No matter where one goes in the New Testament, the first-century church is struggling with the matter of sexual immorality. A clear tip-off is the fifty-five times that the noun porneia (“sexual immorality”) and its cognates appear. Paul, in particular, has to tackle the topic in virtually every letter (Rom. 1:18-27; 1 Cor. 5:1, 9-11; 6:9, 13, 15-16, 18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3, 5; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Tim. 1:10; cf. Acts 15:20, 29; Heb. 13:4). This undoubtedly was because of the greater sexual license that he encountered in the non-Jewish contexts in which he ministered—a sexual license not unlike that present in Western society today.

It is also the case that no matter where one turns in the New Testament there is an unequivocal rejection of porneia. Jesus labeled it as an “evil” that issues from the human heart and makes one “unclean” (Mark 7:21-23; compare Matt. 15:15-20). The early church identified it as one of four activities that rendered Jew-Gentile fellowship an impossibility (Acts 15:20, 29). It is at the top of Paul’s list of the acts of the sinful nature (Gal. 5:19). The author of Hebrews names it as something God most certainly will judge (Heb. 13:4). Jude speaks of those who give themselves up to it as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire (Jude 7). All this points to sexual morality as something central to the Christian life and intrinsic to our humanness. It also points to sexual immorality as something that distorts and perverts our essential humanity (cf. Rom. 1:24-25).

But what is it meant by “sexual immorality”? The term porneia and its cognates (porneuo; porne; pornos; ekporneuo) cover a wide range of sexual offenses.[2] Jesus’ use of the plural “sexual immoralities” (porneiai) suggests as much (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; compare 1 Cor. 7:2). Originally the root porn- referred to prostitution or harlotry. By New Testament times, however, porneia included much more. Of course, a definition of what constitutes a sexual irregularity depends on the accepted cultural norms. And here Jewish norms went way beyond non-Jewish norms. Jewish literature close to the New Testament period included under the umbrella of porneia such sexual activities as prostitution (LXX Hosea 1:2), adultery (Wisdom 14:26; Sirach 23:16-18, 22-27; Philo On Abraham 135-136; Testament of Joseph 3.8), incest (Testament of Reuben 1.6), sodomy (Testament of Benjamin 9.1; Sibylline Oracles 2.73; Josephus Against Apion 2.199; Philo On Abraham 135-136), sexual perversion (Wisdom 14:26) and sexual promiscuity (Assumption of Isaiah 2.5).

This breadth of usage is also reflected in the New Testament materials, which are Jewish in their ethical orientation and then some (“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a women lustfully has already committed adultery. . .”[NIV Matt. 5:27]). The range of sexual offenses that are named is quite astounding. They embrace adultery (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Heb. 13:4; cf. 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10), sexual promiscuity (John 8:41; 1 Cor. 7:1-2; 1 Thess. 4:3; Heb. 12:16), harlotry (Matt. 21:31-32; Luke 15:30; 1 Cor. 6:15-18; Heb. 11:31), cultic prostitution (Rev. 2:14, 20; compare eidoloatrai in 1 Cor. 6:9), homosexual activity (malakoi, arsenokoitai 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10; compare Rom. 1:26-27), and incest (1 Cor. 5:1). In short, any extramarital or same gender sexual activity is labeled by the New Testament writers as contrary to God’s will (1 Thess. 4:3).

Even though there are numerous New Testament references to sexual activity (both appropriate and inappropriate), there is little systematic teaching on the topic of sex. In part, this is because sexual instruction was part of the basic teaching that new converts received. At several points Paul reminds his converts of “the instructions” (literally: “marching orders”) he had given them “by the authority of the Lord Jesus” (NIV 1 Thess. 4:2). These periodic reminders help us to reconstruct the basics of this instruction.

