Ciampa R.E. - Revisiting The Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7,1 (JSNT 2009)

http://jnt.sagepub.
com
Testament
Journal for the Study of the New
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X08101527
2009; 31; 325 Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Roy E. Ciampa
Revisiting the Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7.1
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/3/325
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal for the Study of the New Testament Additional services and information for
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/3/325 Citations
by Eduardo de la Serna on October 26, 2009 http://jnt.sagepub.com Downloaded from
JSNT 31.3 (2009) 325-338 The Author(s) 2009
Reprints and Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions/nav
http://JSNT.sagepub.com
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X08101527
Revisiting the Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7.1
Roy E. Ciampa
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 130 Essex Street, South Hamilton, MA 01982,
USA
rciampa@gcts.edu
Abstract
To date, the euphemism of touching in 1 Cor. 7.1 has only been examined in
light of eight examples in Greek literature, and these have led most scholars to
conclude that it is a general euphemism for sexual intercourse. This study
examines 25 examples of the euphemism, shows how it relates to the common
ancient distinction between sex for pleasure and sex for procreation, and
concludes that it is only used for the former and typically has to do with a mans
use of a woman (or boy) for his sexual gratication. The article concludes with
a consideration of 1 Cor. 7, which argues that the context here also favors
understanding the Corinthians use of the euphemism as a critique of certain
kinds of sexual relations rather than a rejection of sex in general.
Key Words
Corinthians, euphemism, Paul, sexual intercourse, touch
Introduction
The meaning and signicance of the reference to touching a woman in
1 Cor. 7.1 has been the subject of some debate. Most interpreters hold
that it is a Corinthian opinion which Paul cites from their letter to him.
Clearly it is some sort of sexual euphemism. While some argue that it
means to marry a woman (or at least refers, in this context, to marrying a
woman), most scholars now consider it simply as a euphemism for having
sexual intercourse. Furthermore, interpreters tend to agree that the state-
ment it is good for a man not to touch a woman reects the opinion of
people who are promoting celibacy, even within the marriage relation-
ship.
1
1. Cf., e.g., Hurd 1983: 165, Fee 1987: 269, Martin 1995: 205-208, Deming 2004:
326 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31.3 (2009)
This article will argue that the statement that it is good for a man not
to touch a woman (probably a quotation from the Corinthians) is more
likely to represent a rejection of some types of sexual intercourse than a
rejection of sexual intercourse per se (the advocacy of celibacy being a
rather uncommon position in the Roman world). The view defended here
is that the statement shouldbe understood as a rejection of sexual relations
other than proper marital relations that were expected to take place
primarily for the procreation of children.
2
This argument will be developed in two main parts. The rst main
section will carefully consider every known passage where touching is
used as a sexual euphemism. It will be argued that these passages reect a
pattern suggesting the euphemism may not refer to sexual intercourse in
general, but may have a more specic usage or connotation pointing to
recreational or hedonistic(lust/desire/passion-based and instigated) sexual
intercourse. The second main section will look at how this understanding
of the idiom makes sense of other parts of 1 Cor. 7 and its context.
Touching as a Sexual Euphemism
Until now discussion of this euphemism has been limited to consideration
of just eight passages (see Fee 2003: 204-206, BDAG on oo and
Thiselton2000: 500n. 93 [who mistakenly lists Plutarch, Anthony 1.17.13
instead of Marcus Aureliuss Meditations 1.17.13]). After briey com-
menting on each of the eight passages Fee (2003: 206) refers to his con-
clusionbasedonthe use of the phrase [sic] in all of the known passages.
3
This study will examine 19 examples of the euphemism employing the
verb oo. Four more examples using the verb iyyovo and two more
using the verb ou o will also be briey considered. Thus there are at
107-27, Hays 1997: 113-15, Collins 1999: 252-54, Garland 2003: 250-52.
2. This ts in the context of the opposing views in Roman society that held either
that sexual intercourse was to take place only within marriage and (typically) for the
procreation of children (or at least for a more exalted motive than pleasure or the satis-
faction of sexual lust), or that it was not inappropriate to seek sexual pleasure through
extramarital intercourse (with prostitutes, slaves or other unmarried women), even if
marital intercourse was primarily for the procreation of children. On the sex for
pleasure/procreation distinction, see Demosthenes, Speeches 59.122; Diogenes,
Epistle 21.4-9; Philo, Joseph 43; Musonius Rufus 13; Josephus, J.W. 2.161; Josephus,
Ag. Ap. 2.199; Meeks 1983: 101; Gaca 2003: 60-62, 78, 93-98, 111; Treggiari 1993:
201; Houser 2002: 338-40.
