Shabbat shalom kol beit Yisra'el and Mishpachah, may the grace of our Master Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) be with you all in this sabbath assembly and throughout the rest of the day.

In view of all the anxious emails and messages I have been receiving over the last few days concerning the political climate and health crisis, I have decided today to run through the 7th chapter of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians with you. And whilst this chapter is about marriage specifically, the backdrop is exactly the same kind anxiety which people are experiencing now. I know I broadcast a Special Message [1] right after the American Presidential Election in which I urged people to relax and trust Yahweh in the current situation, but I feel I need to deal with this matter more thoroughly. So if you'd like to open up your Bibles to 1 Corithinans 7, we're going to read it straight through together using the New King James Version (NKJV) and then I'm going to show you why this and other translations like it (not to mention their commentaries), reflect a bias going all the way back to the Roman Catholic Church's teachings about celibacy.

Thus post-apostolic Church beliefs unfortunately obscure what Paul was really saying based on what we now know was going on in Corinth in AD 51, when 1 Corinthians was written, thanks to the lastest historical research. These unfortunate beliefs that have tainted Western Chrsitianity for centuries have in turn lead to some heretical teachings that survive in the Body of Christ to this very day, teachings which we have been exposing ever since Yahweh called this work into existence in 1984. These have been compounded by the artificial, if mostly helpful, chapter- and versification, which occurred relatively recently in the 13th and 16th centuries in Catholic Europe, though the Masoretes of Judaism had started dividing the Tanakh (Old Testament) into unnumbered sections, paragraphs and phrases by the 10th century to make it easier to memorise and sing them.

Another problem is that different translations divide the existing chapters and verses up into different paragraphs in an attempt to reflect different themes or trains of thought. We do need to remember that in the original Scriptures there were neither paragraphs nor verses, and certainly no chapter headings except in the case of the Psalms which Judaism includes as first verses whereas Christians do not (another little complication that can lead to confusion). So the way we divide the text up into chapters, paragparhs and verses also reflects an interpretive bias, something I have been at pains point out to you over the years in different parts of the Bible as this can sometimes slightly change the meaning of text, even though by and large scholars have done a good job.

Since the subject of discussion is marriage, and since the current Catholic/Protestant chapter divisions have been used in recent times, with the rise of feminism and postmodernism in particular, to argue for false gender rôles in marriage, and specifically, for co-headship, you need to be aware, for example, that the much older Aramaic New Testaments inserted a chapter division between Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 to indicate a change in discussion of topics. I'll leave a link in the description box for those of you who would like to study this matter out further.

So over the next two or three weeks what we're going to do is divide 1 Corinthians into 5 portions or segments and discuss each of these as follows:

• 1. vv.1-7;
• 2. vv.8-16;
• 3. vv.17-24;
• 4. vv.25-31; and
• 5. vv.32-40

So let's open our Bibles and together read through the NKJV text. I'll add clarifications mostly from the popular paraphrase, the New Living Translation (NLT), which uses contemporary English, plus some others like the AENT (Aramaic English new Testament) and JNT (Jewish New Testament) for the benefit of messianics joining us today, and then we'll go through each of the five portions using an entirely different fresh translation, the Kingdom New Testament (KNT) by the renowned scholar N.T.Wright. I know that to some ears the KNT sounds like a paraphrase but actually it's an excellent scholarly translation in modern English by a man not afraid to contradict his own Anglican traditions when needs be, remembering too that he served pastorally as a Bishop in his particular spiritual community. I don't give him carte blanche so don't get the idea that I am endorsing the KNT as a fault-free translation, which even he would not claim. However, to have an historian, theologian and pastor rolled-into-one is uncommon and therefore a particular advantage in our own quest for undertanding.

So let's now read the whole text through to get an overview of the subject material and to highlight some of the translator biases before we get stuck into a detailed analysis and you'll see right from the first verse how personal interpretation creeps in, particularly in the NLT paraphrase. Remember this is the only passage in the New Testament where Paul does not claim to be receiving directt revelation but only giving his personal opinion, so I for one am going to take his word on that and not put it on the same level as plenary revelation. It's an opinion, however prayerfully considered by the apostle. To be clear, he strongly believes his opinion is sound claiming, in the last verse, he thinks he has the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) leading him. I appreciate his honesty, even if I may not necessarily agree with all his opinions, at least at first sight. Elsewhere in his writings he makes it perfectly clear when he is giving a direct revelation from the Father, received as a duly commissioned apostle, which we are rightly expected to accept as divine emet (truth) and to therefore obey.

As you will see as we work through this unique chapter, I do not believe Paul said this was his "opinion" to plant seeds of doubt as to his claims to apostolic inspiration elsewhere in his writings, which certainly a sceptical atheistic mind would seize upon to try and discredit him, but rather to encourage believers to carefully think the issues through when it comes to abnormal situations, such as war, for example, when the peace-time rules understandably get changed somewhat, for as long as the emergency lasts, at any rate. In so many ways, then, this is a beautiful example of encouraging believers not to walk in blind faith to the teachings of a human (albeit apostolic) authority figure but to weigh matters up, listen to ones conscience, and to seek macro-revelation for ones own life directly from Yahweh in certain unique situations incorporating a number of personal micro-choices. Of course, he is absolutely not giving us carte blanche to do whatever we feel like, to disobey Torah or the mitzvot (commandments) - this is not a licence to break any of Yahweh's rules for living - and I hope no one here thinks I am saying that!

One last important piece of background information. 1 Corinthians 7 is a reply, by Paul, to an earlier letter sent by the Corinthians, which unfortunately we don't have any longer, a letter packed with questions in response to an even earlier letter of Paul to Corinth which has likewise sadly been lost. What a find it would be to discover these two lost letters! So really this is '#2 Corinthians' and the letter we call 2 Corinthians is really '#3 Corinthians'. So what we have is this:

• 1. An original, lost letter of Paul to the Corinthians ('#1 Corinthians');
• 2. A reply by the Corinthians to Paul full of questions, also lost ('Q Corinthians');
• 3. Paul's second letter to the Corinthians ('#2 Corinthians') which we call 'A' or 1 Corinthians; and
• 4. Paul's third letter to the Corinthians ('#3 Corinthians') which we call 2 Corinthians.

So this letter of Paul's we're studying is really the 'A' (Answers) part of a 'Q&A' (Questions & Answers) letter exchange. The problem is we don't know exactly what the original questions were - how they were phrased or the details, so we have to infer what they were from Paul's answers. This means we will have to put on our detective's hat and carefully carefully sift through the evidence like forensic investigators to get as near to the whole picture as we can. N.T.Wright is famous for being an expert at doing that, a reason I like his translation so much. This is one of the few books of the Bible we can accurately date, to AD 51.

So with that clearly explained and hopefully out of the way, if you have your NKJV Evidence Bibles with you, we're going to be reading from p.1640, though feel free, of course, to follow with whatever version or translation you are most familiar with. If you are using the NKJV you will see the translators have divided this chapter into four paragraphs rather than five, as well as sub-dividing them up slightly different. Be asking yourselves 'why' as we go along. If you're reading this afterwards you'll see I have inserted dividers with a number so you can see N.T.Wright's divisions (e.g. |⁴)

|¹ 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman ('It is good to live a celibate life' - NLT). 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 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. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession ('suggestion' - JNT), not as a commandment ('as to weak persons, not of positive precept' - AENT). 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself ('in purity' - AENT). But each one has his own gift from Elohim (God), one in this manner and another in that ('God gives some the gift of marriage, and to others He gives the gift of singleness' - NLT). |² 8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am ('stay unmarried, just as I am' - NLT); 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion ('lust' - NLT; 'sexual desire' - JNT).

10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Master (Lord) (Mt.5:32; 19:9; Mk.10:11-12; Lk.16:18; 7:12): A wife is not to depart from ('leave' - NLT) her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce ('put away' - AENT) his wife. 12 But to the rest I, not the Master (Lord), say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified ('set aside for God' - JNT) by the wife ('The Christian wife brings holiness to her marriage' - NLT), and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband ('the Christian husband brings holiness to his marriage' - NLT); otherwise your children would be unclean ('would not have a godly influence' - NLT), but now they are holy ('set apart for Him' - NLT, cp. Mal.2:15). 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But Elohim (God) has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

|³ 17 But as Elohim (God) has distributed to each one, as the Master (Lord) has called each one, so let him walk ('you must accept the situation the Lord has put you in' - NLT). And so I ordain in all the assemblies (churches). 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the mitsvot (commandments) of Elohim (God) is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it ('if you get a chance to be [legally set] free, take it' - NLT). 22 For he who is called in the Master (Lord) while a slave is the Master's (Lord's) freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Messiah's (Christ's) slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with Elohim (God) in that state in which he was called ('whatever situation you were in when you became a believer, stay there in your new relationship with God' - NLT).