First, complete abstinence from extramarital intercourse is not an option but a requirement of holy living. Paul tells the Thessalonian believers: “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality” (NIV 1 Thess. 4:3). The verb is stronger than the NIV “avoid.” “Have nothing to do with” is more the idea (apechesthai = “keep oneself” + “from”). Moderation is not enough. Only complete abstinence will do. And this comes by way of a command, not by way of a suggestion. It is “God’s will.”

Second, a life of sexual promiscuity is incompatible with membership in God’s kingdom. Paul does not mince words. “You know perfectly well,” he says, “that people who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites . . .” (JB, 1 Cor. 6:9-10; cf. Eph. 5:5). When Paul refers to the Christian’s future reward, he does not elsewhere use the phrase “inherit the kingdom of God.” Therefore, it is likely that he is citing a code of ethics adopted by the Church early on. This is an important point because all-too-often it is assumed that Paul’s uncompromising stance toward sex is a byproduct of his own inexperience and, hence, his natural prejudice against it.

Third, sexual promiscuity is nowhere written off as a slight and humanly understandable indiscretion. It is consistently placed first among the acts of a sinful nature: “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery . . .” (NIV Gal. 5:19-21); “Put to death whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust . . .” (NIV Col. 3:6). Nor is sexual promiscuity something that God turns a blind eye to or merely wags a finger at. It warrants nothing less than His wrath. “Because of these,” Paul states, “the wrath of God is coming” (NIV Col. 3:6). This is echoed by the author of Hebrews: “God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral” (NIV Heb. 13:4).

Fourth, sexual immorality has a way of so overpowering and controlling a person’s life (and the life of the congregation) that nothing less than its complete eradication will suffice. This is why Paul commands the Colossian believers to “put to death” sexual immorality, impurity, and lust (Col. 3:5; compare 1 Cor. 6:18, “Flee from sexual immorality”). It is also why he instructs the Corinthian believers not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian and yet is sexually promiscuous. Indeed, one is not even to eat with such a person (1 Cor. 5:9-11).

At times the allure of sex is just too great for the first-century Christian and the simple command: “Flee from sexual immorality” did not suffice. What happened then? What was the next step? Two passages in the Corinthian correspondence provide a helpful insight into what this next step was for Paul. In the case of the Corinthian congregation, the sexual challenges included an incestuous affair between a member of the congregation and a non-Christian family member (1 Cor. 5:1-13) and members of the church purchasing the sexual favors of the local prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:12-20).

The way Paul handled the matter of incest is particularly instructive because it is an instance where the sexual standards of society were higher than those of the local church: “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you and of a kind that does not occur even among the pagans: A man has his father’s wife” (NIV 1 Cor. 5:1). The situation in a nutshell is that a member of the Corinthian church was having an affair with his stepmother. That this was not a one-time lapse is indicated by the present tense “has” (NRSV “is living with”). The fact that the man is the only one named as the culpable party suggests that the woman was a non-Christian. Since Paul uses the language of “his father’s wife” rather than “his mother,” it would seem that the woman involved was not a blood relative. It would also appear that the man’s father was either divorced or dead—otherwise Paul would have named the sexual offense “adultery” (moicheia) rather than leaving it more broadly defined (porneia).

It is not immediately clear why this was such an egregious sexual offense in the eyes of a sexually tolerant city like Corinth. Old Testament law certainly prohibited it. Leviticus 18:8 states: “Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife.” Leviticus 18, as a whole, is concerned to establish the limits within which a man may seek a wife for himself. Although a stepmother would not have been a blood relative, to the Hebrew way of thinking marriage made a woman an integral and permanent part of the family in a fashion that is foreign to our way of thinking today. Roman law also prohibited marriage between a child and a stepparent. It did so on the basis of relatedness by adoption.[3] In fact, Cicero calls such a state of affairs “unbelievable” and “unheard of in all experience” (In Defense of Cluentius 15).

The Corinthian believers, on the other hand, were “proud” of the fact (1 Cor. 5:2). They did not turn a blind eye to sexual promiscuity in their midst—as some churches are wont to do—but wore it as a badge of freedom. “All things are lawful for me,” they claimed (NRSV 1 Cor. 6:12). “Sex is my right.” This is not that different from societal attitudes today. But that it should surface in the Church is quite surprising.