3. We are not actually dealing with a phrase, but a euphemism that requires only
the verb and an object of sexual interest or desire.
CIAMPA Revisiting the Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7.1 327
least 25 uses of the euphemism in question. Although the euphemism is
usuallydescribedinacademic literature in terms of the idiom of touching
a woman, it is actuallya muchbroader idiom, onewhichis frequentlyused
with respect to boys and men as well as women. Also, it turns out that the
idiomdoes not refer tosomethingthat peopledotogether, but to something
that a man does to someone else, that is, to the object of his sexual desire.
The following survey of the relevant passages in which the sexual
euphemism of touching is used will show that it is always used of the
dominant males penetration of another, and that there is a clear tendency
for it to be used in reference to acts which would not be condoned by the
one using the euphemism, despite the fact that those using it do not object
to sexual relations in general.
Plato, Laws 8.836c
In the midst of a conversation about sexual desires or cravings and how
to get young people to abstain from them, Plato refers to the possibility of
writing a law asserting
that it was correct to avoid, with males and youths, sexual relations like
those one has with females, bringing as a witness the nature of the beasts
and demonstrating that males dont touch males with a view to such things
because it is not according to nature to do so [|oi ti|vu, po, o oiouo
ou_ ootvov opptvo opptvo, io o q uoti ouo tivoi] (translation of
Pangle 1980: 227).
Here the euphemism is used of sexual intercourse between men, a
touching that is not condoned and which in context is described as an
unnatural response to sexual urges.
Plato, Laws 8.837b-d
As the discussion mentioned in the previous paragraph goes on, it
addresses the problem of a man who,
drawn in opposite directions by the two loves [the love of the body and
love of the soul]nds himself at a loss, with one bidding him to pick
[lit. touch] the bloom of youth [|tituovo, q, opo, otooi] and the
other telling him not to. For the man who loves the body, hungering for
the bloom as for ripe fruit, bids himself take his ll without honoring the
disposition of soul of the beloved. The other sort of lover holds the desire
for the body to be secondary; looking at it rather than loving it, with his
soul he really desires the soul of the other and considers the gratication
of body by body to be wantonness (Pangle 1980: 228-29).
Here the problem is not sex itself, but acting out of a desire to gratify the
body rather than a concern for the soul of the other. According to Plato, it
is self-gratication that leads the man to touch the object of his desire.
Here to touch seems to be related to taking ones ll without honoring
the disposition of the soul of the beloved.
Plato, Laws 8.838b
The conversation turns to a discussion of approaches to getting young
people to reject sexual passions and the fact that people do not nd them-
selves tempted to sleep with a beautiful brother, sister, son or daughter. In
fact,
with regard to a son or daughter, the same unwritten law guards in a very
effective way, as it were, against touching them [otooi ouov]by
open or secret sleeping together, or by any other sort of embracing. In fact,
among the many there isnt the slightest desire for this sort of intercourse
(Pangle 1980: 229).
Again, these hypothetical acts of touching are condemned (in 838c we are
toldthey are hated by God and incredibly shameful). Here the euphemism
is used for engaging in sexual relations grounded in a desire for sexual
pleasure rather than a rational act based on loftier motivations.
Plato, Laws 8.840a
Still wrestling with the same issue, namely, how to get a man to abstain
from indulging in sexual pleasures (839d), it is suggested that physical
training increases ones self-discipline and restraint, and the example of
Iccus of Tarentum, the famous athlete, is brought up. We are told that
[he] was so lled with love of victory, and possessed in his soul such art,
and such courage mixed with moderation, that he never touched a
womanor a boy, for that matter [out ivo, o ot yuvoi|o, qoo
ou ou oio,]during the entire time of his intensive training (Pangle
1980: 231).
Here again the focus is on restraining oneself from using another person
for ones sexual self-graticationandtheonewho refrains from touching
is praised.