|⁴ 25 Now concerning virgins ('young women who are not married' - NLT; 'virginity' - AENT; 'in regard to virgins' - RNAB; 'the unmarried' - JNT/CJB; 'the betrothed' - ESV; 'virgins' - NIV,NRSV; 'unmarried people' - KNT): I have no commandment from the Master (Lord); yet I give judgment as one whom the Master (Lord) in His mercy has made trustworthy. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress ('crisis' - NLT; 'the urgency of time' - HRV) -- that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed ('do not end the marriage' - NLT). Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife ('do not get married' - NLT). 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh ('the extra problems that come with marriage' - NLT), but I would spare you. 29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess ('Happiness or sadness or wealth should not keep anyone from doing God's work' - NLT), 31 and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away. |⁵ 32 But I want you to be without care ('be free from the concerns of this life' - NLT). He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Master (Lord) -- how he may please the Master (Lord). 33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world -- how he may please his wife. 34 ('His interests are divided' - NLT). There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares aout ('has to think about' - NLT) the things of the Master (Lord), that she may be set-apart (holy) ('devoted' - NLT) both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about ('must be concerned about' - NLT) the things of the world ('her earthly responsibilities' - NLT) -- how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Master (Lord) without distraction. 36 But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth ('and time is passing' - NLT), and thus it must be ('it is all right' - NLT), let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin ('If he has decided firmly not to marry and there is no urgency' - NLT), does well. 38 So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better. 39 A wife is bound by Torah (Law) as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Master (Lord) ('but only to a Christian' - NLT fn). 40 But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment -- and I think I also have the Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God)" (1 Cor.7:1-40, NKJV).

Well, there's a lot tied up in that chapter but the thing we have to remind ourselves of most of all is that some of this is advice to meet an extraordinary or unusual "crisis". Otherwise Paul is citing the Torah (Law). We all have to make life adjustments during crises. Just think of the global Corona virus lockdowns of 2020 and how the whole way of life of billions of people had to be adjusted.

Many around the world face similar questions to the Corinthians who wrote to Paul for counsel - about the avisability of marriage during a war-time situation. Knowing lots of people as I did who went through the Second World War, including my own parents, the advice commonly given in those dark days was not to marry until after the war because of the high risk to wives becoming widows and children becoming fatherless. My mother married an RAF pilot during the war and became a widow very soon afterwards - had she had children it would have been a lot tougher, as it was for so many back then.

We'll see in a minute what the actual Corinthian crisis was that led Paul to give his advice for unmarried believers to stay single until the crisis was over unless they lacked the self-control, thus making marriage the sensible - and indeed, only option for them to let their libido have its way. Staying single in such circumstances otherwise increased the risk of falling into immorality. So they quoted an aescetic saying from the paganism of the day, "'It is good for a man to have no sexual contact with a woman'" (v.1, KNT), as N.T.Wright translates it. They were quoting the saying of a sect of their own favourite pagan philosophers.

We'll only cover one of the five portions in the time remaining to us - I had planned two but I was not well enough to do more, so forgive me for being briefer today than I had planned. We'll now divide the text into portions and take a look at the same verses in the KNT. So settle back, remembering what we just read in the NKJV, and try to form a clear picture in your minds of what's going on. Whenever Paul is quoting from the letter sent by the Corinthian qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones), I will put 'apostrophes' around the written text and use a different coloured font; and in the audio-visual version I'll make a high-pitched clicking sound at the beginning and a low-pitched clicking sound at the end of the spoken word, and also motion with a finger, so everyone's quite clear. OK? In that way we'll know when Paul is writing/speaking and when he's quoting the Corinthian questioners themselves - this is a part of the exercise of reconstructing at least parts of the lost Corinthian letter that I mentioned earlier:

"Let me now turn to the matters you wrote about. 'It is good for a man to have no sexual contact with a woman.' Well, yes: but the temptation to immorality means that every man should maintain sexual relations with his own wife, and every woman with her own husband. The man should give his wife her marital rights, and the woman should do the same for her husband. The woman isn't in charge of her own body; her husband is. In the same way, the man isn't in charge of his own body; his wife is. Don't deny one another, except perhaps by agreement for a period of time, so that you may have more space for prayer. But then come together again, in case haSatan (the Adversary) might tempt you because of your weakness of will.