Paul defines the appropriate congregational response to the flouting of sexual mores quite differently than that of “proud parent.” In the first place, the Corinthian church should have been “filled with grief” (epenthesate; NIV 1 Cor. 5:2a)—a verb that means not merely to be sad about something but to grieve with the grief one feels over the death of a loved one. In the second place, the church should have put the person who did this out of their fellowship (that is, excommunicate him, v. 2b). Even now Paul calls the church to “expel the wicked man” from among them (v. 12) and to “hand this man over to Satan” for the destruction of the flesh and the salvation of his spirit (v. 5). Whatever the meaning of the latter, it shows the gravity with which sexual immorality should be viewed. This gravity stems from the devastating consequences of such a lifestyle on the Church’s life and witness.

Discipline is difficult for a church in the best of circumstances. But it is necessary for two reasons: For one, the purity of the congregation is at risk. As Paul puts it, “a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough” (v. 6)—or as we say today “one bad apple spoils the barrel.” People have a tendency to adopt a “he or she does it, so I can do it” mentality—especially if the she or he in question holds a leadership position in the church. In so doing, it is forgotten that the Church is Christ’s bride-to-be and that as Christ’s betrothed, the Church is to remain “chaste” until His return (2 Cor. 11:1-2; Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:9). In Paul’s day, a father jealously protected and guarded his daughter’s purity until the day of her marriage. Church leaders have this responsibility for the congregation. It is for this reason that Paul lists “blamelessness” as a requirement for every position of church leadership (1 Tim. 3:2, 10; Titus 1:6).

Discipline is also necessary so as not to compromise the Church’s witness to the world. Again, Paul states: “we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ” (NIV 1 Cor. 9:12). The danger of being “in the world” is to become conformed to the world’s mores, rather than to be transformed by God’s standards. It is a particular danger for any denomination—like my own Evangelical Covenant Church —that takes pride in its “freedom” and “tolerance in Christ.” At the point that the local church looks no different from society-at-large, it ceases to be salt and light to those around it. Quite often this happens imperceptibly and the church crosses the line without even recognizing that this has happened. If it falls below societal standards, it is truly a sad state of affairs.

Corinthian believers purchasing the sexual favors of the local prostitutes was the other challenge that Paul faced: “Shall I take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute?” (NIV 1 Cor. 6:15). How the Corinthians justified their activity is not far afield from how some believers justify their behavior today. The term commonly used of this way of thinking is “libertine.” The logic is quite simple: The material world is destined for destruction. As such it and everything related to it is of no account. It is the spiritual that endures and so it alone is valuable in the overall scheme of things. Grow your spiritual life. It matters. What you do with your body, however, does not matter. As we say: “dust to dust” and “ashes to ashes.” This places the body in the realm of adiaphora or matters of moral indifference. To indulge one’s sexual appetite is no different from indulging other physical appetites—like eating and sleeping.

Paul’s response is critical to look at because it is the closest we come to a New Testament theology of sexuality. Five truths about sexuality are presented that are at odds with a libertine view of things. First, our bodies are not destined for destruction but for resurrection: “By His power God raised the Lord from the dead and He will raise us also” (NIV 6:14). Contrary to popular opinion, our bodies are not merely part of this transient world order. They are the objects of God’s salvific intent. As such, what we do with our bodies is of the highest moral value.

Second, commitment to Christ involves the whole person—not the least of which is the physical body: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ Himself?” (NIV v. 15) Paul goes on to describe this commitment as a union that makes the two “one.”

In a rather bold move, a text that is normally applied to the marriage relationship (“the two will become one flesh”) is applied first to the sexual act itself (“the one who cleaves to a prostitute becomes one with her in body,” v. 16) and then to our union with Christ (“the one who cleaves to the Lord is one with Him in spirit,” v. 17).

