|
|
Fairview Baptist Church
|
|
Sunday School Archives |
Bailey Sadler Class
SUNDAY SCHOOL LESSON STUDY GUIDE - 2010
|
Study Theme: CHURCH
GONE WRONG |
What This Lesson Is About: |
||||
|
Week
of: |
Lesson
Title: |
God’s
standards—not prevailing cultural standards—form the basis for the
Christian’s morality. The church must uphold God’s standards of
morality. |
|||
|
|
Mar. 7 |
When Members Won’t Get Along |
|||
|
X |
Mar.
14 |
When Immorality Comes to Church |
|||
|
|
Mar. 21 |
When
Members Insist on Their Way |
|||
|
|
Mar. 28 |
When Worship Dishonors God |
|||
|
|
Apr. 4 |
When Easter Becomes Just Another Holiday |
|||
|
|
|||||
|
BACKGROUND PASSAGE: |
1 Corinthians 5:1-13;
6:12–7:40 |
||||
|
FOCAL PASSAGE: |
1 Corinthians 5:1-2,9-13;
6:15-20 |
||||
|
LIFE
IMPACT: |
This
lesson will help you to examine ways you are influenced by cultural views
of sexual morality and to identify ways to protect your moral integrity
and the reputation of your church. |
||||
|
LESSON
OUTLINE: |
I.
Does Sin Still Shock Us? (1
Cor. 5:1-2) II.
How Should We Respond to Immoral Members? (1 Cor. 5:9-13) III.
What’s Wrong with Sexual
Immorality? (1 Cor. 6:15-20) |
||||
|
OVERVIEW
OF FOCAL PASSAGE:
|
|||||
|
Concerning
Immorality 5:1-13 The
apostle had heard reports of sexual immorality among them (5:1).
He reminded the church that incest was considered a reprobate act even by
pagans. The Corinthians, however, had apparently done nothing to deal with
the detestable evil. Worse than that they were proud of this situation (5:2).
Paul urged them to discipline the man involved by handing him “over to
Satan so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on
the day of the Lord” (5:5).
This abandonment to Satan was to be accomplished not by some magical
incantation but by expelling the man from the church (see 5:2,7,11,13).
To expel him meant to turn him over to the devil’s territory, severed
from any connection with God’s people. Paul
ordered the church not ever to eat with such a man. This means that
intimate association with an immoral person, especially together at the
Lord’s table, would cause the unbelieving world to think that the church
approves such ungodly living. The church must exercise spiritual
discipline over the members of the church (see Matt 18:15-18). The
Spirit’s Temple 6:1-20 Paul
then chastised them for their factious spirit. Their active part in
lawsuits before heathen judges evidenced their carnality (6:1-8). Sexual
relations outside the marriage bond are a perversion of the divinely
established marriage union. Believers have been bought by Christ. The body
is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Christians must glorify God in their
bodies (6:9-20). SOURCE: Holman Bible Handbook; General Editor David S. Dockery; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville,
Tennessee |
|||||
|
INTRODUCTION: |
|||||
|
Immorality can not only disrupt the fellowship of a congregation, but
it can cause an irreparable split as members take sides or look the other
way. Many times the failure of
the church leadership to deal with the problem leads to disharmony within
the membership. This
lesson’s focus is on Paul’s experience in facing just such a daunting
challenge within the church at Corinth.
A man in the fellowship of the church was living with his
father’s wife and apparently the church had looked the other way and
allowed the sin to continue without opposition.
Paul wrote to confront the situation by giving reasons why they
should avoid sexual immorality and yield to God’s standards of holiness.
He could have turned the other way or ignored the situation
altogether because he was not even in the city at the time, but he chose
to confront the problem because it was public knowledge within the church.
Paul provides us an example for dealing with immorality within a
congregation should it happen to us. He
also gives us examples of how to deal with the temptation of sexual
immorality. |
|||||
|
I. |
Does Sin Still Shock Us? (1 Cor. 5:1-2) |
||||
|
1 It is widely reported
that there is sexual immorality among you, and the kind of sexual
immorality that is not even condoned among the Gentiles—a man is living
with his father’s wife. 2 And you are inflated with pride,
instead of filled with grief so that he who has committed this act might
be removed from among you. |
|||||
1.
What sin shocked Paul (v. 1)?
2.
How did he find out about it (v. 1a)?
3.
How did non-Christians feel about it (v. 1b)?
4.
Why was Paul shocked at the church’s attitude
toward this situation (v. 2)?
5.
What attitude had the Corinthian believers adopted
toward the man in their fellowship who lived an immoral life (v. 2a)?
6.
What does it mean to be “inflated with pride” (v. 2)?
7.
How did the church respond to the member who was
engaged in immoral behavior with his stepmother?
8.
What does that tell us about the attitude of the
Corinthian Christians toward the sin in their church?
9.
Which was more shocking to Paul—the sexual
immorality of the man and woman or the indifference of the church? Why?
10.
Why might sexual sin have
lost its shock value for the Corinthian Christians?
11.
Does their seeming lack of care shock you? Why or why not?
12.
How would you compare Corinth to our society today?
13.
Does living in an immoral
society justify casual acceptance of immorality? Why or why not?
14.
Why are churches sometimes afraid to confront open sin today?
15.
How can a person confront open sin without being viewed as hypocritical?
16.
How do confrontation and redemption go hand in hand when confronting open
immorality?
17.
How might we become desensitized to sexual
sin?
18.
What kinds of messages are your children or grandchildren getting about
sexual relationships at school? On TV? On the Internet? Why should Christians be
concerned about what other people’s kids are learning about sexual
relationships?
19.
What habits or practices work to desensitize us to immoral behavior?
20.
What are some ways we can keep ourselves from becoming desensitized?
21.
How can we regain our capacity to be shocked?
What will we face in this world if we once again allow sin to shock us?
22.
How is it possible to still be shocked by sin
without coming across as an old fuddy-duddy or judgmental?
|
II. |
How Should We Respond to Immoral Members? (1 Cor.
5:9-13) |
|
9
I wrote to you in a letter not to associate with sexually immoral
people— 10 by no means referring to this world’s immoral
people, or to the greedy and swindlers, or to idolaters; otherwise you
would have to leave the world. 11 But now I am writing you not
to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually
immoral or greedy, an idolater or a reviler, a drunkard or a swindler. Do
not even eat with such a person. 12 For what is it to me to
judge outsiders? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But
God judges outsiders. Put away the evil person from among yourselves. |
|
1.
How
does the message of 1 Corinthians 5:3-8 set the context for verses 9-13?
2.
What
do you think Paul meant in verse 9?
3.
What
does verse 10 add to what Paul said in verse 9?
4.
How
does verse 11 pinpoint what Paul meant in verse 9?
5.
How
would you explain the meaning of Paul’s statement in verse 12?
6.
How
does Paul conclude what he said in verses 9-12 in verse 13?
How would you explain what he meant?
7.
What
did he tell the Corinthian believers to do about sinners outside the church?
Why?
8.
Do
you associate with sinful people outside of the church? Why or why not?
9.
What
does this passage teach about church discipline?
10.
When,
if ever, should a church remove a person from involvement in the fellowship?
11.
How
would excluding the incestuous man help him?
12.
How
could it help the church?
13.
What
other kinds of sinners did Paul tell Christians to beware (v. 11)?
14.
How
would you contrast Paul’s response to the immoral man with the response of the
church members? Do you think from Paul’s
words here that he was overreacting? Why,
or why not?
15.
Why
shouldn’t we just, for the sake of unity, tolerate every behavior?
16.
Who
are you most like when it comes to the flagrant sins of others: Paul or the
Corinthian church members? Explain.
17.
What
are some reasons that believers might ignore or tolerate sexual immorality in
the church?
18.
How
can you be wise and loving, and stand for biblical truth without being
judgmental in your church? In your family? With your friends?
19.
How
would you react if you learned that a church member was involved in a sexually
immoral relationship? How should you react?
20.
Is silence ever a good option in dealing with
immorality in the church? Why? What’s the desired end result of disciplining
church members? What does it take to follow Paul’s command?
21.
Upon hearing this letter read in the Corinthian
church, how would you have felt if you were the one he said should be put away?
22.
If you were one who had to do the putting away? What
must we do regardless of how we feel?
23.
What’s the difference between members who
flagrantly live immorally and those who struggle with immorality? Should the
church’s response to those members be different?
Why, or why not?
24.
Why are we more willing to tolerate rather than
discipline immoral church members? Why must we discipline? How can church
discipline be redemptive and loving?
25.
What can we do to influence our society rather than
allowing our society to influence us?
|
II. |
What’s Wrong with Sexual Immorality? (1 Cor.
6:15-20) |
|
15
Do you not know that your bodies are the members of Christ? So should I
take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute?