Plato, Laws 8.841d
A bit further on the discussion turns to the goal of enforcing
one of two ordinances regarding erotic matters: Either no one is to dare to
touch any well-born and free person except the woman who is his wife
[tpi tpoi|ov, q qtvo oiov qtvo, otooi ov ytvvoi ov oo |oi
titutpov iqv yotq, touou yuvoi|o,], and no one is to sow unhal-
lowed bastard sperm in concubines or go against nature and sow sterile
seed in males; or we should abolish erotic activity between males
altogether (Pangle 1980: 233).
While the main emphasis is on the impropriety of touching other people
of elite or free status, at rst glance it seems touching ones wife might be
acceptable. However, when iqv is used as a preposition denoting an
exception (typically, as here, following a negative statement), it can
introduce a disjunctive thought that often does not function as a simple
exception. For example, inActs 15.28, the decision to lay no great burden
on you except these essentials [qiv qtv it ov tiitooi uiv opo,
iqv ouov ov tovoy|t,] probably means to lay no great burden on
you (at all), but only require these essentials. In Mk 12.32 the statement
(regarding God) that he is one and there is no other except him [ti, toiv
|oi ou| toiv o iio, iqv ouou ) means he is one and there is no
otheronly he exists. There is no exception to the statement that there
is no other. More clearly yet, in Acts 27.22 Paul promises there will be
no loss of life among you except the ship [oooiq yop u_q, outi o
tooi t uov iqv ou ioiou]. What he means is there will be no loss
of life at all; only the ship will be lost (cf. NRSV). So also in this case,
given the rest of the evidence, it seems that no one should dare to touch
any well-born and free person except the woman who is his wife should
be taken to mean no one should dare to touch any well-born and free
person but only engage in sexual relations with the woman who is his
wife.
4
Plato, Republic 5.461a-b
It is suggested that
if anyone older or younger than the prescribed age meddles with pro-
creation for the state, we shall say that his error is an impiety and an
injustice, since he is begetting for the city a child whose birth, if it escapes
discovery, will not be attended by the sacrices and the prayers which the
priests and priestesses and the entire city prefer at the ceremonial mar-
riages, that ever better offspring may spring from good sires and from
fathers helpful to the state sons more helpful still. But this child will be
born in darkness and conceived in foul incontinence.
4. There is a similar construction in 1 Cor. 7.5, where Paul says spouses should
not rob or defraud each other of their sexual rights except perhaps by agreement,
which certainly should not be understood to mean they might agree to rob or defraud
each other for a limited period, but rather, do not defraud each other of your sexual
rights, but you may abstain by mutual agreement
Furthermore,
the same rule will applyif any of those still within the age of procreation
goes in to [lit. touches] a woman of that age with whom the ruler has not
paired him [tov i, ov ti ytvvo vov q ouvt povo, op_ovo,
oqoi ov tv qii|i o yuvoi|ov]. We shall say that he is imposing on the
state a base-born, uncertied, and unhallowed child (Shoreys translation
[LCL]).
5
The sexual contact with an unapproved person is considered another act
of impiety andinjustice.
Plato, Republic 5.461e
The section on prohibited relations concludes by referring to that which
we have just now said, (which is) not to touch one another [o vuvq
tit yotv, oiiq iov q otooi]. But the law will allow brothers and
sisters to cohabit [ouvoi|tiv] if the lot so falls out and the Delphic oracle
approves (Shoreys translation[LCL], modied). The prohibited relations
are referredtointerms of the insistence that people not touch one another,
while the next line refers to approved sexual relations using a different
verb.
Aristotle, Politics 7.14.12 [1335b]
After discussing the appropriate ages for men and women to marry and
begin to have children (and suggesting that once one is past the best years
for procreation a man should only have intercourse for the sake of health
or for some other similar reason), we are told regarding intercourse with
another woman or man that in general it should be considered a disgrace
to be detected touching in any way whatsoever while one is a husband
and addressed as such [tpi t q, po, o iiqv q po, o iiov, too tv
oio, q |oiov ootvov oivtooi qoq qoo,, oov q |oi
poooyoptuq ooi,], and that any who may be discovered doing any-
thing of the sort during their period of parentage must be punished with a
loss of privilege suited to the offence.
6
5. We note that when it goes on to say (461b-c) that men and women who have
passed the age of lawful procreation are free toformsuchrelations with whomsoever
they please [ouyyiyvtooi o ov ttiooi], a different verb is used.