When one engages in sexual intercourse, Paul says, it forges an inseparable union (“one flesh”) between the two people (NIV v. 16; citing Gen. 2:24). The problem is that an inseparable union with Christ already exists (the “two” are “one spirit,” v. 17). So we are not free to take what belongs to Christ and give it to another. When we say “I do” to Christ at conversion an intimate union is formed. All other unions must be compatible with this most basic of unions. This is what is wrong with all extramarital sexual relationships—be they adulterous, incestuous, bestial, premarital or otherwise. They are not true unions. The only sexual activity that is compatible with our Christ-union is sexual activity within the context of marriage. This is because marriage alone is a divinely ordained institution. It is “what God has joined together” and what he alone has the authority to “put asunder” (RSV Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9).

Third, sexual immorality impacts the body in a way that other sins do not. “All other sins people commit are outside their bodies, but those who sin sexually sin against their own bodies” (NIV Inclusive; v. 18). At first appearance, this is a confusing statement. What about drunkenness, gluttony, or self-mutilation? Are these also not sins committed against one’s own body? Yet, while there are, to be sure, other self-inflicted wrongs, sexual sins strike at what is intrinsic to our humanness in a way that the others do not. As one commentator notes, there is no other sin that so directly wounds our personal dignity and affects our self-esteem.[4]

Fourth, our body is not only destined to be raised with Christ, but even now is the sphere of God’s redemptive presence: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?” (NIV v. 19). The term Paul uses is actually naos or “inner sanctuary” (not hieron “temple”). In Jesus’ day, this inner sanctuary was located in what was considered a magnificent architectural structure (Mark 13:1). Now, this inner sanctuary is located in human flesh. What Jesus’ death and resurrection made possible is God’s presence in us through the Spirit’s dwelling within our bodies. It is the indwelling Spirit that forges that “one spirit” union with Christ at conversion (v. 17). It is the indwelling Spirit that makes our bodies “members of Christ himself” (v. 15). It is also the Spirit who “anoints” and “sets God’s seal of ownership on us” until Christ returns (2 Cor. 1:21-22).

Finally, our bodies are not ours to do with as we please. Paul states, “you are not your own; you were bought at a price” (vv. 19b-20). We talk a lot about our “rights” and “freedoms.” Women, in particular, argue that they have a right to do with their body as they please. This is not an option for a Christian. Our body belongs to Christ. The language is that of the marketplace where slaves are bought and sold. If we give in to our sexual urges, we become their slave and they become our master. Freedom is an illusion. We always serve some master. The choice is whether we will serve Christ—the only rightful master—or sin (Rom. 6:16).

A word must be said about premarital sex. Some think that since the New Testament does not explicitly forbid premarital sex, this is one kind of sexual activity that is permissible to the Christian. Arguments from silence should never be indulged in—especially apart from an understanding of the cultural context. The reason there is no explicit teaching on premarital sex is that virtually all first-century girls—whether Jewish, Greek or Roman—married between the ages of 12 and 16. Puberty and matrimony occurred virtually at the same time.

There is simply no getting around the fact that marriage is the one and only context for sexual intimacy that the biblical writers acknowledge. All else is porneia. The reason is easy to divine: sexual intimacy is always an act of bonding. It makes two people “one flesh” regardless of whether the act is part of a casual one-night stand or part of a more committed relationship. There is no act that is more intimate or that renders one as personally vulnerable as sex. To engage in sex apart from the public exchange of vows that promise a lifelong and exclusive commitment is to put oneself and one’s union with Christ at mortal risk.

