virginity fornication celibacy porneia slavery ...

*

Peter Tomson
has provided us
with a suggestive analysis
of the cultural context of PAUL's discourse on celibacy
in 1 Corinthians 7.

THIS
apostle
prefers celibacy
both personally, practically, and religiously,
but is quite unwilling to consider the married state FORBIDDEN,
condemned or even disparaged
by G D.

Moreover,
since as stated,
in his ethic of the obligations of married people to each other,
he is close if not to Jewish traditions of HIS myDi-day,
those who are presently married
MUST fulfill those
obligations.

THE
essential similarity
between much of Paul's ethic here
and other strains within first-century Judaism
can be evoked [if not demonstrated]
by the following quotation form the socalled
Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs:

The
commandments of the Lord are double,
and they are to be fulfilled with regularity.
There is a time for having intercourse with one's wife,
and a time to abstain for the purpose
of prayer.

THIS
practically demands comparison with Paul's pronouncement
in 1 Corinthians 7:5:

"Do not refuse
one another except perhaps by agreement for a season,
that you may devore yourselves
to prayer."

There ARE
some obvious differences of EMPHASIS between these two dicta
but clearly the idea of abstention from sex for prayer grows out of the SAME religious and cultural
milieu?


~*~


FINALLY,
insofar as Paul himself and Yehoshua,
whom he follows here,
seem to reflect a particular attested ancient Jewish tradition against divorce,
those who ARE married ought NOT to divorce
and neither can the separate from their partners
to whom they are obligated!

We can THUS
explain all of the details of 1 Corinthians 7
on the basis of the assumption that Paul maintains a two-tiered system of thought regarding sexuality:
celibacy as the higher state
but marriage as a fully honorable condition for
the believing Christian?

THIS is
bu and large identical to actually attested forms
of Palestinian Judaism and NOT very far from PHILO either,
except that Philo's tone toward sexuality seems much more negative in affect, reflecting, I think, the greater Greek philosophical
influences on HIM!

However,
it must be admitted that even PAUL,
whose dualism was so much LESS extreme,
manifests quite a cold and ambivalent feeling about married sex,
regarding it primarily as a defense against lust &
fornication.


AS P.B. has written:

What was
notably LACKING, in PAUL's letter,
was the warm faith shown by contemporary pagans and Jews
that the sexual urge, although disorderly, was capable of socialization
and of ordered, even warm, expression
within marriage?

The
dangers
of porneia,
of potential immorality brought about by sexual frustration,
were allowed to hold the center
of the stage.

By THIS essentially negative,
even ALARMIST, strategy, PAUL left a fatal legacy to future ages.
An argument against abandoning sexual intercourse within marriage
and in FAVOR of allowing the younger generation to continue
to have children slid imperceptibly into an attitude
that viewed marriage ITSELF as not more than a defense
against DESIRE?

In the future,
a sense of the presence of "Satan,"
in the form of a constant and ill-defined RISK OF LUST,
lay like a heavy shadow in the corner of every
Christian church!


~*~


Where I
disagree with P.B. is
when he says,

"At the time, however, fornication and its avoidance
did NOT preoccupy PAUL greatly.
HE was concerned to emphasize, rather,
the continuing validity of ALL social bonds.
The structure of the household as a whole was at stake.
THIS included the institution of domestic slavery.
On THIS, Paul was adamant:
slaves, like wives, MUST remain
in their [fixed]
place!"

On
MY reading,
the situation is EXACTLY
OPPOSITE!

PAUL called for FREEDOM
and the breaking down of ALL
social bonds.

REALIZING, however,
the unrealizability of THAT GOAL -
for slaves because of the social unrest and suppression of Christianity
that would result, for wives because of porneia -
Paul settled for something else,
somthing LESS than HIS VISION called for,
and THUS the continuation of the domestic slavery of marriage
for those NOT [yet] called to
the celibate life.

Rabbinic Judaism
ultimately went in another direction entirely,
increasingly REJECTING not only the preferability of celibacy
but ULTIMATELY even
its permissibility!

With THAT rejection,
the ONE avenue of ESCAPE into autonomy for WOMEN was CLOSED
but a much richer and warmer appreciation of sexuality
developed!


~*~


THIS
interpretation of Paul IS coherent
with the interpretation of his anthropology in general
offered in these 'myDi-stories'?

IF
celibacy corresponds to "the spirit"
and marriage to "the flesh," THEN the axiological relationship
between these two 'states' fits perfectly,
for as I have already argued throughout,
the flesh, while LOWER than the spirit in Paul's thought,
is by no means REJECTED or DESPISED
by HIM!


The analogy with celibacy versus marriage is EXACT?


Marriage
IS a lower state than celibacy -
He who marries a virgin does WELL and he who does NOT marry
does BETTER [verse 38] -
but NOT by any means FORBIDDEN or
DESPISED!


However,
and THIS is the CRUX,
any possibility of an eradication of male and female
and the corresponding social hierarchy is possible ONLY
on the level of the SPIRIT,
either in ECSTACY at baptism
OR perhaps permanently
for the celibate?


In
other words,
I surmise that although PAUL
does not cite the myth of the primal androgyne,
his gender discourse seems just as likely to be an outgrowth of THAT
ideological structure as it is that of PHILO -
no male and female - in the spirit,
but in the flesh,
YES
INDEED.




~**~
~verliefdverliefd~
~gemeenverwardgaap!liefdesverdrietbah!nahnahverdrietig~
~cool!erg vrolijk~
~knipoogvrolijk~
~##~
engel
10 aug 2005 - bewerkt op 18 mrt 2008 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 81 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende