This article has moved! Read it here: https://biblesexgender.substack.com/p/part-2-dialogue-with-preston-sprinkle
Karen Keen has created a new Substack called Bible, Sexuality, and Gender where you can find all her articles, videos, podcasts, and other resources on the topic of sexuality and gender.
So when Paul mentions those who are burning with passion to get married he is saying this strictly because of his apocalyptic worldview in which he believed, per Paula Fredricksons good arguments, that the return of Christ was imminent. To use this argument with regards to this issue is not relevant to what Paul was thinking
Hi Jeff, thanks for leaving a comment. I would disagree with you that it is not relevant. Yes, Paul thought celibacy was a good way to go because of Christ’s imminent return (which I also mention in my book). But, despite that belief, he doesn’t push it for everyone because he is concerned about sexual immorality. In fact, that makes my argument stronger. Despite the imminent return, he doesn’t tell them to just hang in there and everyone be celibate. He is concerned about the here and now. ! Corinthians is very much about how to address the problem of promiscuity. He specifically tells married people not to deprive each other so they won’t be tempted outside of the covenant. And then he says for those not yet married, if they are going to fall into sex outside of covenant because they can’t handle celibacy then they should marry.
Paul actually does suggest that they remain in the state they are in later on in the passage and suggests married people should live as if they are not married! He wants them to be free from the concerns of this world, so actually he doesn’t care much about the here and now! There was a question about sexual immorality but his apocalyptic worldview got the better of him and he lost focus on that concern of immorality. It’s obviously not something we should be preaching now, but there it is. IMO the reason he didn’t give an ultimatum of everyone stopping what they were doing was only because he didn’t want to cause too much unnecessary disruption between two different families who had already given up a sizable amount of money as a wedding gift. He didn’t want to create utter chaos
Jeff, both concerns are evident in 1 Cor 7. It is not an either/or. I don’t see how you can say “he lost focus on that concern of immorality.” That is very strange interpretation of 1 Cor 7. Also, the idea that he didn’t give an ultimatum because of dowries is no where in the text, and ignores what is actually in the text.
Karen,
Sorry for my confusing statement. I was pointing out an example of what was the case when someone was engaged to be married and the logistics of a typical enagagement and the heartache it would cause and dishonor for people to abandon that.
I am not saying that Paul doesn’t care about sexual immorality rather I am saying in that passage he seems to work his way up to an apocalyptic solution. In fact the concerns he has are almost contradictory. In the beginning he seems to be less concerned about the time left here in this age but at the end he seems to take a harsher stance.
It doesn’t strike you as odd that Paul goes from saying don’t deprive each other to act like you are not married!
Pingback: Dialogue with Preston Sprinkle on Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships | Karen R. Keen