Skip to main content

1 Corinthians 6:12-20

You can read the text here.

Paul continues to address issues related to sexual immorality in the church debunking some false conceptions that they seem to have that Paul expresses in a series of quotations in the first couple of verses. Now the starting and stopping point of the quotations is tricky to determine and I will go with Thiselton and Ciampa and Rosner and re-punctuate the NRSV as follows:

12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 

Apparently the Corinthians believed that a) the body was transitory and b) their freedom from the Law meant they had no moral obligations in terms of bodily behaviors which extended as far as sexual behavior. In fact, the stomach is for food! Why bother having the parts if you're not using them! Paul responds, admonishing them that he only serves one master, the Lord, not his appetites. For the Lord is Lord of his body, not sex, and that body will be raised one day, it's not transient, so what one does in the body matters!

Paul ups the ante, reminding them that they are all corporately part of Christ's body, so what they do with their own "members" affects the body as a whole. Sexual union for a Christian brings the one we have sex with into union with Christ's body.[1] Sex with a prostitute violates Christ, the person's body, and the Spirit.[2] A very serious issue indeed, more serious than one might expect.

As has become clear, Paul is deeply concerned with seeing the Corinthians reform their sex lives. Sex is not just about the physical, because our bodies house the Holy Spirit individually and corporately, so there is a corporate responsibility to holiness that sex with the wrong person defiles in a unique sense because of the deep unions that are formed. And it doesn't just defile the person, it defiles the temple and hence, implicitly the whole church. We don't have the right to live to gratify or 'use' our flesh how we want to. Jesus paid a high price for us, so now we belong to him, he is our master, so we must live in a way that honors him as Lord of our bodies.


--------------------------------------------
[1] While I do believe Paul had in mind prostitutes in the temples (not necessarily sacred prostitutes, just prostitutes who worked in the temples), his argument seems to suggest a grounding that has broader applicability and seem to argue against sex with people who are not Christians generally, though Paul does seem to be going for a bit of a jolt here so I would remain tentative. See both Thiselton and Ciampa and Rosner for more details on Paul's precise target.

[2] Ciampa and Rosner suggest that the degredation of our union with the Spirit surpasses the violation of the one flesh union of marriage in seriousness.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat...

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc...

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5...