Absolutely not! 16 Do you not know that anyone joined to a
prostitute is one body with her? For it says, The two will become one
flesh. 17 But anyone joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
18 Flee from sexual immorality! “Every sin a person
can commit is outside the body,” but the person who is sexually immoral
sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is
a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God? You
are not your own, 20 for you were bought at a price; therefore
glorify God in your body. |
|
1.
What
is the message of 1 Corinthians 6:9-14?
2.
How
does Paul define “body” in verse 15?
3.
What
rhetorical question does Paul ask in verse 15?
How does Paul answer his own question?
4.
How
does Paul describe what’s wrong with prostitution in verse 16?
5.
What
is the message Paul has for us in verse 17?
6.
What
are verses 16 and 17 the same? How
do they differ?
7.
What
instructions does Paul give us regarding sexual immorality in verse 18?
8.
How
strong do you think Paul’s warning” is
in verse 18? Explain!
9.
To
what other sexual sins do these words apply?
10.
In
practical terms, what does this mean today in regards to movies and TV? The
Internet? Relationships?
11.
Based
on verse 18 what is the difference sins of sexual immorality and all other sins?
12.
As
a believer, why do we not have the right to do what we want with our own bodies?
13.
Why
do you think Paul is so adamant about fleeing sins of sexual immorality (vv.
19-20)?
14.
What
are the implications of the fact that believers’ bodies are a sanctuary
of the Holy Spirit?
15.
How
does knowing that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit change the way you
live?
16.
Do
you think it is important to teach the reasons to refrain from sexual immorality
rather than to merely give a prohibition against it?
Why, or why not?
17.
How
should we seek to avoid sexual sins?
18.
Who
does sexual immorality hurt? In what
ways can sexual immorality damage the church and its members?
19.
How
can we help our grandchildren and youth in the church better understand why
biblical guidelines for sexual purity are not just rules to keep them from
having fun?
20.
How
would you feel if you discovered someone had desecrated your worship center with
graffiti and filth?
21.
How do Christians commit an even worse desecration
when they engage in sexual immorality?
22.
Is viewing pornography OK since it’s not really
engaging in the sexual act? Why, or why not?
23.
How is immorality more than a physical act?
24.
What
are some specific ways believers can flee sexual immorality?
|
CONCLUSION:
|
|
Sexual immorality in our day has become much like the
sexual sins in first-century Corinth.
We have experienced a sex revolution that has replaced the biblical
rules of God’s Word. There
always have been some people who drew outside the lines, but they and
everyone else knew where the lines were.
Today’s atmosphere of sexual freedom is contrary to biblical
teachings. Many people would
draw the line against incest, but they practice or condone other forms of
sexual sins. They argue that
sex is only another physical drive to be satisfied, but it is a moral
issue because it involves the total person in actions that have eternal
consequences. Why?
Because the Holy Spirit dwells in each believer and in the church.
Therefore, the churches
should never tolerate or condone sexual immorality, nor should they ignore
sexual immorality by professing believers in their congregations. Churches
should confront sexually immoral church members and refuse to associate
with them if they refuse to repent. All
believers should seek to treat their bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit
and use them to bring glory to God. Why?
Because all believers belong to God by creation and by redemption.
Therefore, our challenge is to glorify God with our bodies.
So
the question is: Do you bring
glory to God though the members of your body?
On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how sacred is your body as a
temple for God’s Holy Spirit? If
your rating is not what it should be, ask God to help you to make your
temple a more sacred place for His Spirit to live!
What
are the implications of these truths for your life?
THE CHOICE IS YOURS, ISN’T IT! REMEMBER, the safest place for a believer is in the
center of God’s will. |
Lesson Outline, Introduction, Discussion Questions,
and Conclusion adapted from the following sources:
SOURCE: Bible Studies
For Life: Life Ventures Leaders Guide; LifeWay
Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234
SOURCE:
The Herschel Hobbs Commentary;
Family Bible Study; by Robert J.
Dean; LifeWay Christian
Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; 1 LifeWay Plaza, Nashville,
TN.
SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian
Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; One LifeWay Plaza,
Nashville, TN.
COMMENTARY:
(NOTE:
Commentary for the focal verses comes from two sources: “The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament” and “The College Press NIV Commentary: 1 Corinthians” and is provided for your study.)
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament
Paul’s Answer to Further Reported Problems in the
Church (5:1-6:20)
Paul’s Condemnation of Sexual
Immorality—Incest (5:1-13)
The sin of sexual immorality and the church’s
indifference to it is the second major evil in the Corinthian congregation that
Paul mentions. Corinth was noted for its loose and licentious living (cf.
introduction, p. 180), a situation duplicated in the prevailing lack of moral
standards in these latter years of the twentieth century.
In this chapter Paul condemns the
sin of incest, which he calls porneia (“sexual immorality”). He
rebukes the church for its arrogance in the matter and its failure to
excommunicate the violator—something Paul insists on (vv. 1-5). The purity he describes is symbolized in the removal
of leaven in the celebration of the OT Passover, which is fulfilled in Christ,
“our Passover lamb” (vv. 6-8).
Later (vv. 9-13) he gives
instruction that the church should guard its own membership against sexually
immoral persons, but that it should not try to Christianize unbelievers by
forcing biblical standards on them.
5:1 “Fornication,” used in KJV for porneia, does not
communicate today. Porneia conveys
the idea of extramarital sexual relations of any kind, so the NIV translation,
“sexual immorality,” is accurate. The word holos, translated
“commonly” in KJV, is better rendered “actually.” This may mean,
“generally speaking it is reported,” or “it is really reported”; the
present tense of the verb akouetai helps convey the idea that the
report is continually spreading. The use of gunaika, literally
“woman,” graphically shows that it was the man’s stepmother he had
married. The NT expression “to have a woman” means to marry her (cf. Matt
14:4; 22:28 [Greek]; 1Cor 7:2, 29). The sin of incest, Paul says,
is not even practiced among the non-Christians. Cicero (pro Cluent 5, 6)
states it was an incredible crime and practically unheard of. Such a marriage
was strictly forbidden according to Leviticus 18:8 and Deuteronomy
22:30 and carried with it a curse (Deut 27:20). Rabbinic law in the main
seems to have allowed such a marriage when a proselyte married his stepmother,
since his becoming a proselyte broke all bonds of relationship. (See
Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N.T. aus Talmud und Midrasch
[Munich: Beck, 1922-1961], 3:343-358.) It is possible that some in the
Corinthian church who may have come from the synagogue there could have known of
this allowance. Part of an inscription indicating the presence of such a
synagogue has been found. (See J. Finegan, Light From the Ancient Past
[Princeton, NJ., Princeton University Press, 1959], pp. 361, 362; see also page
177 above in this commentary.) Though as a Pharisee (cf. Philippians 3:5),
Paul knew the system of Jewish law with its varying interpretations, he applies
the OT law and the teaching on marriage quite strictly.
2, 3 Paul again alludes to the pride
of the Corinthians. This time it was a pride that, rather than cause them to
mourn over the shocking sin, allowed them to tolerate such a sinner in the
congregation. Paul presses his judgment of the case by saying that he is with
them in spirit and has already passed judgment on the offending person.
4, 5 Though the local congregation
itself is to gather and discipline the offender, Paul reminds them of his
apostolic authority over them by saying, “I am with you in spirit.” However,
he does not overassert his authority, because he recognizes that the decision is
to be made “in the name of our Lord Jesus” (i.e., by the authority of the
Lord Jesus; because of his person, his name carries authority—see also Acts
4:12) and that it is to be done with “the power of our Lord Jesus.” These
two expressions amplify each other: church discipline is to be exercised
carefully on the authority of Jesus’ name and the verdict given is accompanied
by the spiritual power of the Lord Jesus. By saying, “Hand this man over to
Satan, so that his sinful nature [or body] may be destroyed,” Paul means to
include the man’s excommunication (at least by implication; cf. v. 2) and his suffering physically in some way, even as far as
death (cf. 1Tim 1:20). The word sarx (flesh, v. 5)
can mean the “sinful nature” (NIV), but since “flesh” in this verse is
in contrast to “spirit,” the reference seems to be to the body. That Satan
had power to afflict the body is evident from frequent NT references to the
effects of demon possession (cf. Matt 9:32, 33; Luke 9:39-42) and
to satanic activity in causing affliction or limitation (2Cor 12:7; 1 Thess
2:18). This bodily punishment by Satan, Paul hoped, would have the effect of
causing the man to repent so that his spirit (his person) might be saved in the
day of the Lord—i.e., at the second coming of Christ. Though Paul teaches
church excommunication here and a deliverance to Satan for physical punishment
with a view to repentance, he does not say that the man should divorce his
stepmother. This would be in accord with the scriptural teaching that marriage
is an indissoluble bond (Gen 2:24). He does imply that the man should repent so
that his spirit would be saved. Some have held the interpretation that 2
Corinthians 2:6, 7 and 7:9-12 refer to this man and that he repented.
If true, such an interpretation implies that the man was to be allowed to come
back into fellowship in spite of his incestuous marriage.