6. The translation up to the inserted Greek text is the authors. The translation
following the inserted Greek text is that of H. Rackham (LCL). Not recognizing that
touching is a euphemism only used of mens sexual activity, Rackham improperly
transforms the rst part into a statement that applies equally to men and women: As
to intercourse with another woman or man, in general it must be dishonorable for
The euphemism is thus used for an extra-marital affair, an act of sexual
intercourse that is not consistent with the highly reasoned and rational
grounds and purposes proposed by Aristotle.
Genesis 20.4, 6 LXX
Although Abimelech took Sarah into his harem, v. 4 tells us that he had
not [yet] touched her [ou_ qoo ouq,]. God intervened, according to
v. 6, telling him, I spared you from sinning against me. So I did not let
you touch her [ou| oq|o ot ooooi ouq,]. Twice in the space of three
verses the euphemism is used for the (potential) violation of another
mans wife by a powerful man who had unknowingly taken her into his
harem (cf. Gen. 12.11-19). The euphemism is used several other times in
cases of the violation of women at the mercy of their captors or owners,
having been either captured in battle or brought into the household as
slaves.
In each of these cases the sexual relations referred to by the touching
euphemism are considered inappropriate and the authors employing the
idiom think it is/was good that the man involved did not touch the woman
(or people) who had come to be subject to him. We note that the Hebrew
passage has brq (to draw near) in v. 4 and (gn (to touch) in v. 6. The
use of the latter term suggests the same euphemism was known in
Hebrew (as also suggested by the following two passages) while in v. 4
the LXX translator(s) has employed the touching euphemism instead of
the different one found in the Hebrew passage.
Ruth 2.9 LXX
Boaz invites Ruth to glean in his eld, assuring her that he has ordered
the young men not to touch you [tvttiioqv oi, oiopioi, ou q
ooooi oou]. Chrys Caragounis (1996: 547 n. 15) has argued that this
verse has nothing to do with sex; the term refers to molestation (cf. vv.
15-16). Admitting this case may be ambiguous, Gordon Fee (2003: 205)
thinks it altogether possible that the language here could just as easily be
intended as instruction not to try to have sex with her. If this is another
example of the euphemism, and it probably is,
7
to try to have sex with
them to be known to take any part in it in any circumstances whatsoever as long as
they are husband and wife and bear those names. He evidently did not realize that
the touching euphemism is not used of a woman and that here what is contemplated
is a man touching another man or a woman, andnot a womantouchinganother woman
or man.
7. This is another case where the Greek follows the Hebrew idiom. The HB has
her may be too mild. While the idiom does not necessarily imply force,
the context seems similar to others where the word has to do with taking
advantage of a defenseless woman. In any case, this example is consistent
with others in that the sexual relations referred to by it are not condoned
by the author but considered inappropriate.
Proverbs 6.29 LXX
The preceding verses describe the disastrous consequences of going to a
prostitute or sleeping with another mans wife as scorching re that burns
a foolish man. This verse goes on to say, So is the one who goes in to a
married woman; he will not be held guiltless, nor anyone who touches
her [o, o ootvo, ouq,]. The euphemism, found here in both the
Hebrew text and the LXX, is being applied to an adulterous relationship
or possiblyrape (if the last clauseis distinguishedfrom the preceding one).
Josephus, Antiquities 1.163-64
Fearing the Egyptians frenzy for women and its potential danger to his
life, Abraham and Sarah pretend she is his sister. Pharaoh became red
with a desire to see her and on the point of laying hands on her [lit., and
was about to touch Sarah; qv ooooi q, 2oppo,]. But God thwarted
his criminal passion [qv oi|ov tiuiov] (Thackerays translation
[LCL]). This ts a pattern we have seen before of a woman being taken
by force by a powerful man whose sexual advances are motivated by his
sexual passion.
Plutarch, Alexander 21.9
We are told that Alexanders self-mastery is reected in the fact that he
did not lay hands on captive women or know any of thembefore mar-
riage, except Barsin:
This woman, Memnons widow, was taken prisoner at Damascus. And
since she had received a Greek education, and was of an agreeable dis-
position, and since her father, Artabazus, was son of a kings daughter,
Alexander determined (at Parmenios instigation, as Aristobulus says) to
attach himself to [lit., to touch] a woman of such high birth and beauty
[|oiq, |oi ytvvoi o, ooooi yuvoi|o ,]. But as for the other captive
women, seeing that they were surpassingly stately and beautiful, he merely
said jestingly that Persian women were torments to the eyes (Perrins
translation [LCL]).
