Original Meaning
A general introduction (4:1–2)
IN 4:1 THE adverb loipon, routinely (and somewhat mechanically) translated as “finally,” functions as a transitional particle; “and now” (REB) catches its point nicely. The strong conjunction oun, “therefore” (omitted in NIV), closely links the two major portions of the letter (1:2–3:13; 4:1–5:22). For the significance of adelphoi (“brothers”), which includes the entire community and not just the male members, see comments on 1:4.
In verse 1 Paul does three things.2 (1) He reminds the Thessalonians of the instructions (to pos dei; perhaps “precepts” or “guidelines”) they had received3 from him during his time in Thessalonica (a point he repeats in 4:2, where their authoritative source is emphasized). (2) He affirms and commends them for following those instructions. (3) He exhorts (parakaleo; cf. 2:12; 3:2, 7; 4:10, 18; 5:11, 14; 2 Thess. 2:17; 3:12) them “to do this more and more” (cf. 1 Thess. 4:10). In other words, it appears that he is affirming that they have done well, while making it clear that there is much more to do. For both “how to live” (peripateo, lit., to walk) and “to please God,” see comments on 2:12.
Bridging Contexts
SIMILAR CONTEXTS. IN some respects, bringing this passage into our generation is relatively straightforward, for two reasons. (1) The sexual ethic Paul sets forth here has a theological rather than a cultural basis. That is, Paul offers in this passage what may be termed a “theological ethic.” As Beverly Roberts Gaventa observes, in contemporary discussions of ethics, behavior is often analyzed in terms of a psychological model (i.e., whether a certain behavior is psychologically “healthy” or “unhealthy”), or in terms of its social impact or consequences.10 Paul, however, works from a different starting point: He bases his ethical instructions on his understanding of God. This theological basis gives a high level of authority to his instructions, because, as he points out in 4:8, anyone who rejects them is not rejecting Paul, but God. It also means that his instructions are transcultural, since they are not rooted or grounded in any particular culture or historical circumstances.
In regard to Paul’s understanding of God, an important assumption underlying his discussion needs to be highlighted. “Paul assumes that our bodies—our persons—belong to the God of creation…. If we believe that God created us, then we remain obligated to do what pleases God. We do not belong to ourselves, and no amount of protest will make it so”—a perspective that stands in sharpest contrast to the “ethic of the autonomous self” so popular in contemporary culture.11 In other words, what Paul states explicitly in 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 (“you are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body”) is a working assumption behind his discussion here in 1 Thessalonians.
(2) The circumstances of the church in the first century and today are relatively similar. Many have noted, of course, the extensive parallels between the sexual license of first-century Mediterranean culture and contemporary Western cultures. But I have an additional parallel in mind: The church, now as then, faces the challenge of socializing or acculturating to a biblical sexual ethic people who bring with them, when they come into the church, no common standard or set of expectations regarding sexual behavior. Even those raised within the church cannot be assumed to be of one mind regarding sexual ethics and behavior, due in part to the church’s wavering and uncertain voice on the subject (when it speaks at all) and in part to the widespread but widely varying impact of contemporary culture on believers through movies, television, music, books, and the arts.
In view of these similar circumstances, Paul’s strategy for developing a common sexual ethic is worth noting. What Paul offers to people coming from widely differing backgrounds is an ethic based on the one thing he knows they all share, a relationship with the one true God. In other words, what they already have in common becomes the starting point for building towards a common understanding of sexual conduct in a Christian context.
Holiness. One potential difficulty in bridging contexts, however, involves a central concept in the passage, holiness. This has become something of a lost word in the vocabulary of the contemporary church. When it is used, it is often seen as a negative concept, usually “separation from” (when I ask, “From what?” my students often answer, “Anything that’s fun”). For this reason it is important to note that for Paul holiness is fundamentally a positive concept, rooted in the very character of God: “For I am the LORD your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44 NRSV). In other words, holiness for Paul is a matter of becoming more and more like the God who has chosen, called, and saved us. To be sure, modeling ourselves after his character may well involve separating ourselves from anything not pleasing to him or incongruent with his character, but to over- (or only) emphasize the idea of separation obscures the primary aspect of the term.