5:6-8 Paul illustrates Christian
holiness and discipline by the OT teaching that no leaven was allowed in the
bread eaten at the Passover feast. “Leaven,” or “yeast,” in Scripture
generally conveys the idea of evil or sin (cf. Matt 16:6). That the church
should allow such sin as that in the Corinthian church to go undisciplined would
affect the attitude of the entire Christian community toward sin—“a little
yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” The church is to get rid of the
old yeast—“the sin that so easily entangles” (Heb 12:1). So the command is
to get rid of such sin individually and in the church, for the believing
community is an unleavened batch of dough, a new creation in Christ, who has
been sacrificed as our Passover lamb.
Christ, “our Passover lamb,” died at the time of the
Jewish Passover celebration. Actually he died on the next day following the
sacrifice of the Passover lambs. This Passover day, which began the evening
before when the lambs were sacrificed, is called rather generally the first day
of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Mark 14:12). This was the day of Preparation
of Passover Week John 19:14, NIV; cf. Matt 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke
23:54), the “day of Preparation” being understood in the early Christian
church to be Friday (cf. Martyrdom of Polycarp 7:1; it also
means this in modern Greek).
So Paul concludes in v. 8, “Let us keep the Festival”—that is, let us live the
Christian life in holy consecration to God (cf. Rom 12:2; 1Pet 2:5).
This means, he says, that we are to live not with the old yeast of malice and
wickedness, but on the basis of the unleavened principles of sincerity and
truth. Therefore, such sins as incestuous marriage and the like cannot be
tolerated or left undisciplined in the church.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament; Frank
E. Gaebelein; General
Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers
The College Press NIV Commentary: 1
Corinthians
Reports of Immorality (5:1-6:20)
Discipline for the Immoral
Brother (5:1-13)
The Corinthian’s Pride in
Tolerance
5:1 It is actually reported that
there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even
among pagans: A man has his father’s wife.
Paul begins here a two-chapter section that focuses on
sexual immorality among believers at Corinth. Paul’s information about these
several problems laid out in chapters 5-6 are based upon secondhand
information, perhaps from those of Chloe’s household. The term translated
immorality here is the Greek term πορνεία (porneia), a term whose
cognates are found several times in 5:1-6:20.
Part of the apostle’s strategy is to shame the readers
by stating (with obvious exaggeration) that such a sin is found nowhere among
pagans. Of course both Paul and the Corinthians knew that such immorality did
occur among pagans. In fact, had it not been taking place among pagans in
Corinth, it would not have been taking place in the church at Corinth.
Interpreters who do not fully appreciate Paul’s use of rhetoric have
interpreted the apostle here as “meaning not that no Gentile had ever
committed it [i.e., incest], but that the Gentiles themselves condemned it.”
Admittedly there were Roman authors who condemned incest (e.g., Cicero) but it
was both practiced and advocated from time to time in the pagan world. Indeed,
the Roman author Cornelius Nepos, who wrote at about the same time Corinth was
refounded as a Roman colony in the first century b.c., tells us Greeks and
Romans did not agree in their attitudes toward incest.
The final clause of 5:1 makes it clear that incest is the manifestation of immorality
that Paul has in mind. To have one’s father’s wife was strictly forbidden by
Mosaic legislation (Lev 18:8; Deut 22:30; 27:20), a fact which in
itself probably points to advocacy of this immorality by the pagan nations which
surrounded Israel. The details of this heinous relationship of immorality are
not spelled out by Paul, since the readership would surely have been familiar
with the details (e.g., was the father dead, or alive, or divorced?). It is
noteworthy that the apostle believed, in light of his reliance on Leviticus and
Deuteronomy here and in 5:13, that this body of scriptural legislation from
the Mosaic Law “still applied to Christians” in the church of God at
Corinth.
5:2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you
rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man
who did this?
Paul is almost as shocked by the Corinthians’
toleration of this immorality as he is by the immorality itself. Paul regards
this acceptance of this immorality as a direct challenge to his own authority.
The word translated “you are proud” in 5:2
(φυσιόω, physioō) is a term used elsewhere to
describe Corinthian arrogance and opposition to Paul (e.g., 4:6, 18).
Since Paul had already written the Corinthians to disassociate themselves from
immoral church members (1 Cor 5:9f), Paul sees this toleration of incest as a
defiance to the previous letters he had written them.
The reference to feelings of grief and lamentation in
response to sin and its fruit is well attested in Scripture. This is readily
apparent in Jeremiah’s petition in Jer 9:1-2:
Oh, that my head were a spring of water and my eyes a
fountain of tears! I would weep day and night for the slain of my people. Oh,
that I had in the desert a lodging place for travelers, so that I might leave my
people and go away from them; for they are all adulterers, a crowd of unfaithful
people.
Most religious communities, both ancient and modern, have
boundary markers which help define membership and reinforce acceptable behavior.
The same was true of the early Jesus movement as well as the later Pauline
mission. In large part due to modern pluralism, many have construed early
Christianity to be a highly inclusive movement. This, however, is revisionistic
and cannot be supported by a straightforward reading of the documents of the New
Testament. Although the grounds and context for community expulsion were not
always identical in Paul’s letters, it is clear that it was a recurring part
of his apostolic and pastoral strategy. Sometimes Paul rejected inclusivity and
was directed by the need to enforce boundaries. He did this in light of both
doctrinal aberration (Gal 4:28-31) and behavioral aberration (Rom 16:17-20). In
the case of incest, Paul’s policy of exclusion was triggered by moral
aberration (cf. 1 Cor 5:13).
5:3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I
have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.
Paul’s strategy for correcting the Corinthians had to
acknowledge the problems of enforcement caused by his absence (cf. 4:17-21).
This is not the only example where Paul affirms his apostolic presence and
authority in absentia (cf. Col 2:5). Paul’s statement regarding his prior
judgment could refer to:
1. the letter he has already sent (5:9) on this issue
2. his resolution to condemn this moral perversion
through Timothy (4:17), or
3. this present letter.
The apostle also wants to make it clear that the decision
about how to respond to this sin is not open to plea bargaining or the consensus
of the majority (cf. 2 Cor 2:6). For Paul, it is a settled matter.
5:4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you
in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present,
Even though most of the contemporary discussion about
Christian assemblies in the latter part of the 20th century has focused on
worship experiences, Paul knew that one of the purposes of Christian assemblies
was to reinforce Christian boundary markers for the community. Judgment and
grieving were appropriate in the assembly of the church of God at Corinth when
it was confronted with egregious immorality in its membership. With the double
reference “in the name of our Lord Jesus” and in “the power of our Lord
Jesus” Paul anchors this assembly and its purpose and authority in the bedrock
of the church’s life and identity. If the congregation is not acting in
response to the clear teaching of God, it has no business censuring its members,
but if it has clear teaching from God, it has no choice but to censure a member.
5:5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed
and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
In this verse Paul
describes the spiritual realities involved in the process of putting this
believer “out of your fellowship” (5:2). The immoral individual is to be
handed over to Satan (cf. 1 Tim 1:20). This meant that this Christian
“was to be thrust back into that [sphere] in which Satan still exercised
authority,” namely the world. Because the phrase in Greek “for the
destruction of the flesh” (εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός, eis
olethron tēs sarkos) has often
incorrectly been interpreted to mean physical death, the niv renders
the Greek “so that the sinful nature may be destroyed.” While both the Old
Testament and New Testament testify to punitive miracles at the Lord’s hand,
this verse does not point in the direction of physical death. How could Paul
have hoped that this Christian might be saved at the time of Christ’s return
if he drops dead at the time the congregation hands him over to Satan?
The last half of 5:5 sheds light on Paul’s understanding here of church discipline.
First of all, this man’s sin, grave though it was, did not permanently move
him beyond the reach of God’s forgiveness. Moreover, one of the purposes for
this expulsion was to lead this believer to salvation through repentance of his
transgression. The phrase “day of the Lord” clearly refers to the return of
Christ (cf. 1:8; 4:5).
Getting Rid of the Old Yeast
5:6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works
through the whole batch of dough?
The Corinthian problem with boasting is put in its proper
light by Paul. How could they, Paul asks, continue to boast when they both
tolerate such sin and are themselves susceptible to being infected by such a
grievous display of immorality?
Not only does Paul use Mosaic
moral instruction as his guide in this matter of incest, but even the metaphors
and illustrations he employs to teach the Corinthians about the need for church
discipline come from the Mosaic Law. The leaven (yeast) and dough illustration
stems clearly from the unleavened bread (Exod 13) and the Passover (Exod 12)
feasts. The principle of a little yeast affecting the whole batch is intended by
Paul to illustrate how a single case of immorality will, if not removed, affect
the whole church at Corinth. By means of this rhetorical question the apostle
hopes to get the Corinthians to realize how dangerous this single case can be
for them all (cf. Gal 5:9).