Good sex is the embodied love of a man and a woman that expresses and sustains both intimacy and continuity and that signals a covenant undertaken in vows and carried out in fidelity.[5]

Not all Christians are comfortable with such a sentiment. Prominent theologians throughout the Church’s history have gone on record as claiming that sex is only to be engaged in for procreative purposes and that outside these boundaries sex is sinful. Early on, church fathers like Justin Martyr (Apology 1:29), Athenagoras (A Plea for the Christians 33), Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies 3.7.58; 3.12.70) and Augustine (On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.5.4; 1.17.15) matter-of-factly taught that sex in the marriage should be undertaken only for the purpose of reproduction. Other church fathers who did not go this far nonetheless counseled chaste moderation and even passionless sex.[6]

Some of the first-century Christians went even further and labeled sex itself as sinful. “Ascetic” is the term normally used of those who viewed sex (and like matters) this way. For them the material world was not morally indifferent (as the libertines thought) but downright evil. If a person was to remain spiritually pure, contact with one’s physical surroundings was to be avoided at all cost. Sex was physical. Therefore, the body (and its physical appetites) was off-limits—even within the context of marriage. Hence the slogan: “Nothing is permissible” (see Col. 2:21).

This worldview was alive and well in the Corinthian congregation. Certain members claimed: “It is well for a man not to touch [haptesthai] a woman” (NRSV 1 Cor. 7:1). Although some translate the verb haptesthai as “to marry,” there is no lexical justification for this. The phrase is literally “to touch a woman” and is used both here and elsewhere as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (see, for example, LXX Gen. 20:6, Prov. 6:29; Josephus Antiquities 1.163; Plutarch Moralia 21.1). Others have misread this text as Paul’s opinion on how believers ought to deal with a society notorious for its loose sexual morals and its marital unfaithfulness. Recent translations like the NRSV, the REB and the CEV have rightly put this text in quotes and understand it to be Paul’s citation of a question that the Corinthian church raised in a recent letter to him (“Now concerning the matters about which you wrote,” 1 Cor. 7:1a). An ascetic world view could also be found in the Ephesian church. There were “those,” Paul states, who were “forbidding people to marry and ordering them to abstain from certain foods” (1 Tim. 4:3). Something similar was happening in the Colossian church. Their code of ethics included harsh treatment of the body and rules such as “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (NIV Col. 2:20-23).

Not only is the ascetic point of view not Paul’s view but it runs counter to what Paul and other biblical writers have to say elsewhere. The marriage union is something “created by God” and “good” (1 Tim. 4:3-5). It is an “honorable” estate whose sexual integrity must be “respected by all” (Phillips Heb. 13:4). The married couple is no longer “two” but “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7-8, Eph. 5:31). The husband and wife are not sexually to deprive each other—except by mutual consent and then only for a short time (1 Cor. 7:5).

The biblical materials are uniform in their teaching that sex plays a critical role in a lasting marriage. Paul, in particular, takes pains to spell out the sexual norms for the marriage relationship. They are noteworthy even by today’s standards for what they say and do not say. For instance, they do not say that sex is for procreation. In fact, sex is not even connected with the propagation of the species. This is rather phenomenal considering that Judaism viewed the continuation of the family line as of the utmost importance and of the highest obligation (see, for example, Gen. 38:8; Deut. 25:5-6; Ruth 4:5).

Moreover, Paul’s sexual norms do not include anything about wifely submission. Nowhere does he say that a wife is to submit to her husband’s sexual demands. This is rather amazing even by today’s standards, where sex is still commonly viewed as the husband’s privilege and the wife’s obligation. 1 Corinthians 7 is especially striking for its total lack of patriarchalism: “The husband should fulfill his marital duty” (v. 3); “the husband has no authority over his own body” (v. 4); a husband must not divorce his wife“ (vv. 11-12).[7]

What Paul’s sexual norms do say is equally striking. One, the sexual needs of one’s spouse are to be honored. Indeed, the meeting of these needs is considered the spouse’s “due” (ten opheilen): “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to the his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband” (NIV 1 Cor. 7:3). The Greek word is actually a verb of command (“let him or her fulfill”) and it is in the present tense, indicating that meeting a spouse’s sexual needs is an ongoing duty.