It is also important to observe that God made the statement about holiness in Leviticus 11 to a people with whom he had already established a personal relationship. This means that the call to holiness is a call to discipleship, not a requirement for salvation. Viewing holiness in this way helps us understand how Paul can view it as a future goal (hagiosyne, a state or condition of holiness, as in 3:13), a past gift (see comment on 5:23), and a journey (hagiasmos, a process leading to a state of holiness, as in 4:3) to which God calls us (4:7). This view of holiness also helps us understand how Paul can use the term as an overarching one-word summary of God’s will for his people (4:3). Finally, we should notice that God does not simply call us to holiness, he provides the power to make progress towards that goal in the person of the Holy Spirit (4:8).
Human sexuality and behavior. While Paul sees holiness as encompassing the full range of Christian behavior, in this passage he quickly focuses on a specific area of concern, sexual behavior. In approaching his discussion, it is important to note that Paul takes for granted the Bible’s fundamentally positive view of the essential goodness of human sexuality, both as created and when exercised in its intended context of heterosexual marriage.12 His concern is not to disparage sex, deny it, or pretend it doesn’t exist, but to see that it is exercised in a manner that builds up the community rather than tears it down.
With respect to sexual behavior, Paul gives two guidelines in this passage, one negative and one positive: negatively, “avoid sexual immorality” (4:3), and positively, “control your own body in holiness and honor” (4:4 NRSV). Because these guidelines are relatively abstract, it is necessary to unpack them and spell out more concretely what he means.
Porneia, “sexual immorality,” is (as noted above) a broad term that includes both adultery (sexual intercourse involving a married person and someone other than his or her spouse) and fornication (sexual intercourse involving individuals who are not married). In other words, Paul states here in a concise negative form what the Scriptures teach positively about sexual activity: The biblical context for sexual intercourse is heterosexual marriage. Holy living, with respect to sexuality, involves disciplined fidelity to one’s spouse for those who are married and disciplined abstinence for those who are not.
Whereas Paul’s words about avoiding sexual immorality deal with the context of sexual intercourse, his words about “holiness” and “honor” deal more broadly with the conduct of sexual behavior in general (including, but not limited to, intercourse). Sexual behavior is to be holy, that is, congruent with our relationship with God. Moreover, it is to be honorable, that is, respectful of the other person, as well as of any other people who might be affected by the relationship (e.g., one’s spouse and children, in the case of marriage, or potential future spouses, in the case of those who are unmarried, or the congregation of which one is a part).
In short, Paul is calling for behavior that is altruistic rather than selfish, other-centered rather than self-centered. He also reminds us that sexual behavior has both spiritual and social consequences. However much contemporary secular culture tries to insist that sex is a private matter between consenting adults and therefore of no concern to anyone else, private sexual behavior can (and often does) have social consequences.
Contemporary Significance
IN THIS SECTION we will apply the principles discussed in the previous section in terms of concrete personal behavior. While the following comments barely scratch the surface of the matter, they will indicate what a contemporary application of Paul’s teaching might involve.13
On a personal level. For those who are married, it means first of all faithfulness to one’s spouse. It also means treating each other with respect and love and rules out, as John R. W. Stott writes, “the selfish sexual demands which are sometimes made by one married partner on the other, in terms of aggression, violence, cruelty and even rape.” “There is,” as Stott observes, “a world of difference between lust and love, between dishonorable sexual practices which use the partner and true love-making which honours the partner, between the selfish desire to possess and the unselfish desire to love, cherish and respect.”14
For those who are not married, it means obedience to the spirit, not just the letter, of the biblical teaching about the proper context for sex. There are those who interpret the injunction against intercourse outside of marriage as implying permission for just about anything else (including, e.g., oral sex and manual stimulation to orgasm). This results in the odd circumstance of people who in a technical sense are virgins, yet who are in some respects more sexually experienced than some married couples. Such behavior hardly seems to square with Paul’s call for disciplined holiness. Moreover, to the extent that various sexual behaviors function or are viewed by a couple as preparation for intercourse (foreplay), they would be inappropriate in a relationship in which intercourse is inappropriate.