5:7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as
you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
The logic of Paul’s reasoning in 5:7a is “become
what you are.” In reality, because of the work of Christ, you are a batch
without yeast—therefore, act like it by getting rid of any old yeast. The
affirmations of the spiritual condition of the Corinthians are based upon
God’s prior work in Christ. Paul’s use of the term “for” (γάρ, gar) connects the
reality of the believers’ status with the sacrifice of Christ. It is crucial
to remind ourselves that the status of being a new batch without yeast did not
come about because all the old leaven was removed by human effort and
perfectionism. The purity of the people of God is always rooted in the
redemptive work of God and never in the people’s success in driving out the
immoral members.
It should not be overlooked that Paul’s explicit
Christological formulation here, to a predominantly Gentile group, arose from
explicitly and uniquely Jewish categories and experiences. This verse also
provides an interesting example of the apostle’s correlation of the
blood-sacrifice of the Messiah with Christian lifestyle and ethics, a far cry
from how the typical philosophers of that age formulated their ethics.
5:8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of
malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and
truth.
The festival which Paul refers to here is of course the
Passover Feast. He has spiritualized this Jewish feast in such a way that he can
now refer, based upon a typological interpretation, this to the Christian life.
There is no indication that Paul has the Lord’s Supper in mind when he refers
to the feast. Having identified Jesus with the Passover lamb, he then completes
the adaptation of this redemptive event for the church at Corinth. Paul
specifically identifies the elements of the old yeast which must be cleaned out
and thrown away: these are the characteristics of malice and wickedness. The
purity of the “yeast free” celebration of the redemptive act of God in the
Passover lamb commemorated by Jews typifies the sincerity and truth of the
Christian lifestyle.
SOURCE: The College Press
NIV Commentary: 1 Corinthians; By Richard E. Oster, Jr., Ph.D.; New
Testament Co-Editors, Jack Cottrell, Ph.D., Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Tony Ash
Ph.D., Abilene Christian University, College Press Publishing Company, Joplin,
Missouri.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament
5:9 Though the letter here referred
to could possibly be a reference to the preceding part of the present letter and
the verb egrapsa could be taken to mean, “I write” (an
epistolary aorist, taken from the reader’s viewpoint; cf. Rom 16:22), it
is more natural to conclude that this is a reference to a former letter that we
do not possess. (That not all of an apostle’s writings have been preserved
presents no problem regarding the completeness of the canon. The church has all
of the inspired writing God intended his people to have. [See Hodge, in loc.])
Paul now comments further on a subject referred to in the
former letter—that of not associating with sexually immoral people (pornoi),
a point the Corinthians had not fully understood. The social milieu in Corinth
was notoriously immoral (cf. Introduction) and if the Corinthians took the
command in the previous letter too literally, as they seem to have done, they
would have had no contact with even some family members, business associates and
social acquaintances. The word pornos (“the sexually immoral
person”) has reference to all types of sexual sins, including the sin of
incest. The verb sunanamignysthai (“to associate with”) could
refer to church fellowship or more widely, as here, to any social contact.
5:10 Paul now proceeds to correct
their misunderstanding. By referring to other categories of sinners besides the
sexually immoral, he shows that in having referred to the pornoi in
the previous letter, he meant only that they should not be a part of the church
community. If Paul had meant that contact or even acquaintance with all sinners
was to cease, then Christians could not live at all in human society.
By the words ou pantos
(“not at all”) Paul limits the extent of his command. The pornoi
are the sexually immoral persons of all kinds. That they are called the sexually
immoral “of this world” (the secular world system) establishes that they are
not to be included as a part of the church community. The greedy persons here
are literally the ones “who must have more.” Compare the sin of greed (pleonexia)
listed in Romans 1:29; Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5. Greed is a
serious sin and Paul touches on aspects of it in 6:7, 8. The harpax
is one who steals by violence. “Extortioner” (KJV) does not convey this
today and “swindler” (NIV) seems too weak.
5:11 The verb form egrapsa
taken with de nun (“but now”) is certainly here to be understood
as an epistolary aorist and translated, “But now I am writing.” Having
explained that he did not mean Christians are to be totally dissociated from the
world, Paul hastens to add that the church community is not to include such as
the flagrant sinners he now enumerates, even if they carry the name
“brother,” a term that would identify them as part of the Christian
fellowship. The kind of association not permitted with such false brothers is
explained by the command “With such a man do not even eat.” In sharing in a
common meal Christians show their union with one another. This “eating” is
not to be understood as the Lord’s Supper, and probably indicates any meal,
including the Christian agape (love) feast. The application then and
now is that Christians are not to have this kind of association, for if a
believer does so, he may raise a question concerning the validity of his own
Christian profession. To the list of sinners in v. 10 Paul now adds the
slanderer (loidoros—probably referring to those who denigrated Paul)
and the drunkard (methusos; cf. 1Cor 6:10; 11:21; Eph
5:18; 1 Thess 5:7).
12, 13 Here Paul teaches that though it
is logical for the church to exercise spiritual discipline over members in its
fellowship, it is not for the church to judge the present unsaved society.
By the Greek expression tous exo (“those
without”) the apostle means those outside the church’s communion or
fellowship. The words tous eso (“those within”) means those
within the church’s fellowship. Paul now concludes (v. 13)
on the basis of the preceding argument that the wicked man who had married his
stepmother must be put out of the church. This he commands by quoting somewhat
loosely from Deuteronomy 22:24 (a context of adultery) and from Deuteronomy
24:7 (a context of stealing).
The strengthened form of the negative (ouchi,
“not”) used with the indicative verb in a question expects a positive
response: “Are you not to judge those inside [the church]?” “Yes” is the
expected reply.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament; Frank
E. Gaebelein; General
Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers
The College Press NIV Commentary: 1 Corinthians
Separating from Evil
5:9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral
people—
This reference to a previous letter is important for
several reasons:
1. It reminds the Corinthian readers that this is not the first time that
Paul has written them about the issue of immorality.
2. It allows Paul the opportunity
to clarify any misconceptions or misinterpretations of this previous letter
regarding judgment against the immoral.
3. It allows Paul the chance to
anticipate some of the moral aberrations with which he must deal in the
remainder of 1 Corinthians.
The practice and theory of religious non-association was
well known in Paul’s Jewish background. Jewish communities such as those at
Qumran as well as Pharisaic communities practiced non-association against
aberrant behavior. The same was true of some pagan cults and religious
associations. The Greek term translated “not to associate” (μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι, mē synanamignysthai) is the same found in 5:11
and in a similar context in 2 Thess 3:14. The community boundary markers in
this context are clearly not doctrinal, in the technical sense, but ethical.
5:10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the
greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this
world.
The apostle feels the need to
clarify lest some Corinthians incorrectly believed, either on their own or by
misreading Paul, that they should withdraw from contact with pagan immorality.
There could never have been a Pauline mission had Paul advocated non-association
with the pagan world. The pre-Cornelius position that “it is against our law
for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him” (Acts 10:28) was clearly
at loggerheads with Paul’s consistent practice of rubbing shoulders with the
non-Jewish world.
The three terms “greedy,” “swindlers,” and
“idolaters” all fit the culture of a Roman colony with a dynamic economy
based upon propitiously located ports. With a realism that few who are at home
in the Judeo-Christian West can appreciate, Paul acknowledges that it would be
impossible even to live in a city such as Corinth and not have social
intercourse with idolaters, the greedy, and swindlers. This acceptance of the
necessity for association between believers and immoral people fits well in the
life of one who had friends among pagan Asiarchs at Ephesus (Acts 19:31) and
whose gospel presented a God who had already reconciled a sinful world to
himself (2 Cor 5:16-19).
5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who
calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a
slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
This verse makes it clear that the apostle has a
different criterion for non-association with believers than with non-believers.
When someone regards himself as a believer he puts himself under the discipline
and judgment of the community of faith. Isolated and unchurched believers were
unknown to Paul, and the whole idea was doctrinally incompatible with his own
understanding of the Christian life (cf. 1 Cor 12). Paul assumed that to be
a believer meant to be a believer in the context of the community of believers.
Paul’s list of sins includes six items, four of which
are taken from the list in 5:10.
Interpreters have discussed and argued about the reasons for Paul’s choice of
these particular six sins and this choice viewed in the light of the larger
issue of the catalogues of virtues and vices found in Paul’s letters.
It seems unreasonable to imagine
that this list is merely arbitrary and unrelated to the issues Paul addressed in
his previous letter (5:9) as well as in the remainder of 1 Corinthians. My own
understanding of the contextual nature of this list leads me to see these six
items as very germane to the issues at Corinth that disturb Paul, some of which
had to be readdressed in 2 Corinthians.
Sexually immoral (πόρνος, pornos)
Greedy (πλεονέκτης, pleonektēs)
Idolater (εἰδωλολάτρης, eidōlolatrēs)
Slanderer (λοίδορος, loidoros)
Drunkard (μέθυσος, methysos)
Swindler (ἅρπαξ, harpax)
The non-association demanded by Paul includes the issue
traditionally called “table-fellowship.” It is well known that this form of
censure was practiced by Pharisaic and Essenes Jews of the first century. Those
regarded as unclean were not allowed to share in meals (e.g., Luke 15:2).
