spouse, which includes my body. I have made a commitment to join my life to my spouse, and sexuality is part of that commitment. As we talked about in the last podcast, it is the language of marriage. It is a reflection of these three intimate, wonderful commitments. I have entered into an obligation by making the marriage commitment. So just like I don't have the right to pursue an adulterous relationship, so I don't have the right to say we're gonna live like roommates from now on. In entering into the marriage relationship, I've made a commitment, and that means I don't have the freedom to make that kind of choice now. I can't go back on the gift of myself that I have made to my spouse. Now notice what Paul is doing and what he's not doing. Paul is telling me to think about myself in a certain way. I myself have an obligation to my spouse because of the commitments I have made, and he is encouraging me to do right by my spouse. So I myself do not have the right to take back the promise that I made in my marriage vows. He's not saying I have the right to demand that my spouse give me whatever I want whenever I want it. The emphasis is on my obligation to fulfill my commitments. He's not saying I have the right to place demands on my spouse to do whatever I want my spouse to do or not do. See the shift? He's pointing to here's the obligation you need to keep if you're married. He is not giving a blanket promise of you can demand whatever you want. In fact, placing demands goes against the idea of sexuality expressing the commitment of marriage that we talked about in the last podcast. Once you start putting quotas in place or keeping score of how often is often enough or not often enough, the language of sexuality shifts from this is something we do to cherish each other and express our marital commitment and becomes this is what you have to do for me. And Paul's emphasis here is on how each of us gives of ourselves, not on what each of us can demand that we receive. So Paul's emphasis is I don't have the right to say I'm too spiritual for all that physical stuff. Not I have the right to have my every need met at any given moment. That's not what's in view. In fact, nothing in what he says ought to be used as a weapon in a marriage, and it should not be taken to mean I can make demands on my spouse. I think this verse has often been abused this way, but I don't think that's what Paul is saying. The point he's making is neither person in a biblical marriage has the right to decide that they are above sexuality. He is not making the point that one spouse has the right to make demands on the other spouse. Let's bring in seven five. Stop depriving one another except by agreement for a time so that you may devote yourselves to prayer and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I think this phrase stop depriving one another helps to clarify the issue that he's addressing. Stop depriving one another implies that one spouse has decided that he or she is too spiritual for sexuality. He's saying you don't have the right to impose involuntary celibacy on your spouse, who remember is the person you promised to make the most special thing in all creation. But he makes an exception, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, but then come together again. When you first read this, it sounds like he may be recommending regular periods of abstinence in marriage, to forget about sexuality and pray instead as if sexuality somehow interferes with your prayers, but he doesn't really say that. If I have correctly understood the situation, and again that's an interpretive choice that I may be wrong on, but if I have correctly understood the situation, he is talking to people who are claiming I'm so spiritually enlightened that I am now above sexuality. I have such a pure relationship with God that I don't involve myself in physical pursuits anymore. And I think he's saying, okay, if you happen to think that abstaining from sexuality enhances your relationship with God in some way, you could have a short period of abstinence for the purpose of devoting yourself to God, but he gives two conditions and a clarification. The first condition is it must be by mutual consent. That is, both spouses have to agree that this is a good thing and they want to do it. And the second condition is that it's for a short period of time. The abstinence will end and you come back together. Then in 7-6 he gives the clarification, but this I say by way of concession, not of command. So his clarification is I am not saying I agree with this. This is not my idea. I, Paul, do not think that sexuality hinders your prayer life, but I'm willing to concede that if you find that it hinders your prayer life in some way, and you both agree that you want a time to wholly devote yourself to God, I'll make a concession. So if you find some value in doing that, okay. I'm not saying you can enhance your spiritual life by abstaining from sexuality with your spouse, but if you think it has some value, go ahead. But both of you have to agree and it has to be limited. Remember, I think he is addressing married believers who have concluded that they should stay away from sexuality altogether, and he's saying, if you see some value in abstinence, okay, but it ought to be mutually agreed to and for a short period of time. Now we get to what I think is the hardest part of the section, what he starts and ends with. In 7.2, he says, but because of immoralities, and then he launches into what we've just looked at. And in 7.5, he says, so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. What's going on with these phrases and what's he adding to the argument? That phrase because of immoralities sometimes gets translated fornication or sexual immorality. In 7.2, it's just the plural of the word fornications or immoralities, it's the word pornea, which has been used throughout our discussion. We've seen it in 5.1, 510, 511, 6.9, 613, and 618. And Paul seems to be appealing to this lack of self-control or a tendency toward immorality as a basis for not avoiding marriage or not abstaining in marriage. So there is some lack of self-control that seems to be part of his argument. I'm not sure I've got this one figured out, but here's my best guess at this point. Remember, Paul is writing to a particular group in response to a particular question, and we don't have the question, and we don't know everything that's going on in the group, but Paul does. He's responding to a particular situation, they've asked him a question, presumably told him what's going on in their church, and he's answering that question, and we have to reconstruct the situation. I reconstruct the situation something like this. You Corinthians live in a sexually decadent culture. In your culture, it is very acceptable for married men to regularly visit the temple prostitutes, and your culture values arranged and calculated loveless marriages as a way to raise legitimate children and heirs. Being faithful to a spouse, not that highly prized in your culture. And perhaps, as we saw in chapter six, some of the Corinthians were regularly visiting temple prostitutes and they think it's no big deal. So here you are in this culture, and let's assume the wife has announced that she is too spiritual for sexuality and she's done with all that. What would result from that situation? In a culture where temple prostitution is the norm, if you have wives who are too holy for sexuality, what are most of the husbands going to do? The temptation would be powerful and overwhelming to visit the temple