It also means taking into account what is best for the long-term well-being of one’s friend/date/partner, rather than what feels good or seems right at the moment. Feelings and memories stay long after the relationship that gave rise to them comes to an end. People engaged in a nonmarital sexual relationship (particularly if the relationship involves exploitation of any form) accumulate emotional and physical “baggage,” which is often carried forward into subsequent relationships (marriage in particular). This amounts to a form of doing wrong (cf. 4:6) to a future spouse.15
For some people (married people in particular), following Paul’s guidelines may require lowering the level of (or even breaking off, if necessary) an intimate friendship with someone to whom one is improperly attracted. In a dating situation it means avoiding behavior or contact that arouses a level of sexual desire inappropriate for the level of the relationship. For anyone it means avoiding visual or verbal stimulation or input that arouses inappropriate or wrongly focused sexual desires.16
On the positive side, following Paul’s guidelines means thinking about one’s sexual life not as a separate segment of one’s life, but within the larger framework of one’s personal walk with God. It may mean developing healthy relationships that supply those personal psychological and social needs for which sexual involvement is sometimes a substitute. It may require a willingness to exercise short-term discipline for long-term gain.17
On a congregational level. So far we have been talking about what Paul’s teaching means on a personal level. But it also has implications for the congregation as a whole. To begin with, Paul’s starting point—holiness (or “sanctification,” NIV) as God’s will for all of life (4:3)—suggests that the church might do well to integrate its teaching on the subject of sexual ethics and conduct into a larger framework of discipleship in general. The principles of holiness and honor that Paul applies to the matter of sexual behavior are applicable to other areas of behavior or conduct (e.g., personal relationships, how we behave towards strangers, how we handle our money) as well.
Furthermore, when the church sets forth holiness and honor as its standard for sexual behavior, it must also make a serious attempt to facilitate and enable the challenging process of character formation necessary if people are to make progress in that direction. It is unfair and unrealistic to establish a standard without also providing the means and assistance to achieve it.
Similarly, in proclaiming abstinence as a genuine option (and, from a biblical perspective, the only option) for its singles, the church must not minimize the challenge or difficulty of living up to that ethic. It must also be willing to discuss the “why” of waiting (one of the strengths of the “True Love Waits” program utilized by some churches is that it offers a clear goal and reason for waiting). It also needs to acknowledge that sometimes people get involved in a sexual relationship in hopes of finding the acceptance, love, and friendship they feel is missing from their life, and then seek to provide an environment in which important relational needs can be met in more healthy ways.
The church must also reconsider some of the distinctions it makes between various categories of sexual misbehavior. For Paul, whether sexual immorality occurred in an opposite-sex or same-sex context was essentially insignificant (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9–10, “neither the sexually immoral … nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders … will inherit the kingdom of God”). That can hardly be said of most evangelical congregations today, and to the extent that we treat or categorize one form of sexual immorality differently from another, we fall short of the New Testament’s understanding of sexual ethics. Moreover, in fixating on one category of sexual immorality, such as homosexual activity,18 while more or less ignoring others, such as adultery, we run the risk of noticing the speck in someone else’s eye but not seeing the log in our own (Matt. 7:3–5; Luke 6:41–42).19
In the last few years, more than a few cultural observers have noticed that secular culture is, for various pragmatic reasons, seriously reconsidering the value of the kind of sexual ethic traditionally proclaimed by the church. It is both ironic and tragic that at such a moment many denominations or segments of the church have lost their ability and authority to speak clearly on sexual matters. The reasons (e.g., confusion, hypocrisy and scandal, cultural accommodation) are less important than the consequences: the loss of ability to speak not only prophetically but also pastorally to people seeking an alternative to the sexual confusion and emptiness of contemporary culture. Paul’s instructions to the Thessalonians offer a biblical antidote to our current confusion.