This type of Pharisaic attitude was carried over in the early church by “some
of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees” (Acts 15:5) and
who persecuted believers who wished “to eat with the Gentiles” (Gal
2:11-13). Paul’s commandment about the denial of table fellowship would have
included both the Lord’s Supper as well as other social and communal meals
among the Corinthian believers.
5:12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you
not to judge those inside?
In 5:12a
Paul resumes the thought of 5:10a,
namely that the believer is not required to practice non-association against
unbelievers. This avoidance of unbelievers would manifest a judgment against
those outside the church. Paul is manifestly not against all forms of judging
and censure. As the last half of 5:12
makes clear, believers are exhorted to judge fellow believers.
Although it is in vogue at the present to repudiate the
idea of Christians judging one another, there is hardly any section in the
entirety of Scripture that does not advocate, either by injunction or example,
God’s people holding one another accountable to the community’s standards of
faithfulness. The apparent fact that the statement “Do not judge” (Matt 7:1)
is the most popular verse among American Evangelicals stems from American
individualism and pluralism rather than from any profound insight from the
Scriptures.
5:13 God will judge
those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Paul does not reject the doctrine of the judgment of
non-believers, but only teaches that this is not within the purview of the
church. This future tense could refer either to the future judgment of the
unbeliever at the time of Christ’s return or to ongoing judgment of God
against unbelievers. Since Paul does not have criminals in mind in 5:12-13,
it does not seem likely that this judgment refers to God’s use of the Roman
State to punish unbelievers (cf. Rom 13:1-6).
While the interpreter is left hanging about the nature
and extent of God’s judgment of those outside, Paul is very clear in regard to
the action he expects from the church. Based upon the multiple occurrences of
the phrase and idea of expulsion in Deuteronomy (17:7; 19:19; 22:21, 24; 24:7),
Paul has abundant scriptural authority to order the church at Corinth to expel
the incestuous man from its midst.
SOURCE: The College Press
NIV Commentary: 1 Corinthians; By Richard E. Oster, Jr., Ph.D.; New
Testament Co-Editors, Jack Cottrell, Ph.D., Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Tony Ash
Ph.D., Abilene Christian University, College Press Publishing Company, Joplin,
Missouri.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament
6:15-17 A further argument that the
Christian’s body is for the Lord is that God’s people are members of his
mystical body (cf. 1Cor 12:27). So Christians may not unite their bodies
with that of a prostitute. For they should understand that sexual relations
involve more than a physical act—they join the two persons together (v. 16;
quoting from Gen 2:24; cf. Matt 19:5). Since Christians have been
joined in union to the Lord, they dare not form another union with a prostitute.
Verse 17 states the case even
more strongly: the one who cleaves (kollomenos) to a prostitute is one
body with her, but the one who cleaves (kollomenos) to the Lord is united
to him spiritually. In saying this, Paul is not making the union of normal
marriage mutually exclusive of the union of God with his people. In Ephesians
5:21-32 Paul teaches that the human marriage union is valid and is to be viewed
in the light of the Christian’s higher union with the Lord—the wife to be
subject to her husband “as to the Lord” and the husband to love his wife
“as Christ loved the church” What Paul argues against in 1
Corinthians 6:15-17 is that the unholy union with a prostitute is a wicked
perversion of the divinely established marriage union.
6:18 Paul goes on to say that the one
who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body—that is, by weakening
and perverting the very life process, as well as human character. In contrast,
other sins are “outside the body.”
19, 20 Now Paul talks positively about
how the Christian should view his body. First, he should consider that his body,
including his whole personality, is the temple—the sacred dwelling place—of
God, the Holy Spirit (cf. the Shekinah glory in the tabernacle, Exod
40:34). Second, the Christian has received the Spirit from God to help him
against sin. Third, the Christian has no right to pervert and misuse his body,
for he is not his own master but has been purchased by God for a price (v. 20).
That price, though not mentioned here, is the blood of Jesus Christ (Eph 1:7; 1Pet
1:18, 19 et al.). The picture is of a slave of sin (Rom 6:17; cf. 1Cor
7:23) being purchased from the horrible system of slavery.
The conclusion of the matter is that the Christian is to
glorify God in his body. Because “body” and “temple” are both singular,
some understand the teaching to be that not only each believer’s body is a
temple, but the whole body of believers is a temple (Grosheide, in loc.).
However, since in the context Paul is writing about individuals and since the
individual Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, it is best to understand v. 19
to mean that each individual Christian’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.
(Naos is the temple itself [cf. John 2:20, 21] in distinction
from hieron, the entire temple area.)
“You were bought” is in the aorist tense, pointing
back to Christ’s redemptive work on the cross (Matt 20:28). There may be
implications of the Christian’s having been freed from becoming overpowered by
sin (Rom 6:17, 18) and Satan (Col 1:13) and being benevolently enslaved to
Christ (Rom 1:1) and to righteousness (Rom 6:18) in reflection of the Corinthian
situation in which the “slave was from the time of his manumission the slave
of the god” (Craig, in loc.)
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary New Testament; Frank
E. Gaebelein; General
Editor; Zondervan Publishing House; A Division of Harper Collins Publishers
The College Press NIV Commentary: 1 Corinthians
Sexual Immorality (6:12-20)
The Body As a Member of Christ
(6:12-17)
6:12 “Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is
beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered
by anything.
In this section 6:12-20 Paul returns to the general issues of sexual immorality
begun in 5:1. The issue under discussion in 6:12-20 is prostitution. Houses of prostitution were widespread in
the Greco-Roman world and were generally looked upon as a social necessity. The
venerable Roman leader Cato was supposed to have congratulated a young man he
saw departing from a brothel. When your sexual passions are strong, he told the
young man, it is better to have sex with a prostitute than another man’s wife.
Commentators usually attempt to interface this issue with
the city’s widespread reputation for sexual promiscuity and immorality. The
first piece of evidence usually cited includes the philological evidence that
the Greek verb meaning “to be a Corinthian” (κορινθιάζεσθαι, korinthiazesthai)
meant to fornicate or to be sexually immoral. The principal evidence for this,
however, comes from authors living during the time of the Greek city of Corinth,
not the Roman city.
A second point of Corinthian culture that earlier
commentators related, incorrectly I believe, to this text is the account of
Corinth’s temple to Aphrodite (goddess of sexual pleasure) in which 1,000
sacred prostitutes worked. The historical reference to this temple is found in
the works of the Greek author Strabo who writes,
And the temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it owned
more than a thousand temple-slaves, prostitutes, whom both men and women had
dedicated to the goddess. And therefore it was also on account of these women
that the city was crowded with people and grew rich.
Since Strabo himself discusses this temple in the context
of the old city of Corinth (destroyed in the second century b.c.), it is
unlikely that it was still standing or in use in the Roman city of Corinth. Even
if this temple of 1,000 sacred prostitutes were operational in the mid-first
century a.d., it is important to notice that there is no evidence in 1
Corinthians that Paul has this or any other temple’s prostitutes in mind.
It can be concluded that the church of God at Corinth had
no special monopoly on the problems of sexual sins, and many times the city of
Corinth has borne a reputation for being a superlative “sin city” that
exceeds the historical evidence. Contemporary scholarly thought is best
reflected in J. Murphy-O’Connor’s judgment in this matter that, “It is
doubtful that the situation at Corinth was any worse than in other port-cities
of the eastern Mediterranean.”
Turning now to the wording of 6:12, this verse is usually regarded as beginning with quoted
slogans from those believers who participated in, or at least condoned, sexual
immorality. From this perspective the supporters of sexual immorality are
promoting a kind of libertinism. Paul retorts to their libertine slogan by
asserting that permissibility is not the final issue. Paul places his accent
upon what is beneficial, much as he does in 10:23. The apostle repeats the
slogan and retorts with an emphasis upon self-control. Those given over to
carnal indulgence and a libertine lifestyle are characterized by Paul as being
mastered or ruled by it (cf. Rom 6:16-20).
6:13 “Food for
the stomach and the stomach for food”—but God will destroy them both. The
body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the
body.
This verse likewise begins with a hedonistic slogan that
places emphasis upon the satisfaction of human appetites. The particular
placement of quotations marks (which the ancient Greeks did not use), in the niv
translation marks the phrase “but God will destroy them both” as Paul’s
retort. Some scholars argue, however, that the entire first sentence
(“Food...both”) should be viewed as the hedonistic slogan and 6:13b
(“The body...the body”) should be viewed as Paul’s response. If this
interpretation is correct, then the phrase “but God will destroy them both”
would reflect the libertine view that since God will destroy both food and
stomach, he obviously cares little about mankind’s physical nature and
appetites. Therefore, the argument runs, God is not that concerned about bodily
appetites and does not care about how and with whom one’s sexual appetites are
satisfied.