"I'm not saying this as a command, but as a concession. I would be happy to see everyone in the same situation as myself. But each person has his or her own gift from Elohim (God), one this way, another that way" (1 Cor.1:1-7, KNT).

Let's have a quick background rundown as 6 chapters have preceeded this one, the 7th, so that we have proper context. (Remember, 'Scripture without a context is a pretext for a prooftext'). Up until now, Paul has been telling the Corinthian believers (most of them formerly highly immoral pagans) not to divide or factionalise along the lines of personalities or sophisticated rhetoric, as the Greek philosophers were wont to do. Try to imagine what the Corinthian Assembly of Yahweh was like in its cultural context, with members debating points of doctrine like the pagan philosophers! They were a very divided, immature and immoral congregation not unlike so many of the churches in our own day where moral and behavioural retraints have been thrown off in the name of 'progress'. Paul had told them not to tolerate flagrant immorality, not to have law-suits with one another (but rather to solve disputes amongst themselves), and not to abandon moral restraint, especially in the matter of sex.

But equally dangerously some of the more fanatical, though well-intentioned, new converts were fascinated by strict prohibitions, like the father of Catholic theology, Augustine, after he converted from the ultra-liberal wild, orgiastic Manichaeist sect to the nascent ultra-conservative Catholicism of his day. People often swing to polar opposites as a way of relieving themselves of guilt for their past lives of selfish, hedonistic behaviour. So some local Corinthians members write to Paul suggesting it is would surely be best for a man to have no sexual contact with a woman given their former licentious lifestyle, and Paul quotes them before he answers them, telling them to be moderate in their response and not fly to the opposite extreme and impose celibacy which brings a whole different set of troubles with it. Yet, as we see, some translations still get this wrong, like the NLT which interprets this to mean Paul is saying, 'It is good to live a celibate life' in verse 1. Why do the NLT translators feel justified in claiming this? Because later on, at the end of the segment, Paul seems to be saying that he is a celibate, living the better way, and so wished that everyone could be like him. That's certainly how Augustine saw it and how Roman Catholicism inched its way down a path towards imposed celibacy for the Priesthood, recommending that as many become monks and nuns as possible. But to come to that conclusion, you have to make some important assumptions that may not be justified.

The whole tone of the first letter to the Corinthians changes after chapter 6. This is 'Q&A' or 'Questions and Answers' time so that local difficulties could be resolved. Paul spent 1½ years with the Corinthians, longer than with any other congregation, trying to resolve these difficulties, but ultimately failing as we learn in his last letter to them. It took the next generation to fix things after the generation of that time had died out, as we learn in Clement's hopeful and inspiring letter to the Corinthians which I really recommend you read - you'll find that letter on the main website.

What Paul does in this section is lay down some sound advice based on three criteria:

• 1. His knowledge of the Torah;
• 2. Theological reflection; and
• 3. The wisdom that accumulates through pastoral experience.

In chapter 6, some members were calling for casting off moral restraint altogether, and others were advocating moral severity by pushing complete celibacy. What is interesting is that some of their ideas and suggestions were more in line with the pagan philosophies of the day than with the Torah (Law) or the Besorah (Gospel). So to deal with the blatant immorality in Corinth, they were saying, 'Look, become celibate, but if you're already married, stay legally married but become celibate within marriage!' Moreover, some of the teachers in the Corinthian assembly were justifying this by claiming celibacy would lead to new depths of spiritual maturity and personal holiness.

Doesn't that remind you of a certain well-known church's teaching, the largest denomination in the world? Yes, I speak of Roman Catholicism. So what do these Corinthians do in their letter? The Corinthians quote a slogan common in at least one pagan philosophical tradition, "'It is good for a man to have no sexual contact with a woman'" (v.1, KNT), as N.T.Wright puts it and as I mentioned earlier, a perfectly good conceptual translation. However, the NKJV, which, like the KJV, NASB and some others, is a literal translation, and contains a different verb: "'It is good for a man not to touch a woman.'" Why is that significant? Because we now know, that in the language of the time, 'touch' was a polite, euphemistic way of saying 'have sexual realtionships with' in the Greco-Roman world. This is another of those pieces of forensic evidence that strongly supports the idea that Paul is quoting from the Corinthians' own letter.