Original Meaning
Holiness (4:3–8)
PAUL VIEWS THE instructions he passed on to the Thessalonians (4:2) not merely as precepts to be followed but rather as nothing less than an expression of “God’s will” for them (4:3), which can be summarized in a single word: hagiasmos, “sanctification” or “holiness.” Whereas in 3:13 hagiosyne indicated a state or condition of holiness, here hagiasmos indicates a process leading to a state of holiness (i.e., conformity to God’s character); thus the NIV’s transformation of this noun into a verbal phrase (“should be sanctified”) accurately catches Paul’s nuance.4
While the term holiness itself is broad enough to encompass the full range of Christian behavior, Paul focuses on a single aspect of what it entails, namely, sexual morality. This topic would have been of particular significance for anyone recently converted from pagan culture, in view of the wide range of sexual mores and practices that existed in Greco-Roman society. Sexual fidelity was demanded of wives (in order to guarantee the parentage of legitimate offspring), and in some circles upheld as a virtue in husbands as well. At the same time, however, a wide range of pre-and extramarital activity was tolerated and occasionally even encouraged. Thus it could not be assumed that converts brought with them into the church any common understanding or expectation regarding sexual behavior. This was an area where socialization into the norms of the new community was definitely a necessity.
Against such a backdrop Paul counsels the Thessalonians to “avoid sexual immorality” (4:3b; cf. 1 Cor. 6:18), that is, porneia, a general term for nearly any type of sexual sin, including prostitution, adultery, or fornication. In 4:4 he spells out an important means of avoiding immorality: “each of you,” he advises, “should learn to control your own body” (NIVILE).
This last phrase presents a major interpretive problem: Does Paul mean that each of the Thessalonians should learn (1) “how to acquire a wife for himself” (NAB, NRSV margin), or (2) “to control your own body” (NIVILE; cf. NIV, NRSV, REB)? The phrase in question is, apparently, an idiomatic euphemism whose interpretation is made difficult by the circumstance that the meaning of both the verb (ktaomai, frequently “acquire,” but also “possess” or “control”) and its object (skeuos, “vessel,” “tool,” “body,” “wife”) is a matter of debate.5
The considerations offered in support of (1), “acquire a wife,” are either ambiguous (the alleged similarity in form between 4:4 and 1 Cor. 7:2 amounts in Greek to only two words, and in 1 Peter 3:7 both husbands and wives are “vessels”) or of uncertain relevance (late rabbinic usage, which might illustrate but cannot establish Pauline usage). Moreover, had Paul meant “wife,” 1 Corinthians 7:2 (cf. 7:27) demonstrates that he could have said so clearly.
Option (2) fits well with the use of skeuos elsewhere in Paul (cf. 2 Cor. 4:7, where he refers to the human body as an earthen skeuos; cf. Rom. 9:21–23), in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Sam. 21:5; in the LXX, skeuos is specifically a euphemism for the genitals, a usage also attested in secular Greek with respect to both sexes), and in early Christian writings (Barnabas 21:8). In addition, it correlates closely with what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6–7. Finally, it better accords with both the immediate context (the verses before and after are aimed at the entire community, which makes it unlikely that Paul would abruptly interject a command aimed at only a small subset within it, namely, men eligible for marriage) and the cultural environment (many marriages were arranged). In sum, the translation “to control your own body” accurately communicates Paul’s meaning.
The self-control Paul commends is to be exercised “in a way that is holy and honorable” (4:4b), two terms that stand as the antithesis of the “passionate lust” and ignorance mentioned in 4:5. The very definition of “holiness” (conformity to God’s character) implies a knowledge of God, and thus it stands as the antithesis of ignorance of God in 4:5b. Similarly “honor,” a matter both of respect for the opinion and concern for the well-being of others, is primarily other-centered (cf. Rom. 12:10, “honor one another above yourselves”), and thus stands in contrast to “covetous passion” (1 Thess. 4:5a; NIV “passionate lust”), which involves a self-centered concern for one’s own needs or drives.
For Paul, sexual activity is not just an inconsequential private activity involving one or more consenting adults; on the contrary, it has an impact on both one’s relationship with God (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12–20) and with other people (cf. 1 Thess. 4:6); therefore, it ought to be exercised in a way that is respectful of both. In short, sexual behavior ought to be altruistic (a matter of giving to) rather than self-serving (a matter of taking from).
Some commentators think that Paul starts a new topic in 4:6, that of business dealings among believers.6 But it seems more likely that he is developing an idea implicit in his use of “honorable” in 4:4. Whereas moral sexual relationships seek the honor of others, dishonorable sexual activity amounts to a “sinning against” (NIV “wrong”) or “exploitation” (NIV “take advantage of”) of one’s Christian brother or sister (e.g., an adulterous spouse robs his or her marriage partner of the trust, security, and intimacy the couple shared before the adultery took place). Paul’s concern here is probably pragmatic as well as moral: Sexual misconduct involves both a breakdown of the ethical standards that distinguish the Christian community from outsiders and a significant threat to the sense of kinship and unity within the community.