The apostle’s affirmations in 6:13b about the body and the Lord were radically out of step with
the cultural values and ethical mores indigenous to a pagan urban setting. Like
much of 20th century paganism that affirms that men’s and women’s sexual
activity should be based upon personal choice and inalienable rights and that
argues that their bodies are their own private property, so also most ancient
pagans did not correlate the satisfaction of bodily sexual appetites with a view
of divine ownership of their bodies. For the most part neither ancient religions
nor ancient philosophies affirmed anything like the Biblical view that the
divine creation of mankind (with its sensual appetites) placed mankind’s
sexual expressions and activities under divine authority and legislation. The
Biblical view simply stated is that mankind is, was, and will always be creation
and will never evolve into the status of the Creator. As such, the creations of
God are subject to God’s laws and his divine ordering of creation. Humans are
never wise enough or holy enough to guide their own steps.
As is often the case, the “free love” attitudes found
among some in the Roman world involved a double standard. Immoral sex was
tolerated much more if committed by men than by women, and of course there were
certain societal norms which were suppose to be observed. As is recorded in the
works of one Roman author, “Provided you keep away from married women,
virgins, young innocents, and children of respectable families, love anyone you
want.”
In the matter of prostitutes, the prevailing cultural
views which were brought into the church of God by pagan converts and against
which Paul is arguing in this section are capsulated in a statement by a leading
Roman politician and philosopher of the first century B.C. Cicero wrote:
Mind you, if there is anyone who thinks that young men
ought not to visit prostitutes, he is certainly narrow-minded (no doubt about
it), and completely out of step with our present liberal thinking. In fact, he
has nothing in common with the customs and behaviour of previous generations,
who were quite broadminded on the subject.
6:14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us
also.
This verse functions as a refutation of the hedonistic
affirmation of 6:13a. It is not
correct, Paul writes, to argue from a belief that God will destroy the body ( =
the stomach). Rather, just as God raised the Lord, so too he will raise up
believers from the dead. The belief expressed here fits into Paul’s overall
eschatological picture where believers are raised, stand before the judgment
throne of God, and will be judged on the basis of what they have done in and
with their bodies (2 Cor 5:10).
While there is insufficient evidence to be dogmatic about
it, there is the real possibility that the apostle’s need to affirm the future
resurrection of believers in the context of his treatment of sexual immorality
is related to his treatment of these issues in 1 Cor 15:12-58. Even though
the discussion and argumentation in 1 Cor 15 is clearly focused upon the
reality of the future resurrection, the case for the connection with 6:14
is made stronger when one observes that Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15
contains explicit attacks against hedonistic slogans (15:32) and sinful
activities (15:33-34).
6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I
then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!
This verse is structured around two questions and an
imperative. This is the first of three uses of the “do you not know” phrase
in this section (cf. 6:16, 19). The term “bodies” (σώματα, sōmata) connects this question to the prior affirmations about
the body expressed in 6:13. This relational illustration about being
members of Christ anticipates similar relational statements which make up
Paul’s comprehensive doctrine of the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 10:16; 12:12-27; Rom
12:5; Eph 1:22-23; 4:11-16; 5:23; Col 1:18).
In this context it is clear that Paul is referring to the
personal human bodies of believers when he writes that they are members of
Christ. Since their personal bodies are connected with Christ, when a Corinthian
believer had sexual relationship with a prostitute, he established a union
between Christ and the prostitute through the medium of the believer’s body.
This sinful situation is never acceptable for a Christian.
Paul’s declaration that sexual immorality is
unacceptable was addressed to those who had a choice about the matter. It must
be kept in mind that large numbers of boys and girls and men and women,
especially slaves, had little choice about their sexual involvement. The Roman
author Seneca the Elder once commented that:
“Losing sexual purity was a crime if you were a
freeborn.”
“Losing sexual purity was a necessity if you were a
slave.”
“Losing sexual purity was a duty if you were a
freedman.”
6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with
her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”
Paul’s teaching in 6:15 was probably very opaque to believers recently converted from a
pagan worldview and lifestyle. In 6:16
Paul invokes the teaching of Scripture to demonstrate the reality of the union
presented in 6:15. The phrase
“one with her in body” anticipates the “one with him [i.e., the Lord] in
spirit” of the following verse. Paul reaches back to Gen 2:24 to find the
language of “oneness” related to sexual intercourse. The function of the
“one flesh” doctrine here in the context of prostitution is obviously not to
address the issue of the permanency of marriage, but rather to highlight the
oneness that occurs during and only during sexual intercourse.
Given the sexual promiscuity that characterized large
segments of pagan society, Paul wanted to emphasize that more takes place during
sexual intercourse than the mere fulfillment of animal urges and concupiscent
impulses. There is a temporary oneness that occurs that has profound
implications for the believer’s relationship with the Lord.
6:17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
Paul uses the same word for “unites” (κολλώμενος, kollōmenos) with the Lord as he did for “unites” with the
prostitute in 6:16. The oneness
with the Lord takes place, however, in the realm of Spirit (ἕν πνεῦμα, hen pneuma). Nevertheless there is a bodily
connection with the Lord since the believers’ bodies are now members of Christ
(6:15) As Sampley noted in this matter, “The human options are sketched boldly
by Paul: either immorality (porneia) or the Lord; either the Lord or a
prostitute. If one is genuinely bonded to the Lord, then porneia is
out of the question and must be shunned.”
The Body As the Temple of the
Holy Spirit (6:18-20)
6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside
his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
It is no accident that the imperative form of the verb
“flee” (φεύγω, pheugō) is used once in 1 Corinthians
with sexual immorality and once with idolatry (10:14). Idolatry and sexual
immorality were the two most frequent sins that characterized the pagan world
from the viewpoint of Jewish thinking and Scripture.
Paul’s next comment (all other sins...his own body) has
engendered much discussion and the creation of hypotheses by scholars. On the
face of it, Paul’s affirmation seems incorrect since drunkenness or suicide,
the argument runs, also do harm to (i.e., sin against) one’s body. Some have
even suggested that the clause “all other sins...” was a slogan from
Corinthian opponents and the final words “but he who sins...” was Paul’s
response. Those who view this verse as a mixture of a hedonistic Corinthian
slogan and Paul’s response are drawing upon fanciful hypotheses which are not
really necessary.
Both the veracity and logic of Paul’s assertion are
contextually evident when 6:18
is interpreted in light of the Scripture quotation given in 6:16.
None of the other sins that Paul has mentioned elsewhere in 1 Corinthians (e.g., 5:11)
actually create a bodily union with a prostitute. To be sure, drunkenness can
exclude one from the kingdom of God (6:10) and can cause physical harm to
one’s body. Nevertheless, even those sins which can physically harm the body
do not, as it were, contaminate the body by a unification with immorality. It is
exactly this unique nature and capacity of the body to be both united with
Christ and with a prostitute that is illuminated by the Scripture citation of
Genesis. Furthermore, it is exactly because of the truth that sins of sexual
immorality are uniquely inimical to the body that it is in this setting that
Paul stated that, “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the
Lord, and the Lord for the body” (1 Cor 6:13).
6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in
you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
The apostle moves his argument forward at this juncture
by shifting to an argument based upon the dichotomy of the sacred and profane.
Even though Gentile believers could no longer worship at a temple with approval,
both they and Jewish believers knew the concept of the sacredness of temples.
Paul here teaches that the individual personal body of each believer is the
dwelling place (ναός, naos) of the Holy Spirit which each and
every believer at Corinth received from God.
The force of Paul’s imagery was so obvious to his
readers that he did not even have to draw out the implication that the holiness
of the believer’s body is incompatible with impurity and fornication. The
apostle may have needed to teach them that their bodies were the abode of the
Holy Spirit, but they already knew that sacred dwellings were not to be
contaminated with unclean and impure objects and people. Jewish believers of
course knew the same thing from their training in laws of Levitical holiness.
The last phrase of this verse belongs thematically with 6:20.
Paul here rejects the notion of ethical self-determination. The believer cannot
make choices about sexual behavior on the basis of his or her own preferences.
That notion of the autonomy of ethical decisions regarding sexual acts is
essentially incompatible with Christian existence and redemption.
6:20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
The niv fails to translate
Paul’s word γάρ (gar)
which means “for” and which shows the conceptual connection between verses
19 and 20. The reason that the believer, according to Paul, can no
longer claim free choices is that he is now the personal property of another.
The imagery of “bought at a price” probably derives from the slave auctions
so well known in the ancient world. Its emphasis, therefore, is not on having a
ransom paid that leads to freedom, but rather on a change of ownership.
Since the believer, including his
body, is the personal possession of God, Paul believes that the saint must bring
glory to God “in the concrete circumstances in which the physical members
operate.” There was for Paul no stronger antidote against sexual
promiscuity and prostitution than claiming the believer’s body, and not just
his soul and spirit, as the location for the glorification of God.