prostitutes. And so the result of this too holy for sexuality attitude is going to be increased immorality. Now, I am not saying that Paul would ever turn to the wives and say, see what you made him do. I think Paul would argue that each of us is responsible for our own actions and our own choices. So I am not arguing that in my situation the wife is culpable in some way for her husband's actions. That's a whole nother talk, but I think we can learn from Paul's other letters that he would argue that each of us is responsible for our own actions and choices. But we have this language of because of immoralities and so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. He's pointing to the individual's lack of self-control, and I think his point is look at how this situation has been working out in your group so far. You think that abstinence has helped you reach these new heights of spiritual enlightenment, but it's actually resulting in increased immorality. The attitude isn't helping, it's hurting. This attitude is not resulting in increasing spiritual purity, it's been resulting in increasing sexual immorality. So you're not accomplishing what you think you're accomplishing. Rather than making yourselves more holy, you are putting yourself and your spouse in a place where you are truly vulnerable and likely to sin. So I think Paul is voicing a positive view of marriage and sexuality. As I understand the Greek and Roman world at the time, for men, sex with your wife was primarily for the purpose of producing an heir. Otherwise, there were temple prostitutes and mistresses and young men to fulfill your pleasure, but culturally you didn't look to your wife for fulfillment, you looked to your wife for an heir. By contrast, Paul is offering this picture of marriage with a positive place for sexuality that is for much more than producing an heir. Producing children is part of the picture, but it's not the only part. He's not saying once you have an heir and a spare, you're done. He's saying marriage is this unique commitment expressed by the language of sexuality, and that is a wonderful gift from God. There is something wrong about withdrawing myself from my spouse. There's nothing wrong with being single, but if you're married, it's wrong to act as if you're single. So I think Paul is offering a profoundly positive view of marriage and sexuality, especially given the culture of the day. And notice the strong emphasis on mutuality. He says both the husband and the wife have an obligation to each other. Both of them ought to cherish and treat their spouse with love and respect and honor. He does not say the wife has an obligation to the husband, but the husband can do whatever he pleases. In a marriage they have entered into a partnership where each has an equal, respectful, self sacrificing obligation to the other, and that would be a striking and novel idea in Paul's culture. Now we all recognize that there are sexual differences in men and women. Broadly speaking, for the most part, men are more aggressively interested in physical sexuality and women are more aggressively interested in romance. Perhaps that's a gross oversimplification of the differences, but for the sake of argument, grant that it's true, at least in a general sense. If I'm right about this passage, Paul would say to these differences so what? Sexuality in marriage is meant to be mutual giving, something that each person is doing for the sake of the other to express their love and commitment to each other, and neither of you have the right to demand that your spouse meet your every need. So nothing in what I say should be taken as a weapon that you can use to get something from your spouse. That's not his point. The point is you've made this commitment to your spouse and you ought to honor it. And if that means wives learn to speak a more physically sexual language to their husbands, and husbands learn to speak a more romantic language to their wives, that's a good thing. But neither of you have the right to demand that your spouse speak only your preferred love language. You ought to be thinking about your spouse and vice versa, and that means taking the differences into account and then working it out with mutual respect and love and consideration. I think it is a profound misunderstanding of verse four and this phrase authority over your own body for either spouse to claim that they have the right to demand that the other spouse fulfill their every need. So I think it's wrong for a husband to demand that his wife fulfill his every need whenever he says, and it's wrong for the wife to demand that her husband fulfill her needs whenever she says. The emphasis in the verse is on mutual giving and sacrificing. And Paul's emphasis is you think about what your obligation is. Whenever the Bible calls someone to submission, it is always addressed to the person being asked to submit. So children are asked to recognize their parents' responsibility, citizens are asked to recognize their government's responsibility and submit to it, and spouses have made a commitment in marriage and are under an obligation to fulfill that commitment. So wives are asked to recognize their husbands' responsibility and submit, and husbands are asked to love their wives as Christ loved the church. The question is what is my moral stance? What ought I to do in this situation? Never, never is the responsible person told to demand obedience. In fact, quite the opposite, usually the responsible person is told to lay down his life as a servant for the person he's responsible for. So it's a misunderstanding to use a call for me to fulfill my promise as a weapon to manipulate or force someone else to keep their promise to me. It's not okay for me to be selfish because Paul says, hey, you have an obligation. Obligation is not an excuse for selfishness or insensitivity or abuse or lack of respect. I have an obligation to think about and consider the needs of my spouse. The issue is how am I going to respond, not what can I get from my spouse. So I don't have an excuse to make demands on my spouse. The obligation exists in this context of a requirement to be loving and self-sacrificing. If I'm right in my understanding so far, then Paul's argument leads very logically to the next question he addresses, which is, okay, Paul, we get it. Married people should act like married people, but what if you're not married right now? Isn't marriage itself dirty? And wouldn't it be truly more spiritually enlightening if we just abstained from marriage in the first place? As you've said, marriage involves this physical language, but we know the physical language is corrupt and profane while the spiritual is pure and good, so the real answer is we should just not get married at all, right? And that's what Paul's going to address in the next section, but we're gonna leave that for the next podcast. You've been listening to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. My mission is to explain not only what a passage means, but how I reach those conclusions. If this podcast has helped you, please leave a positive review on your favorite podcast platform because it really helps others find the program. And please tell your friends about this podcast. It's easy to subscribe, just go to Wednesdayandtheword.com and click on subscribe to this podcast. Artney Music is graciously provided by Reggie Coast of ArtHuckmusic.org. I invite you to go to his website and check it out his other music. Thanks for joining me today. I'm Kristoan Murata, and I'll see you next week at Wednesday in the Word.