In 4:6b–8, the seriousness with which Paul approaches this matter of sexual behavior is evident. Verse 6b ends the long sentence started in 4:3 by indicating why believers should not wrong or exploit one another: The Lord (i.e., Jesus) “is an avenger in all these things” (NRSV; cf. Ps. 94:1; Rom. 12:19; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:5–10); that is, sooner or later such sinners will be brought to judgment.7 Verse 7 gives an additional reason why believers should behave in a morally responsible manner: God’s “call,” upon which their standing as believers is based (1:4; cf. 2:12; 5:24), is essentially a call to “holiness” (cf. 4:3; also Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:2: “called to be holy”)—that is, a call to become like God. In short, these ethical standards are rooted in God’s own character (his holiness). This means, therefore (4:8), that whoever “rejects this instruction” is in fact rejecting no mere human precept or standard, but God himself.
God does not merely define by his character the standard according to which his followers are to live; he provides as well the power by which one can live. He is the one who gives to believers8 “his Holy [this word is emphasized by the word order] Spirit.” The present tense “almost certainly stresses the ongoing work of the Spirit in their lives,” especially with respect to the struggle against sin:
For Paul the presence of the Spirit was not simply God’s gift as an option against sin; nor would he have understood the Spirit as present but ineffectively so. To the contrary, the dynamic that makes Paul’s argument against sexual impurity possible is the experienced reality of the Spirit.9
Bridging Contexts
SIMILAR CONTEXTS. IN some respects, bringing this passage into our generation is relatively straightforward, for two reasons. (1) The sexual ethic Paul sets forth here has a theological rather than a cultural basis. That is, Paul offers in this passage what may be termed a “theological ethic.” As Beverly Roberts Gaventa observes, in contemporary discussions of ethics, behavior is often analyzed in terms of a psychological model (i.e., whether a certain behavior is psychologically “healthy” or “unhealthy”), or in terms of its social impact or consequences.10 Paul, however, works from a different starting point: He bases his ethical instructions on his understanding of God. This theological basis gives a high level of authority to his instructions, because, as he points out in 4:8, anyone who rejects them is not rejecting Paul, but God. It also means that his instructions are transcultural, since they are not rooted or grounded in any particular culture or historical circumstances.
In regard to Paul’s understanding of God, an important assumption underlying his discussion needs to be highlighted. “Paul assumes that our bodies—our persons—belong to the God of creation…. If we believe that God created us, then we remain obligated to do what pleases God. We do not belong to ourselves, and no amount of protest will make it so”—a perspective that stands in sharpest contrast to the “ethic of the autonomous self” so popular in contemporary culture.11 In other words, what Paul states explicitly in 1 Corinthians 6:19–20 (“you are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body”) is a working assumption behind his discussion here in 1 Thessalonians.
(2) The circumstances of the church in the first century and today are relatively similar. Many have noted, of course, the extensive parallels between the sexual license of first-century Mediterranean culture and contemporary Western cultures. But I have an additional parallel in mind: The church, now as then, faces the challenge of socializing or acculturating to a biblical sexual ethic people who bring with them, when they come into the church, no common standard or set of expectations regarding sexual behavior. Even those raised within the church cannot be assumed to be of one mind regarding sexual ethics and behavior, due in part to the church’s wavering and uncertain voice on the subject (when it speaks at all) and in part to the widespread but widely varying impact of contemporary culture on believers through movies, television, music, books, and the arts.
In view of these similar circumstances, Paul’s strategy for developing a common sexual ethic is worth noting. What Paul offers to people coming from widely differing backgrounds is an ethic based on the one thing he knows they all share, a relationship with the one true God. In other words, what they already have in common becomes the starting point for building towards a common understanding of sexual conduct in a Christian context.