SOURCE: The College Press
NIV Commentary: 1 Corinthians; By Richard E. Oster, Jr., Ph.D.; New
Testament Co-Editors, Jack Cottrell, Ph.D., Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Tony Ash
Ph.D., Abilene Christian University, College Press Publishing Company, Joplin,
Missouri.
The Immorality of Corinth: Corinth had a reputation for sensuality long
before the first century A.D. Plato used “Corinthian girl” as a synonym for
a prostitute and Aristophanes used the verb “to Corinthianize” of
fornication.
SOURCE: Family
Bible Study; Life Truths; Leader Guide; LifeWay Christian Resources of the
Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville,
TN.
Immorality in Corinth: Corinth had a reputation as
a city that embraced immoral standards. The
city had a temple to Aphrodite, where temple prostitutes joined with worshipers
who came to the temple. First-century
Greek historian Strabo estimated over 1,000 temple prostitutes.
Corinth had a close association with immorality, as evidenced by the term
“to Corinthianize,” which meant “to commit fornication.”
Little wonder that sexual immorality became a hot topic in Paul’s
letter to the church at Corinth. What
existed in the world found a home in the church.
SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist
Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.
“Sanctuary”
(6:19):
A sanctuary is a place set aside as sacred and holy.
In the Old Testament, the tabernacle and the temple in Jerusalem were
revered as sanctuaries, places where the Lord dwelled in the midst of His people
(Ex. 25:8). By calling their bodies
a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit. Paul
indicated that the presence of the Lord abided inside of them.
SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist
Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.
·
The
church who served a holy God had to have higher standards than the unholy world.
·
People
who excuse their sin under the cloak of grace do not properly understand its
meaning.
·
Paul
was not saying that one fall into sin meant that a person could not be a member
of the church.
·
The
idea
that church membership involves no standards of behavior is foreign to both the
Old and New Testaments.
·
“But
sexual
immorality and any impurity or greed should not even be heard of among you, as
is proper for saints.”—Eph. 5:3.
·
“For
this is God’s will, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual
immorality.”—1 Thess. 4:3.
SOURCE: Advanced Bible Study; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist
Convention; One LifeWay Plaza, Nashville, TN.
IMMORALITY:
Any illicit sexual
activity outside of marriage. Both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament
the word has a figurative meaning as well, referring to idolatry or
unfaithfulness to God.
In
the Old Testament zanah regularly refers to wrongful heterosexual intercourse,
primarily in regard to women (Judg. 19:2; Jer. 3:1; Hos. 4:13). The noun
“harlot” or “whore” is derived from the same stem (Gen. 34:31; Josh.
2:1-3; Prov. 23:27; Hos. 4:13-14). In a figurative sense, zanah refers to
Israel’s unfaithfulness to God (2 Chron. 21:11; Isa. 1:21; Jer. 3:1-5; Ezek.
16:26-28). In addition, the sinfulness of Tyre (Isa. 23:17) and Nineveh (Nah.
3:4) are portrayed in this manner.
In
Paul’s letters, porneia and/or related words refer to an incestuous
relationship (1 Cor. 5:1), sexual
relations with a prostitute (1 Cor.
6:12-20), and various forms of unchastity both heterosexual and homosexual
(Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:9-11; 6:9-11; 7:2; 2 Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; 1 Thess. 4:3). Immorality is a
sin against God (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:15-20;
1 Thess. 4:3-8). In the Gospels, the term, on occasion, is related to adultery
(Matt. 5:32; 19:9) and in Revelation may refer to harlotry or prostitution (Rev.
2:14, 20). The word “harlot” or “whore” is derived from the same root
(Rev. 19:2). In Acts, the Apostolic Council requires that Gentiles avoid porneia
(Acts 15:20, 29). Porneia, and related words also have a figurative meaning of
unfaithfulness to God (Matt. 12:39; John 8:41; Rev. 2:21; 9:21; 14:8; 19:2).
SOURCE: Holman Bible
Dictionary; General Editor, David S.
Dockery; Editorial Team, Trent C.
Butler, Christopher L. Church, Linda L. Scott, Marsha A. Ellis Smith, James
Emery White; Holman Bible Publishers; Nashville, Tennessee.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND READING:
CORINTH in
the Time of Paul
By Gary M. Poulton
Gary
M. Poulton is professor of history and president emeritus of Virginia Intermont
College, Bristol, Virginia.
|
O |
NE OF THE MOST important voyages that
Paul undertook was his trip to Corinth in the first century (AD 51-52).
His 18-month long visit and the letters he later wrote to the believers
in Corinth give us rare insight into the problems and issues confronting a
first-century church. In 1
Corinthians (5—7), Paul is stunned by the news that a member of the Corinthian
church is having an immoral relationship with his father’s wife.
In a time of lax morality and in a city known for its sinful ways, such
an arrangement might not have been that unusual.
But Paul communicated decisively that such conduct was not to be
tolerated among Christians. His
letters proved an invaluable insight into the social world of the first century
and the problems early Christians encountered as they sought to live out their
faith in that world.
That a Christian church would start to develop in Corinth might seem
ironic, for the city had a historic reputation as being one of the most immoral
cities in the ancient world. By the
time of Paul, little had been done that would change this perception.
Corinth had long been one of the most important Greek city-states.
Unlike Athens, Corinth was not known for its artists or philosophers.
Located on the seacoast about 50 miles west of Athens, Corinth occupied a
strategic commercial location. Overland
travelers moving from north and south through Greece would need to pass through
Corinth. Corinth was even more
important for ship traffic because of its location.
Situated on an isthmus, it possessed two harbors.
One of the harbors (Cenchreae) lead to Asia and the other (Lechaeum) led
straight westward to Italy.1 Most smaller ships preferred to sail
into the Gulf of Corinth and then have their boats pulled the short distance
overland to where they could reenter the sea.
This arduous transit was preferable to sailing around the Peloponnesus
and braving the treacherous waters there. The
early Greeks and Romans had dreamed of a canal across the isthmus to link east
and west. The second-century
chronicler, Pausanias, states “you can see clearly where they started to dig;
they had not yet started on the rock.”2 This feat would not be
accomplished, though, until the 19th century AD.
So in ancient times the Corinthians made the most of the situation and
charged high rates to haul ships and goods across the narrow neck on greased
sleds of wood.
Because it was a thriving seaport, Corinth was quite a cosmopolitan
city. People from all over Greece
and the Mediterranean world traveled through or worked in Corinth.
It was a wealthy city full of merchants and businessmen.
In the time of Paul, “It lived for the future, and new ideas were
guaranteed a hearing because profit could be found in the most unexpected
places. Athens was complacent.
Corinth questioned.”3 Corinth was also the site of the
Isthmian Games. These biannual games
ranked second only to the Olympic Games in the four great Pan-Hellenic
festivals. These games drew crowds
not only from Greece but from other Hellenized cities in the East.
The games’ contestants and spectators added another vibrant dimension
to the city. Yet Corinth had another
mark of notoriety: its decadent lifestyle. “In
cities like Antioch and Ephesus, where virtue has small reward, people of
Corinth as an epitome of evil.”4
In classical times Corinth was best known for its temple to Aphrodite
(the Greek goddess of love). The
city was dominated by the Acrocorinth, and almost 2,000 foot peak rising out of
the plain. On the Acrocorinth was
the temple of Aphrodite that housed (according to some legends) maybe as many as
1,000 temple prostitutes. These
prostitutes served the goddess and collected money for the cult’s priests.
“And therefore it was also on account of these women that the city was
crowded with people and grew rich; for instance, the ship-captains freely
squandered their money, and hence the proverb, ‘Not for every man is the
voyage to Corinth.’”5 More recently this legend of the temple
having 1,000 prostitutes has been challenged.
Evidently no temple on the Acrocorinth was large enough to accommodate
enough worshipers to call for this many prostitutes.
This legend may have been promulgated by the Athenians.
Two hundred years before Paul, the Romans had razed the city (146 BC)
in response to Corinth’s leadership in a rebellion.
The Romans massacred the male survivors and sold the women and children
into slavery. Julius Caesar, though,
re-colonized the city in 44 BC. It
became the seat of a Roman proconsul and thus the administrative headquarters
for Roman Greece. Before long the
city boasted a population of up to half a million people and businesses thrived
as the seaport resumed. Befitting
the Romans, the city had temples, baths, arenas, and covered colonnades.
Roman emperors—especially Nero—carried out extensive building
programs. The agora (marketplace),
which was nearly 600 feet long, was particularly impressive.
Corinth became a new, albeit vulgar, city.
It was dedicated to making money and seeking pleasure.
Its reputation as a sinful city endured.
“The worship of fertility goddesses flourished in the most voluptuous
and sensual forms, making Corinth a notorious center of immorality.