(gn (to touch) here (as in Gen. 20.6 and Prov. 6.29) and HALOT understands the
Hebrew verb to have a sexual meaning in these passages.
Again we are dealing with a captors decision to enjoy sex with captive
womenor torestrainhimself. This, we are told, is the one case of a captive
woman of such great beauty and status that Alexander did not restrain
himself fromengaging in sexual relations with her before marrying her.
Plutarch, Quaestionum convivialum 634a
Plutarch discusses the varying ways in which lovers respond to jokes
about their relationship.
In the presence of those they love, men nd it very agreeable to be teased
about love itself, but about nothing else. And if they happen to be in love
with their own wives or to have a generous love for elegant young men,
they are perfectly delighted and proud to be teased about them. Accord-
ingly, when at one of the lectures of Arcesilaus an auditor at the moment
engaged in a love-affair advanced the following proposition, In my
opinion nothing touches anything else, Arcesilaus pointed to a youth who
was sitting beside the gentlemana ne handsome young manand said,
Am I to infer that you in particular are not touching this lad [ou
oq]? (Clements translation [LCL]).
While there is no clear evidence that Plutarch or Arcesilaus disapproved
of the relationship, Arcesilaus is using wordplay to make a joke at the
expense of the pederast, and in the distinction between sex for pleasure
vs. sex for procreation, this example falls under the same category as all
of the others.
Plutarch, Quaestionum convivialum 717e
Florus mentioned the vision that is said to have appeared to Ariston,
Platos father, in his sleep, which spoke and forbade him to have inter-
course with his wife, or to touch her, for ten months [q ouyytvtooi q
yuvoi|i q ooooi t |o qvov] (Minars translation [LCL]). On rst
reading, touching hereseems tosuggest simplyhaving sexual intercourse
with his wife, although the statement seems rather redundant, with two
different words for sexual intercourse. But Minar reminds us to read about
the situation to which Florus is referring in Diogenes Laertiuss Lives of
Eminent Philosophers 3.2. There we discover that the story was that
Ariston made violent love [io tooi] to Perictione, then in her bloom,
and failed to win her; and that, when he ceased to offer violence
[ouotvov t q, io,], Apollo appeared to him in a dream, whereupon
he left her unmolested until her child was born. As it turns out, then, the
sexual intercourse he was having with his wife (which Plutarch refers to
as touching) was a kind that was not considered morally acceptable. In
fact Apollo himself (who was no prude, being known for his many male
and female lovers) did not approve of it.
Plutarch, Amatorius 752a
Daphnaeus argues as follows:
Boy-love denies pleasure; that is because it is ashamed and afraid. It needs
a fair pretext for approaching [lit., touching] the young and beautiful [ti
t ivo, tupttio, ootvo |oiov |oi opoi ov], so it pretends friend-
ship and virtue (Helmbolds translation [LCL]).
Daphnaeus clearlydisapproves of pederasty, andhis use of the euphemism
to refer to it is consistent with what we have found elsewhere.
Testament of Reuben 3.15
After Reuben deles his fathers concubine, Bilhah, by sleeping with her,
an angel reveals the fact to his father and he, in turn, came and made
lamentation over me, and never again touched her [q|ti ootvo,
ouq,] (Kees translation [OTP]). Once Bilhah has been deled through
Reubens incestuous act of opvtio, it is not appropriate for Jacob to
have any further sexual relationship with her.
8
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 1.17
Marcus Aurelius gives thanks, among other things, that I did not touch
Benedicta or Theodotus [o qt Htvti|q, ooooi q t Otoo ou], but
that even afterwards, when I did give way to amatory passions [uotpov
tv tpoi|oi, otoi], I was cured of them (Hainess translation [LCL]).
Althoughwe do not know for certain who Benedicta and Theodotus were,
it seems that they were most likely slaves of the imperial household
(Rutherford 1998: 151, and Farquharson 1961: 97).
9
This is universally
agreed to be an example of the euphemism, and the logic of the passage
8. It is not clear if Testament of Reuben considers Bilhah partly responsible for
Reubens act. Reuben says, if I had not seen Bilhah bathing in a sheltered place, I
would not have fallen into this great lawless act. For so absorbed were my senses by
her naked femininity that I was not able to sleep until I had performed this revolting
act (3.11-12). Furthermore, Reuben argues that women are evil and scheme
treacherously how they might entice [men] to themselves by means of their looks
(5.1-2), taking them captive in the sexual act (5.3).