Holiness. One potential difficulty in bridging contexts, however, involves a central concept in the passage, holiness. This has become something of a lost word in the vocabulary of the contemporary church. When it is used, it is often seen as a negative concept, usually “separation from” (when I ask, “From what?” my students often answer, “Anything that’s fun”). For this reason it is important to note that for Paul holiness is fundamentally a positive concept, rooted in the very character of God: “For I am the LORD your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44 NRSV). In other words, holiness for Paul is a matter of becoming more and more like the God who has chosen, called, and saved us. To be sure, modeling ourselves after his character may well involve separating ourselves from anything not pleasing to him or incongruent with his character, but to over- (or only) emphasize the idea of separation obscures the primary aspect of the term.
It is also important to observe that God made the statement about holiness in Leviticus 11 to a people with whom he had already established a personal relationship. This means that the call to holiness is a call to discipleship, not a requirement for salvation. Viewing holiness in this way helps us understand how Paul can view it as a future goal (hagiosyne, a state or condition of holiness, as in 3:13), a past gift (see comment on 5:23), and a journey (hagiasmos, a process leading to a state of holiness, as in 4:3) to which God calls us (4:7). This view of holiness also helps us understand how Paul can use the term as an overarching one-word summary of God’s will for his people (4:3). Finally, we should notice that God does not simply call us to holiness, he provides the power to make progress towards that goal in the person of the Holy Spirit (4:8).
Human sexuality and behavior. While Paul sees holiness as encompassing the full range of Christian behavior, in this passage he quickly focuses on a specific area of concern, sexual behavior. In approaching his discussion, it is important to note that Paul takes for granted the Bible’s fundamentally positive view of the essential goodness of human sexuality, both as created and when exercised in its intended context of heterosexual marriage.12 His concern is not to disparage sex, deny it, or pretend it doesn’t exist, but to see that it is exercised in a manner that builds up the community rather than tears it down.
With respect to sexual behavior, Paul gives two guidelines in this passage, one negative and one positive: negatively, “avoid sexual immorality” (4:3), and positively, “control your own body in holiness and honor” (4:4 NRSV). Because these guidelines are relatively abstract, it is necessary to unpack them and spell out more concretely what he means.
Porneia, “sexual immorality,” is (as noted above) a broad term that includes both adultery (sexual intercourse involving a married person and someone other than his or her spouse) and fornication (sexual intercourse involving individuals who are not married). In other words, Paul states here in a concise negative form what the Scriptures teach positively about sexual activity: The biblical context for sexual intercourse is heterosexual marriage. Holy living, with respect to sexuality, involves disciplined fidelity to one’s spouse for those who are married and disciplined abstinence for those who are not.
Whereas Paul’s words about avoiding sexual immorality deal with the context of sexual intercourse, his words about “holiness” and “honor” deal more broadly with the conduct of sexual behavior in general (including, but not limited to, intercourse). Sexual behavior is to be holy, that is, congruent with our relationship with God. Moreover, it is to be honorable, that is, respectful of the other person, as well as of any other people who might be affected by the relationship (e.g., one’s spouse and children, in the case of marriage, or potential future spouses, in the case of those who are unmarried, or the congregation of which one is a part).
In short, Paul is calling for behavior that is altruistic rather than selfish, other-centered rather than self-centered. He also reminds us that sexual behavior has both spiritual and social consequences. However much contemporary secular culture tries to insist that sex is a private matter between consenting adults and therefore of no concern to anyone else, private sexual behavior can (and often does) have social consequences.
Contemporary Significance
IN THIS SECTION we will apply the principles discussed in the previous section in terms of concrete personal behavior. While the following comments barely scratch the surface of the matter, they will indicate what a contemporary application of Paul’s teaching might involve.13
On a personal level. For those who are married, it means first of all faithfulness to one’s spouse. It also means treating each other with respect and love and rules out, as John R. W. Stott writes, “the selfish sexual demands which are sometimes made by one married partner on the other, in terms of aggression, violence, cruelty and even rape.” “There is,” as Stott observes, “a world of difference between lust and love, between dishonorable sexual practices which use the partner and true love-making which honours the partner, between the selfish desire to possess and the unselfish desire to love, cherish and respect.”14
For those who are not married, it means obedience to the spirit, not just the letter, of the biblical teaching about the proper context for sex. There are those who interpret the injunction against intercourse outside of marriage as implying permission for just about anything else (including, e.g., oral sex and manual stimulation to orgasm). This results in the odd circumstance of people who in a technical sense are virgins, yet who are in some respects more sexually experienced than some married couples. Such behavior hardly seems to square with Paul’s call for disciplined holiness. Moreover, to the extent that various sexual behaviors function or are viewed by a couple as preparation for intercourse (foreplay), they would be inappropriate in a relationship in which intercourse is inappropriate.
