3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
[1 & 2 Thessalonians, Page 81]
It is not surprising that the apostle begins with sex, not only because it is the most imperious of all our human urges, but also because of the sexual laxity—even promiscuity—of the Graeco-Roman world. Besides, he was writing from Corinth to Thessalonica, and both cities were famed for their immorality. In Corinth Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of sex and beauty, whom the Romans identified with Venus, sent her servants out as prostitutes to roam the streets by night. Thessalonica, on the other hand, was particularly associated with the worship of deities called the Cabiri, in whose rites ‘gross immorality was promoted under the name of religion’.13 It may be doubted, however, whether Corinth and Thessalonica were any worse than other cities of that period in which it was widely accepted that men either could not or would not limit themselves to their wife as their only sexual partner. Professor F. F. Bruce sums up the situation:
A man might have a mistress (hetaira) who could provide him also with intellectual companionship; the institution of slavery made it easy for him to have a concubine (pallakeœ), while casual gratification was readily available from a harlot (porneœ). The function of his wife was to manage his household and to be the mother of his legitimate children and heirs.14
In his History of European Morals William Lecky paints a lurid picture of sexual licence during the early period of the Roman Empire. The cities of Greece, Asia Minor and Egypt, he writes, ‘had become centres of the wildest corruption’, and innumerable slaves from these countries had spread their immorality to Rome.15 Indeed, ‘there has probably never been a period when vice was more extravagant or uncontrolled’ than it was under the Caesars.16
In many cultures and countries today, even where monogamy is officially favoured, deviations from this norm are increasingly tolerated. Christians, by contrast, have a [1 & 2 Thessalonians, Page 82] reputation for being ‘puritanical’ and ‘prudish’, and for having a generally negative attitude towards sex. These criticisms are sometimes just. But in self-defence we also claim to be realists. Although we recognize that sex is the good gift of a good Creator, we also know that it has become twisted and distorted by the fall, so that our sexual energies need to be rightly channelled and carefully controlled.
Paul develops his instruction in verses 3 and 4 in three stages. First, he makes a general and positive statement that God’s will is that you should be sanctified or ‘holy’ (REB). The word is hagiasmos, which can refer either to ‘a process or, more often, its result (the state of being made holy)’ (BAGD). Paul says nothing here about who is to initiate the process, although later he ascribes the work of sanctification to ‘God himself, the God of peace’ (5:23). Next, he specifies within God’s general and positive will a particular prohibition: that you should avoid sexual immorality [porneia], which includes ‘every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse’ (BAGD). ‘Avoid’, however, is too weak a word. The apostle is declaring that God’s will entails ‘a clean cut’ (JBP) with impurity, a total abstinence. As Professor Howard Marshall rightly comments, ‘where things are evil the Christian attitude is necessarily one of abstention and not of moderation’.17 Thirdly, Paul lays down two fundamental, practical principles to guide his readers in their sexual behaviour:
a. Sex has a God-given context: heterosexual marriage (4a)
b. Sex has a God-given style: holiness and honour (4b)
a. Sex has a God-given context: marriage (4:4a)
4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor,
In writing this, it will be seen that I am departing from the NIV rendering that each of you should learn to control his own body in favour of the RSV ‘that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself’.
The first half of verse 4 contains the most difficult phrase in the whole letter. Literally translated, it reads that ‘each of you should learn to acquire his own vessel in holiness and honour’. Throughout church history commentators have [1 & 2 Thessalonians, Page 83] been divided as to whether the ‘vessel’ in mind (skeuos) is a metaphor for ‘wife’ or for ‘body’. If the former is correct, Paul is urging each Thessalonian believer ‘to take a wife for himself’ (RSV); if the latter is right, he is ‘to gain mastery over his body’ (REB), or control his own body. There are difficulties with both renderings.
The difficulty with the translation ‘take a wife’ lies in the noun. For skeuos means a vessel, utensil, instrument or container, which appears to express a very derogatory concept of woman in general and of marriage in particular. Reference to woman as a ‘container’ seems in later Judaism to have been an established (and demeaning) euphemism for sexual intercourse.18 It is mainly for this reason that some scholars have preferred to see an allusion to the body, even though no parallel use of skeuos for ‘body’ has been found, and to regard the body as the ‘container’ of the soul is Greek not biblical.
The difficulty with the translation ‘control his body’ lies in the verb. For ktaomai normally means to ‘procure for oneself, acquire, get’ (BAGD); so it cannot appropriately be applied to our body since we already possess one, whereas it was used in LXX of acquiring a wife.19 George Milligan suggests from the papyri that ktaomai was beginning to be used in popular language for to ‘possess’ or ‘take possession’, in the sense of to ‘use properly’ or ‘control’, but the evidence is slender.20
In this exposition, along with ‘the great majority of modern commentators’,21 I am accepting that the reference is to acquiring a wife and that Paul is affirming heterosexual marriage as the only God-given context for sexual intercourse. There are three main arguments. The first concerns language. This interpretation preserves the usual meaning of ktaomai (‘acquire’), and recognizes that skeuos (‘vessel’) is used metaphorically in the New Testament of human beings22 and once of a wife.23 It occurs more often in pre-Christian Jewish texts [1 & 2 Thessalonians, Page 84] in reference to a wife, as also does its Hebrew equivalent.