In other words, these are not his own words and he is not mandating celibacy as a holier, maturer lifestyle. Indeed such an idea runs completely contrary to the Torah and to one of the many reasons Yahweh created two genders. So it pays to be careful when you translate and so avoid the mistakes of paraphrases like the NLT. You see, careless or doctrinally-motivated translations can lead souls down a false path and to much tribulation, as forced celibacy so often has. So many attrocities have been committed because of it. If you're interested, look up 'Tuam' in County Galway, Republic of Ireland, where a systematic massacre of 800 to 1,000 unwanted babies was carried out by the Catholic Sisters of Bon Secours between 1925 and 1961, when their institution was forcibly closed down after a police investigation. Many cases of the sexual abuse of nuns by priests is also well known, not forgetting all the pedophilia in that church. This is what happens when you try to forcibly suppress sexuality which Elohim (God) made to be expressed responsibily within marriage.

Nevertheless, at one level, it is true to say, Paul is agreeing with this Greek notion. Obviously humans are not supposed to be sexually active all the time or outside certain Torah boundaries. There is much to commend celibacy, particularly before marriage, where it is absolutely required by the Torah, contrary to the modern trend towards sexualising children earlier and earlier, mostly to appease the perversions of the mushrooming community of pedophiles sponsored by satanic cults and others. Paul was, by the time of writing this epistle in AD 51, single, but he had certainly been married before. Whether he was a widower or his wife left him when he became a convert, we may never know. As he rightly observes, there are advantages to being single for those who want to be in full-time Kingdom service if they can do it, if they have that "gift", as he calls it, so that it comes naturally and can be maintained without damaging the individual. But the 'calling's is an exception to an otherwise already well-established rule ordained by Elohim (God) from the very beginning.

A few nevi'im (prophets) before Paul, like Jeremiah, were required to be celibate but again this was an exception to the general rule, and also again practically necessary because of the 'crisis' of that time, namely, the three Babylonian invasions of Judah, the last of which resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem. Given the tumultuous life Jeremiah came to live, raising a family would have been utterly impossible for him. So it was a big sacrifice for him as most people want families of their own.

Celibacy is to be found in several Christian traditions thanks to a misreading of 1 Corinthians 7. Eastern Orthodox Bishops are required to be single but not their local priests. By contrast, all Roman Catholic priests and Bishops are required to be single unless they converted already married and are granted permission. Thus I know of one married Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism and was permitted to remain married as a Catholic priest. Oddly, Catholic Deacons may marry provided there were already married when they were ordained. If they were single when ordained, they must remain permanently celibate. However, if their wives die before them, they are not allowed to remarry. Without a doubt their whole set-up is based on their peculiar, idiosyncratic interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 that ignore other important scriptures on the subject like 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-6. Clearly for Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity in particular, but also for some other denominations, and completely contrary to Torah, celibacy represents the highest state of purity. It isn't. As far as spirituality, purity or holiness are concerned, it matters not whether you are single or married.

It is my view that Paul is, in this chapter, here expressing his own personal preference for celibacy, not because he believes it is holier, but because it frees him up to be a full-time apostle and witness, which was his greatest passion, as it remains so for many others who want to serve. Other apostles, like Peter, who were married, were away from home for long periods of time, but returned to their wives and children whenever they could, or were accompanied by them on occasion. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7, may indeed, for practical reasons, have wished everyone to be like him but, reducto ad absurdam, if had been, then the Messianic Community (Church) would soon have gone extinct, as the 19th century Shaker sect did, its last member dying in the 1970's in Australia, a reason, no doubt, why the Catholics never went to that extreme. Anglican, Lutheran and other Protestant denominations as a rule allow all their ministers to marry, as is right. The same is true for Messianics though I do know one or two who, apparently disregarding Torah, think it 'holier' to remain single or do so in order to free them up for more ministerial service Paul. However, it is one thing to have been married and then, later on, perhaps as a widower, serve as a single - and entriely another to serve in a leadership position without ever having been married, except as temporary leaders in very, very special circumstances where no other leaders are available. The Bible makes it clear (and indeed it is Paul himself who teaches it): a man who has never been married or raised children does not qualify to be a Bishop, Pastor, Elder or Deacon. Whether one agrees with Paul's preference to remain single as a widower or a divorcee, we have to at least agree with him that this has to be a personal choice, remembering that he speaks on behalf of the Corinthians out of a peculiar or exceptional situation which we haven't yet identified.

