Roy Ciampa - Sexual Ethics in 1 Corinthians

Sex & the City of Corinth: Sexual Ethics in 1 Corinthians

Paul is a 'task' theologian - this is not an abstract piece of ethical reasoning. His focus in 1 Cor 5-7 is the problem of porneia and what to do about it (or, not do!).

What's going on in Corinth? 1 Cor 7:1 - 'what is 'touching' and ow was sex conceived in the Roman world? Most scholars think that it means 'sexual relations'; and so concluded that there are two opposing schools of thought in Corinth, licence and abstinence. The euphemism, Roy concludes from a new study of 25 references, refers not to marriage or sexual relations in general, but to immoral or violent or even pederastic sex.

Sex in the Roman world was debated. Was it to be engaged in for pleasure or just for procreation? Even those who though it could be recreational thought that married sex was chiefly for procreation. The Roman man had plenty of other opportunities for recreational sex.

What counted as adultery? Well, not just any sex outside marriage, but sex with other people's wives. Sex with prostitutes or slaves was not considered adultery by the Romans.

Paul is not talking about 'homosexuals' as we do in modern western discourse. There was no notion of sexual identity - though a strong sense of gender identity. The true noble man was the penetrator, not the penetrated. Many married men who practiced heterosexual sex with their wives also engaged in homosexual acts with male household slaves, prostitutes or others who may have been willingly or unwillingly penetrated.

One of the terms that Paul uses (often translated 'male prostitues') literally means 'soft men'...

The Roman man was not expected to be a virgin until married. On the contrary, they were expected to be sexually experienced (though not with other men's wives). Practising Jews DID expect their sons to arrive as virgins on their wedding day. Jewish men married younger.

It seems unlikely that there was a Corinthian push for ascetic celibacy (though Paul of course recommends it to those with the gift). Paul's portrayal of the Corinthian inclinations seems to tell this story.

Touching is not the same as porneia, though it is close. Porneia is not about sex for procreation vs sex for pleasure but about sex within marriage and sex that trangresses that boundary.

Roy argues for a Theocentric glory ethic - it is about the glory of God, even in our sexual life and the need to glorify God with our bodies. This is key for chapters 5-7. It is ultimately to do with God's honour and glory. Our lives are not about us, but about him. Much of Paul's use of purity language is based on the believers as the temple of God.

But also: a 'revisionist property ethic'. Whose property were you? One's sexual experience would be determined by those whose property one was. Slaves and wives were understood to be the property of the paterfamilias. Paul introduces as radical revision of the property ethic: we are not our own; we were bought at a price! Purchased by him, we are to honour our owner in our sexual behaviour. The wife is understood to have authority over the husband's body! This has radical implication for what a husband could or could not do. And so the husband is NOT free to use prostitutes and slaves and so on. You can't defraud your spouse. Remember that the typical Roman couple were vastly age-differentiated.

Paul's sexual ethic was remarkably egalitarian. While Roman marriage and Roman sex were highly hierarchical and unilateral - for Paul marriage is to be marked by radical mutuality and respect for the other. 'Touching' was not a mutual experience. You don't in this sense 'touch' each other. A Roman man would unilaterally 'touch' another. It was an asymmetrical power relationship. Paul instead emphasises MUTUALITY - husband to wife/wife to husband, and so on. The older Roman husband is expected to have agreement with his wife about their sex life, very much his junior. Paul expects them to be discussing and negotiating about their sex life.

Paul is heir to the rich Jewish and Scriptural ethic which was positive about the pleasure of companionate sexual relationships. 'One flesh' - is the basis of this mutuality. In the opening of chapter 11, you get the impression that it WON'T be balanced: but the only ministries discussed are praying and prophesying and women are allowed to do both.

Paul's ethic entails a reappropriation of Jewish scriptural ethics. This is reflected in his vice list 6:9 - asrenokoitai - this was a new term in the 1st century or so, probably based on Lev 20:13.

Paul's ethic was an eschatologically conditioned ethic. Paul recognizes the ultimacy of the resurrection and the shadow it casts over our present experience. 1 Cor 6:13-14 reminds us that what we do in our bodies (inc sex) matters, because in the end God presides over the destruction and resurrection of our bodies.

Paul's ethic is a pastorally realistic ethic - he recognises the power of sexual longings and attraction. He is not unrealistically idealistic: it is better to know one's limits than to exceed them. Paul's ethic clearly rejects extra-marital and (therefore homosexual) sex, but the church has not been concerned enough for those who cannot follow Paul's advice and yet do not have the gift of celibacy. Flippancy is not adequate.

Paul is very much aware of his own personal preference and temperament an dis very careful not to impose on them to others... 'not I, but the Lord'.

The wisdom of the cross leads to the glorificaton of god in the temple of the body.