The second argument relates to context. Since Paul’s instruction is the positive counterpart to avoiding porneia, which usually means ‘fornication’ or ‘adultery’, the natural allusion is to marriage. Again, the contrast in Paul’s phrase ‘in holiness and honour, not in passionate lust’ can readily be understood as presenting alternative views of marriage; they can hardly be seen as alternative styles of self-control. Further, by his emphasis on what is ‘holy and honourable’ Paul seems deliberately to be purging skeuos of any dishonourable associations.24 Some commentators therefore suggest that eidenai in verse 4 should be translated not ‘should learn …’ but ‘should respect his wife’ as in 5:12.25
The third argument relates to the analogy of Scripture. What Paul writes here is an early, embryonic statement of the more developed position which he expressed a few years later in 1 Corinthians 7: ‘Since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband … for it is better to marry than to burn with passion’ (verses 2–9). Marriage is thus portrayed in Scripture both as a creation ordinance, intended for companionship and procreation, and also since the fall as a divine remedy against sin.
Paul’s first principle, then, is that heterosexual and monogamous marriage is the only context in which God intends sexual intercourse to be experienced, and indeed enjoyed. The corollary is that it is forbidden in every other context, whether with a heterosexual partner before marriage (‘fornication’) or outside marriage (‘adultery’), or in a homosexual relationship.
An additional paragraph is needed for those of us who are single and therefore lack the God-given context for sexual love. What about us? We too must accept this apostolic teaching, however hard it may seem, as God’s good purpose both for us and for society. We shall not become a bundle of frustrations and inhibitions if we embrace God’s standard, but only if we rebel against it. Christ’s yoke is easy, provided that we submit to it. It is possible for human sexual energy to be redirected (‘sublimated’ would be the Freudian word) both into affectionate relationships with friends of both sexes [1 & 2 Thessalonians, Page 85] and into the loving service of others. Multitudes of Christian singles, both men and women, can testify to this. Alongside a natural loneliness, accompanied sometimes by acute pain, we can find joyful self-fulfilment in the self-giving service of God and other people.
b. Sex has a God-given style: honour (4:4b–8)
4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
The fact that marriage is the only God-given context for sexual intercourse does not mean that within marriage there is no need for restraint. We have all heard or read about, and some have experienced, the selfish sexual demands which are sometimes made by one married partner on the other, in terms of aggression, violence, cruelty and even rape. But marriage is not a form of legalized lust. So Paul proceeds at once from his first principle (each man acquiring his own wife) to his second (‘in holiness and honour’, RSV). Honourable conduct in marriage he contrasts with passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God (5). He then adds that in this matter no-one should wrong his brother (or indeed sister) or take advantage of him (or her) (6a). Some expositors have translated the words in this matter either ‘in his business’ or ‘in lawsuits’ (NEB mg.), which the Greek expression could mean. But both before and after it the subject being handled is sexual behaviour, so that the context really demands that in this matter is an allusion to the same topic. Paul is saying, then, that it is possible for sexual partners in marriage to wrong or take advantage of each other. The first verb (hyperbainoœ) has ‘the force … of crossing a boundary—here of crossing a forbidden boundary, and hence trespassing (sexually) on territory which is not one’s own’, while the second verb (pleonekteoœ, to covet) is ‘the desire to possess more than one should in any area of life’.26 Whatever precise meaning should be given to these two verbs, they are evidently incompatible with holy and honourable sexual behaviour.
The fact is that there is a world of difference between lust and love, between dishonourable sexual practices which use the partner and true love-making which honours the partner, between the selfish desire to possess and the unselfish desire to love, cherish and respect. Indeed, the Lord will punish [1 & 2 Thessalonians, Page 86] men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you (6b). For the Lord himself sees even the intimacies of the bedroom. He hates every kind of human exploitation, including what is sometimes called ‘sexploitation’. There may be no redress for such behaviour in a human lawcourt (in most countries rape in marriage is not a criminal offence), but there will be at the bar of God.27 And he himself will avenge it because he did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life (7). Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit (8).
Here, then, is a sex ethic for ‘the weak’, namely that according to God’s purpose the context for sex is marriage and the style of sex is honour. It is elementary, no doubt. But it is also plain, frank, practical, authoritative, uninhibited—in fact, just what new converts need, especially if they are exposed to pagan standards and pressures.