Living in first century pagan Corinth must have posed as many temptations just as living in postmdoernist Western cities does today, or indeed anywhere else in the industrialised world where large cities and connurbations are to be found. I ministered in the Norwegian capital and know first hand that this is true, and that was 30 years ago. Both the TV and the Internet bring immorality to the viewing screens of even those secluded in the countryside 24/7, so self-discipline and the careful monitoring of children by parents, even in a homeschooling situation, becomes vital. So the suggestion by some radical Corinthians that believers remain married but totally abstain from physical relationships in a place like Corinth would be to invite trouble, rather like putting a monastery and nunnery together in the same building, or sexaholics of both genders in the same dormitory as happens in one or two of very 'progressive' (so-called) armies in the world like the Norwegian one.

There's a second example of a 'polite' expression in this first segment. Again literal translations like the NKJV capture this: "let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband" in verse 2 which means that husbands and wives should have physical relations - it doesn't mean, as many believe, that all men and women must be married. Here older versions like the KJV definitely get it wrong, contrary to the fantastic claims of the King James Version-Only cult:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication ('but because of the temptation to immorality' - RSV), let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (1 Cor.7:2, KJV),

So the NKJV correction is a right one and a great improvement. All Paul is saying is that married people who are forced to abstain will be subject to unnecessary temptation and will seek their pleasures in an ungodly way by going to the local brothel. There are Bible commentators who, I believe correctly, suggest that part of the problem in chapter 6 with married men going off to prostitutes was precisely because of this locally enforced celibacy solution to promiscuousness prior to Paul's fatherly intervention, because wives also felt they could be 'holier' by abstaining and so become more 'spiritual'. Maybe some used this an excuse to get away from disagreeable husbands as women tend to be better at abstinence than men. There are lots of tragic stories from the early centuries of Christianity of married women getting the 'holiness bug' and abandoning their husbands and children to head off to nunneries, influenced by a faulty exegesis of this chapter. Sometimes men did the same crazy thing to their wives. It is not only ungoldly and unholy to abandon a marriage in the pursuit of supposed holiness (even in a marriage where one spouse is a believer and another is not, as we have already seen in this chapter), it is an outright sin, the more so if there are children and one of the partners does not agree to the arrangement. It is false, irresponsible religion with an artificial veneer of piety. We are never called to be so holy or heavenly-minded that we become no earthly good. Keep your feet on terra firma!

I said at the beginning that 1 Corinthians 7 was a controversial chapter but the controversy extends beyond Paul's apparent views about celibacy (and I underline the word 'apparent', and you'll see why in a moment). Before we go on we have to remember that the instructions in this chapter are, as it were, an 'emergency package' to deal with the still as yet unexplained "crisis", which I might as well tell you know was for the Roman colony of Corinth famine and not persecution as it was in Rome and would later become empire-wide. This, and 2 Corinthians, were not letters to the whole Messianic Community, even though Paul did intend his letter to be read by others too for their instruction should similar issues ever arise (1 Cor.1:2), but was addressed primarily with local problems in mind. Not all the congregations were filled with unruly ex-pagan sex-maniacs, abusers of the gift of tongues or dessicrators of the Master's (Lord's) Supper.

Also remember - and this needs to be said often - that the messianic community (church) in Corinth had emerged from a wildly pagan background and as I mentioned earlier, even this letter proved insufficient to control the impulses of the members towards utter sexual anarchy (vv.2,5,9; also chapters 5-6). Paul's first priority was to bring the chaos under apostolic control. In chapter 3 he refers to them as "babes in Christ" (1 Cor.3:1, NKJV) so far as experience with Messiah was concerned. This means that he had to provide clear-cut apostolic rules in a hurry, since he could not count on their spiritual discernment to develop appropriate responses in each individual case. Their consciences were poorly developped, weak and defiled by a pagan upbringing and therefore habitual sinning (Tit.1:15; 1 Cor.8:7,10,12; 1 Tim.1:5,19; 3:9; 2 Tim.1:3; 1 Pet.3:21, etc.).

It is a risky business to entrust "babes" with decision-making responsibilities beyond their capacity. Add to this, Paul's mistaken belief (which was shared by most of the Messianic Community/Church at the time), that "the time [wa]s short" (1 Cor 7:29, NKJV), in other words, like so many over the centuries when major crises arose, he was expecting the Second Coming and Judgment to happen at any time. This might explain, in part, his emphasis on celibacy as he could well have thought that the crisis might develop into the Great Tribulation and thus to the return of the Messiah. In which case, quite reasonably, if it were true, why bother to marry? There were other things to be concerned about, like getting ready to welcome the returning Messiah. And we see, don't we, exactly the same kind of attitude today with similar expectations as the West appears ready to implode with revolution at any moment. I know of many groups 'heading for the hills' expecting the Saviour to return within months. Should we be surprised? Not really. Yah'shua (Jesus) refused to let on when He was returning if for no other reason than He Himself did not even know. That was a matter for the Father alone, and He hasn't told anyone, not even those in the unnamed person in Thessalonica who falsely claimed Paul had said Messiah had already returned. Paul reminded the Thessalonians that other things had to happen first (2 Thes.2:1-5). 2,000 years later, or thereabouts, and we're still waiting, and people in our day are getting just as anxious, and many are still date-setting when that is humanly impossible. The only thing we can be sure of is the time of the year (Yom Teruah) when it will happen, that's all.

So we're now building a picture now of what was going on in Corinth and what was going on in Paul's thinking. Though he believed the Ruach (Spirit) was guiding his counsel-making - and it might have been - he didn't know for sure, anymore than he knew Messiah was soon to return. A lot of scared people have been asking me in recent months whether the Second Coming is imminent and I have told them, in no uncertain terms, that it is not. There's a while to go yet. People asked me the same thing when the First Gulf war erupted and I said the same thing then, but these same people panicked nonetheless. People have been asking me for nearly four decades now. Now believers are worried about the "mark of the beast" (Rev.16:20; 19:20), whether it's the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, some to-be-implanted mirochip or something else, whether these are the actual "mark" that will condemns those who receive it to an eternal hell. No, they're not the mark, even though I personally would not want to receive them for largely health reasons. Be vigilent but relax. Focus on your relationship with Messiah and your faithfulness to the mitzvot (commandments). Ask me these questions again next Rosh Chodesh in 9 days' time, if you want to, and we'll look at them again if necessary, if you're still worried. In the meantime, see my sermon, Mark of the Beast: It Probably Isn't What You Think, which has helped a lot of people troubled by such things.

Here, then, is the situation in Corinth, before we get sidetracked by other interesting issues and questions. Like the pagans around them, the Corinthian qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) were sexually out of control. Paul has a delicate balancing game to play here, to prevent extreme, ultra-conservativism, on the one hand (like forced celibacy), and ultra-liberal hedonism. His task is to make sure all have their free agency, and yet, like a responsible parent, keep tight reins on them too. In Chapter 4 he had said to them:

"For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Messiah Yah'shua (Christ Jesus) I have begotten you through the Besorah (Gospel, Good News). Therefore I urge you, imitate me" (1 Cor.4:15-16, NKJV).

Small children learn by imitating their parents until they can stand on their own two feet. Paul couldn't enforce complete celibacy, which might have been the best thing for them for a while given their spiritual immaturity, but neither could he break Torah and tell them to break up their marriages and act as singles. Indeed, did he not tell Timothy that forbidding anyone from marrying was a "doctrine of demons"? (1 Tim.4:3). And even if he had imposed forced celibacy, which he wouldn't have done, that wouldn't have solved the problem of their unbridled passions. They were all over the place, like animals of the field in heat. They actually needed deliverance from demons, the breaking of ungodly soul-ties, refoccsed activity and lots of time to mature. So when Paul said he wished they were like him, can we be sure that what he meant by that was that he wished they were all celibate as he was at that time, or did he actually mean he wished they would not be distracted by unbridled sexual impulses as he wasn't? That seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation, and consistent with everything else he said. It harmonises with everything else he said and takes into proper account the full counsel of Scripture, and especially the Torah foundations. Paul was not double-minded as he is sometimes accused of being, his doctrine was consistent. He's just misunderstood, sometimes deliberately by extremists at both ends of the spectrum - the ultra-conservatives and the ultra-liberals. Rather, He wants believers to exercise self-control (vv.5,9).

These ex-pagans couldn't begin to manage all of Torah at the beginning, it wasn't part of their upbringing, as it hadn't been a part of those Egyptianised Israelites upbringing when they headed out of Egyptian captivity and into the Sinai desert. Paul was in many ways a new 'Moses' to these people and he must have known deep down it would take them a long time to get trained in the ways of Yahweh. That's why the first Jerusalem Council gave them so few Torah mitzvot (commandments) to begin with, the ones that would be the most important to the Corinthians being self-evident as we'll now see. The Council told the new pagan gentile converts "to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood" (Acts 15:20, NKJV). These were the big starter issues for first century gentile people. Torah-starters for 21st century hedonist converts might be similar or a little different. The Corinthians hadn't a clue what the true order of married life in Yahweh was like so Paul came up with an ingenious solution to meet the current need: "The man should give his wife her marital rights, and the woman should do the same for her husband. The woman isn't in charge of her own body; her husband is. In the same way, the man isn't in charge of his own body; his wife is". That way the men wouldn't head for the whore-house or the start wearing chastity-belts like they did in the Middle Ages, or disappear into proto-nunneries