9. It has also been suggested that Benedicta might have been Hadrians concubine,
who is mentioned earlier in the same passage (cf. Africa 1961: 98 n. 9, and the index
of proper names in Haines [LCL]).
suggests touching would have entailed another case of giving way to
amatory passions.
Two other verbs are used to communicate the same idiom. Briey, Philo
uses ouo in expounding Lev. 18.19 to refer to the prohibition against
touching (having sex with) a woman during her monthly period (Spec.
Laws 3.32). Josephus uses the same word in recounting the complaint of
Potiphars wife that her husband would allow his servant to touch his
wife (Ant. 2.57). Incontext, of course, she is accusing Joseph of attempted
rape.
Four passages use the verb iyyovo to express the same euphemism,
again with no change in meaning. In Euripides, El. 50-51, Electras
husband makes it clear that he refused to touch the young girl entrusted to
him because such an act would have been inappropriate. In Euripides,
Hipp. 1044, it is used to refer to the rape or seduction of another mans
wife. Plutarch uses the word (Amatorius 760D) for a case where
Alexander the Great was tempted to exercise his power to acquire and
take advantage of the object of his sexual desire. It also appears in the
Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 17.17 in reference to how Abimelech was
warned not to touch Sarah in Gen. 20.3-6.
10
In summary, the euphemism has been used in reference to acting on
sexual passions for the sake of pleasure or sexual relief (Plato, Laws
8.837b-d; 8.840a), using various kinds of people for ones own sexual
gratication (slaves or people taken forcibly into ones household [Gen.
20.4, 6; Josephus, Ant. 1.163-64; 4.257; Plutarch, Alex. 21.9; Marcus
Aurelius, Meditations 1.17], a defenseless woman [Ruth 2.9], a virgin
placed in ones protective care [Euripides, El. 50-51], a wife during her
menstrual period [Philo, Spec. Laws 3.32]), a pederasts relation with his
lover (Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 634a), other unnatural homosexual
relations (Plato, Laws 8.836c), incestuous relations (Laws 8.838b), rape
or adultery (Euripides, Hipp. 885, 1026, 1044; Josephus, Ant. 2.57; Prov.
6.29), sexwithones deledconcubine (T. Reub. 3.15), sex with any well-
born or free person other than ones wife (Plato, Laws 8.841d), and sex
with anyone at all other than ones wife (Aristotle, Pol. 7.14.12 [1335b]).
10. Two other idioms should be mentioned. To touch ones own marriage or
marriage-bed (yoov/tuvq,) is toconsummate a marriage (not merelyengage in sexual
relations with ones wife; cf. Euripides, Phoen. 946; Plutarch, Fort. Rom. 321c;
Josephus, Ant. 4.257; Euripides, Hipp. 14), while to touch someone elses marriage
or marriage-bed is to dele the marriage-bed through adultery (cf. Euripides, Hipp.
885; 1026).
Much of the sexual activity in the Greco-Roman world was referred to
bywayof other terms andeuphemisms andnot bymeans of the euphemism
of touching. However, it is noteworthy that when touching was used,
it was not for sexual relationships in general, but for sexual relationships
motivatedbypleasure or passioninsteadof for procreation, marital friend-
ship or some other rational grounds. Furthermore, in the vast majority of
these examples, the authors (even though they were not committed to
celibacy or opposed to sex in general) would use the euphemism when
they wanted to indicate that it was good (or would have been good) for
the man to not touch the woman (or other person).
Understanding 1 Corinthians 7.1 in its Context
The fuller examination of the sexual euphemism of touching suggests
that the statement it is good for a man not to touch a woman should not
be takenas a rejectionof sexingeneral, but more likely reects a rejection
of recreational or hedonistic sex, sex for pleasure or motivated by passion.
The idiom might be best translated as it is good for a man not to use a
woman for sexual gratication.