What is also impressive about this paragraph is that it is from first to last an example of ‘theological ethics’, ethics arising out of the Christian doctrine of God. If the heathen behave as they do because they do not know God (5),28 Christians must behave in a completely different way because we do know God, because he is a holy God, because he is our God, and because we want to please him. We have already seen the God-centredness of Paul’s view of evangelism (chapter 1 of this book) and Christian ministry (chapter 2); now we note also the God-centredness of his view of morality. He brings together God’s will (3), judgment (6), call (7) and Spirit-gift (8), and makes these the ground of his appeal to us to please God. If we rearrange his four points in a theological order, the apostle is making four affirmations. First, God’s call is to holiness (7).29 ‘Be holy’, he says, ‘because I am holy.’ Secondly, God’s will is our holiness (3). Thirdly, God’s Spirit is a holy Spirit (8), who is given to all his people in order to make them holy (2 Thes. 2:13).30 Fourthly, God’s judgment will fall upon all unholiness (6). Therefore, without holiness it is impossible to please God.
NBC:
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality;
3 To do God’s will involves, among other things, being sanctified. This peculiarly Christian word refers to the ongoing process of becoming increasingly free from sin and filled with love. To be sanctified means to belong to God and to show the same character as God. Its opposite is impurity (7), conduct which is immoral and defiling.
One aspect of holiness (there are many others of equal importance) needed to be stressed, complete avoidance of sexual immorality. This phrase refers to all kinds of sexual intercourse other than that which takes place within the marriage relationship.
1 Thess. 4:3–8 Paul commands the Thessalonians to live in sexual holiness. Some converts may have found it a struggle to adjust to Christianity's demanding ethical code.
1 Thess. 4:3 that you abstain from sexual immorality. For former pagans, the lure of sexual sins was strong (see 1 Corinthians 5–6). By using the Greek term porneia (which referred to adultery, fornication, or other sexual immorality), Paul forbids any sexual activity outside the bounds of heterosexual marriage (see Eph. 5:3; 1 Pet. 1:15–22).
4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;
4-5 The NIV has interpreted v 4 in terms of sexual self–control. It takes the Greek word skeuos, literally a ‘container’, as a metaphor for a person’s body, here in its sexual aspect (possibly as a euphemism for the sexual organ), and the verb ktasthai to mean ‘to gain mastery over’ (a rare but attested usage). Some other translations interpret the verb as ‘to take’ and the ‘container’ as a woman, so that the instruction is to ‘learn to acquire a wife’ (NIV mg.; similarly, RSV). Although ‘container’ is used for human beings (both male and female) in 1 Pet. 3:7, this is unlikely to be the force here, and in any case it comes near to regarding a woman as simply a sexual object. On either rendering, sexual life must be conducted honourably. Holiness does not exclude sexual activity but controls its character. The opposite way of living is characterized by lust, physical desire which does not take account of persons as persons and behaves as it pleases without self–control.
1 Thess. 4:4 control his own body. The Greek could be rendered “take a wife for himself” (see esv footnote). However, in view of vv. 4–5 and 1 Corinthians 7, sexual self-control is more likely the intended meaning. in holiness and honor. Behavior suitable before God and humans respectively.
9 0 1 Thess. 4:5 in the passion of lust like the Gentiles. See Rom. 1:24–27. Paul is concerned that some of the Thessalonian Christians may fall back into their former ways.
9 0
6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you.
6 Sexual immorality is further seen to be wrong in that it can involve taking advantage of other people. To commit adultery is to attempt to break up an existing relationship and bond of love within a marriage, and can fairly be described as wronging a brother. Another, less likely, view of this verse is that Paul introduced the fresh topic of taking advantage of a brother in business (an alternative translation of ‘in this matter’; cf. RSV mg.).
The heinousness of such conduct is brought out by Paul’s reminder that judgment by the Lord (i.e. Jesus, fulfilling God’s role in Ps. 94:1) faces sinners.
1 Thess. 4:6 wrong (Gk. pleonekteō, “to defraud, exploit, cheat”). Defrauding a fellow Christian through sexual sin. the Lord is an avenger. Those who ignore the Christian sexual ethic will face the wrath of Jesus when he returns, and perhaps even before.
7 For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness.
8 Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.
7-8 But judgment is not the only motive for upright living. God did not call us on the basis of uncleanness, as though this was a state to be maintained, but he called us in a way that involves his activity in making us holy. Therefore, to disregard this particular instruction is to disregard God himself who gives his Spirit to us to make us holy.
1 Thess. 4:7 called. When the Thessalonians embraced Paul's gospel, they were responding to God's effectual call (see note on Rom. 8:30; cf. note on 1 Thess. 1:4). That call did not have as its goal impurity but rather a life of holiness.
1 Thess. 4:8 Therefore. In view of v. 7, to reject Paul's teaching on sex is to reject not merely Paul but God, who is the source of Paul's sexual ethic. who gives his Holy Spirit to you. In the OT (e.g., Ezek. 36:26–27) God promised that he would establish a new covenant in which the Holy Spirit would write the law on people's hearts and cause them to obey. This new covenant reality, which has been inaugurated by Christ, makes sexual sin inexcusable. To reject the giver of the Holy Spirit is to cut oneself off from the sanctifying power that enables the Christian to be “blameless in holiness” at the second coming (1 Thess. 3:13).
No comments:
Post a Comment