Now liberal Christians view this as the 'liberating' passage of male-female relations and do their level best to forcibly extend it into spiritual matters also, failing to understand two things, namely that:

• 1. That idea contradicts the male headship mandate clearly given by Yahweh in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and by Paul himself in the same letter...in 1 Corinthians 11, and also Ephesians 5; and
• 2. The love of Elohim (God) is always by non-compulsive means, because true love can never be forced - it can only be freely given and freely received.

This truth is a blow both to the misogynous Talmudic rabbis in first century Judaism and the misogynous first century Greek and Roman pagans. It is an indictment of both cultures, actually. It is not, however, an endorsement of either coheadship or feminism. It also gave those spiritually infantile married Corinthian believers something to work on as far as their marriage relationships were concerned. Paul was neither misogynous (as he is often accused of being) nor was he anti-marriage or anti-patriarchy. What he was against was marriage for the wrong reasons and that oppressive, ultra-totalitarian form of patriarchy that held sway in those days, through no fault of the Scriptures, I might add, a totalitarianism that still exists in at least one major world religion today and arguably some others too.

You might, from a 21st century perspective, think Paul's instruction to abstain from physical activity for the sake of prayer rather odd, but remember people back then - unless you were super rich - had little in the way of free leisure time. They worked, as a rule, from sunrise to sunset, and typically went to bed straight afterwards. Today we work '9-5' or '8-4', 7-8 hour days for the most part in the West, which they would have regarded as bone idleness. And in some parts of the Roman Empire they were still observing an 8-day week, with only one day off, if that (if they were slaves, remembering that in Greece over half the population were slaves). 'Free time' for extended periods of prayer would have been relatively rare luxuries, especially if one or both of the marital parties wanted their 'oats' on top of everything else. I mention that simply to give some perspective. If Paul had been alive today and writing to us, making time for prayer might not have been such a pressing issue, since we have so much free time that we now take for granted. Obviously in certain parts of the world there are exceptions where sweat shops and therefore slave labour still continue. We are spoiled for time but we manage it very poorly as a rule, and become lazy and careless as a result, negatively impacting our spirituality.

It is important to remember in all of this that Paul nowhere endorses Catholic and other theologies that insist celibacy is a higher moral state, even if it might aid self-control and overcoming for some, improving their focus. Part of the problem with this idea is it falsely links the true Gospel to Gnosticism which regards the physical body as evil. This is contrary to Yahweh's proclamation in the Genesis narrative that the physical body is good, not withstanding its fleshy impulses that are a consequence of the Fall, not of Creation. But he does insist that time be made for prayer, something that's easy to neglect, and no matter what the culture or era ot time, a special effort must be made to provide for that. In modern times, people often go off to retreats or monasteries to fulfil the need to get a neglected prayer life back in order, which is something to be commended.

Again, none of this is a divine command - this is just sound pastoral advice, with the Pastor (here Paul the apostle) having his personal biases (as we all do) and a concern that Messiah might be back at any moment. But then the whole first generation of believers got that one belong, basing it on a misunderstanding of somethin the Saviour had told them (Lk.21:32). Don't let anyone panic you into an abnormal and potentially harmful response such as the one Paul is obviously responding to in these opening verses of Chapter 7. That time will definitely come, sooner, perhaps, if you get caught up in the cities once the penultimate judgment starts closing everything down, martial law is imposed, and dictatorship rears its ugly head in once democratic and free lands. In some cities in America, where Marxists have seized control, where mobs rule, starting a family would clearly be unwise. Best to get out while you can and start a family elsewhere.

Next week I will aim to complete the remaining four segments and if that's not possible we'll extend this to a third week too. Please take the time to run over chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians and, if possible, to read around it, before we assemble again. May Yahweh bless you both for the rest of this Sabbath and for the week ahead. Amen.

Endnotes

[1] See Videos, A Special Message Following the US Presidential Election: SM095 (8 November 2020)

Acknowledgements

[1] Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (SPCK, London: 2014)
[2] David H.Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary (JNT Publications, Inc., Clarksville, Maryland: 1995)

Comments from Readers