It also means taking into account what is best for the long-term well-being of one’s friend/date/partner, rather than what feels good or seems right at the moment. Feelings and memories stay long after the relationship that gave rise to them comes to an end. People engaged in a nonmarital sexual relationship (particularly if the relationship involves exploitation of any form) accumulate emotional and physical “baggage,” which is often carried forward into subsequent relationships (marriage in particular). This amounts to a form of doing wrong (cf. 4:6) to a future spouse.15
For some people (married people in particular), following Paul’s guidelines may require lowering the level of (or even breaking off, if necessary) an intimate friendship with someone to whom one is improperly attracted. In a dating situation it means avoiding behavior or contact that arouses a level of sexual desire inappropriate for the level of the relationship. For anyone it means avoiding visual or verbal stimulation or input that arouses inappropriate or wrongly focused sexual desires.16
On the positive side, following Paul’s guidelines means thinking about one’s sexual life not as a separate segment of one’s life, but within the larger framework of one’s personal walk with God. It may mean developing healthy relationships that supply those personal psychological and social needs for which sexual involvement is sometimes a substitute. It may require a willingness to exercise short-term discipline for long-term gain.17
On a congregational level. So far we have been talking about what Paul’s teaching means on a personal level. But it also has implications for the congregation as a whole. To begin with, Paul’s starting point—holiness (or “sanctification,” NIV) as God’s will for all of life (4:3)—suggests that the church might do well to integrate its teaching on the subject of sexual ethics and conduct into a larger framework of discipleship in general. The principles of holiness and honor that Paul applies to the matter of sexual behavior are applicable to other areas of behavior or conduct (e.g., personal relationships, how we behave towards strangers, how we handle our money) as well.
Furthermore, when the church sets forth holiness and honor as its standard for sexual behavior, it must also make a serious attempt to facilitate and enable the challenging process of character formation necessary if people are to make progress in that direction. It is unfair and unrealistic to establish a standard without also providing the means and assistance to achieve it.
Similarly, in proclaiming abstinence as a genuine option (and, from a biblical perspective, the only option) for its singles, the church must not minimize the challenge or difficulty of living up to that ethic. It must also be willing to discuss the “why” of waiting (one of the strengths of the “True Love Waits” program utilized by some churches is that it offers a clear goal and reason for waiting). It also needs to acknowledge that sometimes people get involved in a sexual relationship in hopes of finding the acceptance, love, and friendship they feel is missing from their life, and then seek to provide an environment in which important relational needs can be met in more healthy ways.
The church must also reconsider some of the distinctions it makes between various categories of sexual misbehavior. For Paul, whether sexual immorality occurred in an opposite-sex or same-sex context was essentially insignificant (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9–10, “neither the sexually immoral … nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders … will inherit the kingdom of God”). That can hardly be said of most evangelical congregations today, and to the extent that we treat or categorize one form of sexual immorality differently from another, we fall short of the New Testament’s understanding of sexual ethics. Moreover, in fixating on one category of sexual immorality, such as homosexual activity,18 while more or less ignoring others, such as adultery, we run the risk of noticing the speck in someone else’s eye but not seeing the log in our own (Matt. 7:3–5; Luke 6:41–42).19
In the last few years, more than a few cultural observers have noticed that secular culture is, for various pragmatic reasons, seriously reconsidering the value of the kind of sexual ethic traditionally proclaimed by the church. It is both ironic and tragic that at such a moment many denominations or segments of the church have lost their ability and authority to speak clearly on sexual matters. The reasons (e.g., confusion, hypocrisy and scandal, cultural accommodation) are less important than the consequences: the loss of ability to speak not only prophetically but also pastorally to people seeking an alternative to the sexual confusion and emptiness of contemporary culture. Paul’s instructions to the Thessalonians offer a biblical antidote to our current confusion.