Two, sex is a matter of mutual submission. While sexual gratification is something “due” a spouse, it is not something that a spouse can insist on as a personal right. “The husband has no authority over his body and the wife has no authority over her body” (1 Cor. 7:4). In fact, it is the wife who has authority over her husband’s body and it is the husband who has authority over his wife’s body (v. 4).

Three, sexual intimacy is something to be expressed between one man and one woman. Neither polygamy nor same-sex marriages are a New Testament option. “Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (NIV 1 Cor 7:2).

Four, there is no place for lust in the marriage relationship. Paul has blunt words for those who view marriage primarily as a sexual escape valve. Each man is to learn how to “live with [or possibly, ”acquire“] a wife in holiness and honor and not in passionate lust like the pagans who do not know God” (1 Thess. 4:4-5).[8]

And five, sex is essential to the marriage relationship. The “two” becoming “one flesh” is not just a figure of speech. Each partner belongs to the other so fully that Paul can call the withholding of sex an act of “defrauding” (apostereite, 1 Cor. 7:5).

Sex apart from marital mutuality is bound for failure. The keynote throughout these texts is that of mutuality. Paul insists on absolute reciprocity in the marriage relationship. There is no ground that the husband or wife can claim as his or her own. Each sexual norm is carefully and precisely balanced. It is always “each man should” and “each woman should” (1 Cor. 7:2), “the husband must” and “the wife must” (v. 3), “the wife’s body does not” and “the husband’s body does not” (v. 4).

Mutuality extends even to the matter of initiating (or not initiating) a divorce. A wife must not divorce her husband and a husband must not divorce his wife (vv. 10-11; compare Mark 10: 11-12). A husband must not divorce his unbelieving wife and a wife must not divorce her unbelieving husband (vv. 12-13). Even in the celibate life there is to be mutuality between the sexes. An unmarried woman is called to be as focused on the Lord’s affairs as an unmarried man (vv. 32-34). Last but not least, there is to be mutuality between the sexes in the church. “In the Lord,” Paul states, “woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman” (1 Cor. 11:11). “As woman came from man, so also man comes from woman” (v. 12).

But is this the message that the church is sending to our society today? Sometimes we think that God owes us a marriage where our needs are met and our desires are satisfied. If our current spouse is not meeting our needs, then we have a right—and even an obligation— to find a spouse who will. This is our rights-oriented society speaking—a “what can I get out of it” mentality. The biblical ethic, however, is a rights-surrendering ethic. Christians are called to deny self (Mark 8:34), submit one to another (Eph. 5:21), look to the interests of others (Phil. 2:4) and even lay down their lives for one another (1 John 3:16). This applies equally to our sexuality. Sexual mutuality and marital commitment are qualities that are lacking in our society today. If Christians cannot be counted on to model them, who will?

Dr. Belleville is the associate professor of New Testament at Chicago’s North Park Theological Seminary and an ordained minister of the Evangelical Covenant Church. This article, originally published in the Covenant Quarterly, is used by permission of the Evangelical Covenant Church. The first part of this series was published in issue 114. The series will continue next issue.

1. See Suzanne Dixon, The Roman Family (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1992), 119-123. [return]

2. See Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz, “Porne,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 6:580-587, edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968); H. Reisser, “Porneuo,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1:497-501, edited by C. Brown, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975); D. F. Wright, “Sexuality, Sexual Ethics,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, D. G. Reid (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 871-875. [return]

3. See Gordon Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 253-55 and Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 96 n. 29. [return]

4. Ernest Bernard Allo, Première Épître aux Corinthiens (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956) 149. [return]

5. Allen Verhey, “The Holy Bible and Sanctified Sexuality—An Evangelical Approach to Scripture and Sexual Ethics,” Interpretation 49 (1995), 41. [return]

6. Elizabeth Clark, “Sexuality,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, edited by E. Ferguson, M. P. McHugh and F. W. Norris (New York, NY: Garland, 1988), 843-44. [return]

7. These are remarkable norms given the male-dominated culture of the times. [return]

8. It is also possible to translate 1 Thessalonians 4:4 as follows: “Each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable.” [return]