11
This understanding provides a smoother transition from ch. 6 to ch. 7
of 1 Corinthians. In 6.9 Paul reminds the readers that opvoi, oi_oi,
oio|oi and opotvo|oioi will not inherit the kingdom, and that some of
themwere such, but have been cleansed (6.11). The rest of ch. 6 is con-
cerned with the use of prostitutes and a Corinthian argument suggesting
sex is a bodily process lacking any moral or spiritual signicance. The
line quoted from the Corinthians in 7.1 may be taken as a criticism by
some Corinthian Christians against certain men in the church who con-
tinued to look for sexual gratication as they did before converting to
Christianity: with prostitutes, courtesans and household slaves, among
other people. It would come close to being a Hellenistic equivalent for
the Jewish and Christian use of opvtio, although the former term could
be applied broadly even to sex for pleasure (or out of passion) even
within marriage, in a way that the latter term might not. Also, while men
and women may both practice opvtio, touching is something that only
men do. It is remarkable that while touching (v. 1) is unidirectional
(people do not touch each other, one male touches the object of his sexual
desire), the rest of Pauls language, in contrast, clearly emphasizes mutu-
ality in marital relations. Not only should the husband have his wife, but
11. Or, possibly, it is good for a man not to exploit a woman sexually, or, it is
good for a man not to have inappropriate sex with a woman.
the wife should have her husband (v. 2). Not only should he give his wife
her conjugal rights, but she should give her husband his as well (v. 3).
Not only does he have authority over her body but she also has authority
over his (v. 4). They are not to deprive each other, except by mutual con-
sent, and then they should both come together again (v. 5). While Paul
agrees that men should not treat women as sexual objects to be used for
their own pleasure, his response to Corinthian concerns emphasizes the
need for each marriage partner to be sensitive to the sexual needs of the
other.
Pauls argument, then, makes best sense against a background in which
he is partially agreeing with some in Corinth that it would be good for
some of the men to refrain from some of the sexual activities in which
they have been engaged (and he will even suggest celibacy can be a very
good option), but that need not suggest or presume that some Corinthians
were arguing for celibacy.
That some Corinthians were pushing for the view that sex was to be
engaged in for procreation (or perhaps marital friendship) and not out of
passion or for the sake of pleasure makes perfectly good sense of the evi-
dence within the letter. That view can also be distinguished from Pauls
own (slightly less restrictive) view and that of a more liberal Corinthian
perspective reected in the latter part of ch. 6.
Pauls argument in 1 Cor. 7.1-2 may thus be paraphrased as follows:
Regarding the things about which you wrote to me (in complaining about
those men who continue to visit prostitutes or sleep with the household
slaves, etc.), it is good for a man not to use a woman for sexual self-
gratication, but since opvti o is so ubiquitous, and to keep from falling
into it yourselves, each man should enjoy regular sexual relations with his
own wife and each woman should do so with her own husband.
References
Africa, T.W.
1961 The Opium Addiction of Marcus Aurelius, JHI 22: 97-102.
Caragounis, Chrys C.
1996 Fornication and Concession: Interpreting 1 Cor 7,1-7, in R. Bieringer
(ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence (BETL, 125; Leuven: Leuven Uni-
versity Press): 543-59.
Collins, Raymond F.
1999 First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Deming, Will
2004 Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corin-
thians 7 (2nd edn; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Farquharson, A.S.L. (ed. and trans.)
1961 Meditations [of Marcus Aurelius] (London: Dent).
Fee, Gordon D.
1987 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
2003 1 Corinthians 7.1-7 Revisited, in Trevor J. Burke and J.K. Elliott (eds.),
Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conict: Essays in
Honour of Margaret Thrall (NovTSup, 109; Leiden: Brill).
Gaca, Kathy L.
2003 The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek
Philosophy and Early Christianity (Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press).
Garland, David E.
2003 1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
Hays, Richard B.
1997 First Corinthians (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox).
Houser, J.S.
2002 Eros and Aphrodisia in the Works of Dio Chrysostom, in Martha C.
Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola (eds.), The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience
and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press).
Hurd, J.C., Jr
1983 The Origin of I Corinthians (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press).
Martin, Dale B.
1995 The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Meeks, Wayne A.
1983 The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New
Haven: Yale University Press).
Pangle, T.L. (ed. and trans.)
1980 The Laws of Plato: Translated, with Notes and an Interpretive Essay
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Rutherford, R.B. (ed. and trans.)
1998 The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Thiselton, Anthony C.
2000 The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Treggiari, S.
1993 Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of
Ulpian (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

Ciampa R.E. - Revisiting The Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7,1 (JSNT 2009)

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ciampa R.E. - Revisiting The Euphemism in 1 Corinthians 7,1 (JSNT 2009)

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

http://jnt.sagepub.

Вам также может понравиться