In Romans, Part 30 I said that sexual desire for someone other than my wife was like a distant early warning system, alerting me to which I was asserting control.  Things may not be so clear, however, for the young, virginal or single.  Simply put, how does one distinguish between the sexual desire that is of the flesh and sexual desire for a spouse-to-be?

Paul wrote, If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately (ἀσχημονεῖν, a form of ἀσχημονέω)^[1] toward his virgin, if she is past the bloom of youth and it seems necessary (ὀφείλει, a form of ὀφείλω),^[2] he should do what he wishes (θέλει, a form of θέλω);^[3] he does not sin.  Let them marry (γαμείτωσαν, a form of γαμέω).^[4]  So if a man (Paul seems to be addressing men) thinks his kissing, fondling, whatever, is inappropriate toward a virgin…  (And I wouldn’t get too carried away with the technicality virgin.)  If a man thinks his kissing, fondling, whatever is inappropriate toward a woman he has not married…  The word translated thinks he is acting inappropriately here is the same word translated rude in [Love] is not rude (ἀσχημονεῖ, another form of ἀσχημονέω), it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful.^[5]

If she is past the bloom of youth, in other words, she is not too young, and it seems necessary (ὀφείλει, a form of ὀφείλω)…  I realize, on the surface of things, this reads like the man alone makes this decision.  But here with Paul’s reprise of a woman’s sexual rights, or a sexual debt owed to the woman (A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights [ὀφειλὴν, a form of ὀφειλή])^[6] that superficial reading comes most profoundly into question.  Once a woman has decided that she is owed sexual gratification there is not much a man can do about it but marry her or drop her hard.  I hope it is clear that the third option, to take advantage of her sexually and then drop her hard, is of the flesh.

Paul made no secret of the fact that he preferred that men remain single, An unmarried (ἄγαμος)^[7] man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.  But a married (γαμήσας, another form of γαμέω) man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife, and he is divided.^[8]  I wish (θέλω) that everyone was as I am, he wrote.  But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that.^[9]   In the next verse of instruction to the unmarried it seems on the surface that Paul has stacked the deck in favor of remaining single, but as I examine his word choices in detail I think the opposite is actually the case, so that no one but those gifted by God to do so choose to remain single.

But the man who is firm (ἕστηκεν, a form of ἵστημι)^[10] in his commitment (ἑδραῖος),^[11] and is under (ἔχων, a form of ἔχω)^[12] no necessity (ἀνάγκην, a form of ἀναγκή)^[13] but has (ἔχει, another form of ἔχω) control (ἐξουσίαν, a form of ἐξουσία)^[14] over his will (θελήματος, a form of θέλημα),^[15] and has decided (κέκρικεν, a form of κρίνω)^[16] in his own mind (καρδίᾳ, a form of καρδία)^[17] to keep (τηρεῖν, a form of τηρέω)^[18] his own virgin, does well (καλῶς; literally, “beautifully“).^[19]

The phrase firm in his commitment (to stand immovable) is fairly clear even in English as an allusion to an erection.  Paul wanted men to really grapple with the caliber of commitment required.  Then, and is under (literally, having) no necessity, hearkens back to verse 2, because of πορνείας (a form of πορνεία),^[20] let each man have (ἐχέτω, another form of ἔχω) his own wife.^[21]  Though necessity here might refer to a pregnancy, I’m convinced that Paul would say that that man’s choice to marry was already made.  It is the same word (ἀνάγκην, a form of ἀναγκή) Paul used in verse 26, Because of the impending crisis (τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην) I think it best for you to remain as you are.^[22]  In the NKJV the same phrase was translated the present distress.  The allusion now is to a painful erection.

So I have a man who is 1) firm in his commitment, 2) has no necessity or distress concerning that commitment, but 3) has control (ἐξουσίαν, a form of ἐξουσία) over his will (θελήματος, a form of θέλημα).  This hearkens back to the ἐξουσιάζει that the wife has over her husband’s body: it is not the husband who has the rights (ἐξουσιάζει, a form of ἐξουσιάζω)^[23] to his own body (σώματος, a form of σῶμα),^[24] but the wife.^[25]  In other words, this particular woman has not crept very deeply into this particular man’s mind, or heart as the case may be.  And, 4) he has decided (κέκρικεν, a form of κρίνω; judged) in his own mind (καρδίᾳ, a form of καρδία; literally, heart) to keep (τηρεῖν, a form of τηρέω) his own virgin.

It sounds as if the man has decided to keep the woman a virgin, but I think there is more to τηρεῖν (a form of τηρέω) than that.  He will keep her, provide for her maintenance and support, love her, care for her (perhaps live with her) in every way a man would keep a wife, except that he will not have sexual relations with her.  And how firm in his commitment will he remain, without painful distress, having control over his will?  That, I think, is more what Paul had in mind here, so that the one who dared such a thing did it with the power of God and, at very least, the acquiescence of his beloved, if not her full participation and support.

I have played a lot of weddings in my life, for the ceremony, not the party after.  I have heard the jokes by priests, pastors and preachers at the rehearsal, that “this isn’t the real thing.”  I was close enough to one of those pastors to actually get at what he meant.  He hated wedding rehearsals, not because it was another night away from his family without pay, but because he feared that the young couple would be so carried away by the rehearsal that they would have sex (with each other) twenty-four hours too soon.  I didn’t know what to make of that at the time.  Now I wish to say clearly that I think it is part of the religious mind.  It is exactly the same species of religious thought as the one who supposes that he is free of the sin of adultery because his serial sexual relationships were never blessed by a priest, pastor or rabbi.