Indeed, its reputation was so bad that the expression ‘to live like a
Corinthian’ meant to live an utterly dissolute life.”6
Although the Acrocorinth’s Aphrodite temple with its (legendary)
sacred prostitutes no longer functioned in Roman times, other smaller temples in
Corinth celebrated Aphrodite—which meant they likely employed temple
prostitutes and contributed to Corinth’s reputation as a wicked city.
Additionally, barely clad prostitutes stood in the street after sunset,
panderers extolled their charms and skills, and children sold aphrodisiacs.
Archeological evidence today details numerous taverns lining the south side of
the marketplace.
When Paul reached Corinth in AD 51, he would have found a bustling port
city filled with people from all over Greece and the Mediterranean area.
Paul found employment in the city as a tentmaker while he worked with his
fellow Christians. Conducting
business with local merchants and engaging the Corinthian populace would have
enabled Paul to speak to the people not as an outsider but as one of the
city’s own.
Corinth with its diversity of races and cultures seemed to be a city in
search of God. Temples, shrines, and
sacred statuaries were located all over the city—including shrines and altars
dedicated to Zeus, Aphrodite, Dionysus, and Asklepious (Greek god of healing),
as well as those for the worship of the Egyptian goddess Isis.
An impressive bronze statue of Athena stood in the city center; a temple
dedicated to Apollo rose near the agora.
The various philosophies of the day also found an
audience. Some emphasized the
Hellenistic dualism of the spirit and the body, meaning that only the spirit was
good and important and so what one did with his body was of no importance.
In such a society, sex was commonly viewed from the standpoint of its
physical nature rather from the biblical standpoint of a sacred union ordained
by God.
The nascent Corinthian church had to survive and prosper in this
immoral setting. Not surprisingly,
then, Paul’s letter to Corinthian believers openly addressed questions of
marriage and morality. The
Christians there surely needed clear direction from Paul on how to cope in such
a culture.
1.
Strabo, The
Geography of Strabo [STRABO],
vol. 4, The Loeb Classical Library,
trans. H. L. Jones, ed. G. P. Goold (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927),
8.6.22 (pp. 194-97).
2.
Pausanias, Guide
to Greece, vol. 1, Central Greece, trans.
Peter Levi (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971), 130.
3.
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor.
“The Corinth that Saint Paul Saw” in The
Biblical Archaeologist, 47.3
(September 1984); 148.
4.
Henrietta Buckmaster, Paul: A Man Who Changed the
World (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1965), 136.
5.
Strabo, The
Geography of Strabo 8.6.20 (pp.190-91) in STRABO; see also Hans Licht, Sexual
Life in Ancient Greece, trans. J. H. Freese, ed. Lawrence H. Dawson (New
York: Dorset Press, 1993), 389.
6.
Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, 3rd
ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), 236.
SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian
Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Vol. 36,
No. 3; Spring 2010.
First-Century AD Greek Morals
By G. Al Wright, Jr.
Al
Wright is pastor, First Baptist Church, Fitzgerald, GA.
|
E |
VERY SOCIETY OPERATES by certain rules.
Some of the rules are written into law while others are known and
practiced only through local custom. Most
rules are practiced for a time before they become accepted norms, whether they
ever become written laws or not. The
behavior and attitudes that determine the laws and customs of a society are
called mores [MORE-rays]. The mores
held by a particular group eventually lead to a formulation of their morals.
An understanding of any society, and particularly groups within the
society, requires a study of the morals and customs by which it operates.
The moral standards of Greco-Roman society in the first century AD was
one of extremes, from strictness to laxness; from godliness to depravity.
Too, it was vastly different from the standards of Judeo-Christianity
that were expounded by Paul and others in the early church.
As the early church struggled to establish in its society the morality
taught by Christ, it was attacked from both sides.
From those who held to a strict interpretation of societal laws the
Christians received criticism for being too lax; the more libertine citizenry
railed on them for their adherence to a narrow morality.
Wayne Meeks is right that the character of the early Christian community
is not discovered by abstraction from the environment of which they were a part,
“but by confronting their involvement in the culture of their time and place
and seeking to trace the new patterns they made of old forms.”1
To understand the issues confronted by the early church in Europe
requires a study of the culture in which it emerged.
That culture was very different, morally, than the one out of which the
Jewish Christians had come, and it presented problems for them to live in such a
pagan environment. For Greek
Christians the problems lay in how
to change their morality from the free, open expression of their culture to that
of the strict legalism (comparatively) required by the gospel.
For example, Corinth was a city of great diversity, from its economic
enterprise to its athletic involvements to its religious expression.
Corinth was the city of the Isthmian games and was home to pagan cults of
every variety, a Jewish synagogue, and a fledgling Christian congregation.2
Yet it was a city of licentiousness and immorality even by the lax standards of
Greco-Roman society. The Christians
there were confronted with a society that allowed practically any behavior.
It was to such people that they witnessed of the high morality proclaimed
by Christ and Paul.
Corinth was representative, in part, of the scene found throughout much
of the European division of the Roman Empire. Although each of the great cities
of the empire had differences, certain attitudes were present in every one.
They shared the language, architecture, customs, and written decrees that
Hellenism had engendered.3
The differences between Greek morality and that
espoused by the early Christians lay in the roots of both systems.
Greeks were religious, but in a much more casual manner.4
Because their gods were so much like humans, people did not hold them in the
same respect as the Christians did Jesus Christ.
These pagan gods mixed freely with human beings and even fathered
children by human women. Although
the Greek gods had a moral influence on people, it was one of affection,
conflict, and judicious respect rather than the reverence, awe, and moral
obedience engendered by faith in Christ.
In the area of morality the gods of Hellenism had too many human
weaknesses. They were viewed as
tolerant of sinful practices and made few demands on devotees relative to
suffering and sacrifice. They fought
among themselves for control of the lives of humans, offering no distinct center
for devotion as did the God of the Christians.
In ancient Greece, leisure was paramount.
The average male citizen spent little time at home, partly because of the
mild climate, but more because of his pursuit of pleasure.
Among the attractions society offered were sporting games, public
gymnasia, and public baths. A
typical day might see a man enjoy all of these, concluding with a visit to a
local brothel.6
Much can be learned about a people by studying their art.
The ancient Greeks idolized the male form, portraying their favorite
citizens in statuary as lean, naked youths.
Many of the art forms played on the acceptance of homosexuality, with men
caressing each other. Particularly
in the upper classes were deviant lifestyles accepted.
Actually, homosexuality was scorned in public, the preference being
bisexuality in men which was accepted without question.7
The morality practiced by the citizens of the
Greco-Roman cities no doubt affected the Christian communities within them and
probably shaped how the church expressed its witness.
At best, the conflict between the accepted morals of society and the
understanding of what it meant to be the body of Christ created questions for
the new sect about being in the world and not of
the world.
A major source of conflict for the early church was the specific
differences in religious teaching and ritual.
Worship methods varied greatly between the pagans and the Christians.
The first-century Greek idea of worship ranged from silent meditation to
sexual orgy, while the Christians placed importance on morality and decency in
worship. In contrast, the Greeks
held festivals and feasts to their gods, often degenerating into drunken orgies
or brawls. Many of the temples
employed cult prostitutes and taught fertility rites as being the proper method
of worship. This led to a moral
laxness in society in general. Some
viewed the Greeks as totally undisciplined, immoral, and too luxurious in their
worship practices.
The morality of the gods became the morality of their adherents.
For example, Hermes, the herald and messenger of the gods, stooped to
very unethical practices to get his way in the heavenly realm.
Such belief had its effect on those who worshiped him, teaching that
harmful methods could be employed to achieve results that were in one’s own
best interest. Magic, taboo, and
even a cult of the dead also influenced the morality of society.
Monogamy was the rule for the Greco-Roman marriage, not because of a
high view of marriage, but because it maintained order.8 In fact, the
marriage between a son and his stepmother condemned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5
also was forbidden by Roman law.9 However, in the Greek pantheon the
goddess Aphrodite was married to her half-brother, Hephaistos, so law and
accepted morality parted company on this issue.
To add to the confusion, she was said to be unfaithful to him, carrying
on a notorious affair with the god Ares. Also,
as in our own society, most of the laws concerning morality could not be
enforced, so people practiced many deviate life-styles without fear of
prosecution. Too, first-century
marriages were dissolved as easily as they were made, so many people viewed the
relationship very lightly. Neither
religious sanctions nor societal ideals could curb the high rate of divorce.
Also, either partner easily could initiate divorce proceedings against
the other.
There was a double standard of morality concerning marriage.
Men could keep concubines, but wives could not have other men.
Society viewed male adultery not as against the wife but against the male
guardian of the other woman.10 Women remained throughout their lives
in the custody of a man, either father, husband, or guardian.
Most marriages were not of love but arranged by
the parents, mainly for socio-economic reasons.
A man could divorce his wife for her failure to produce children.
Too, wives could not be involved in the public affairs of men, but were
to remain at home and rear the children. Decent
women were not seen in the streets very often.
The shopping chores were done by husbands or male servants.
The need for order not only influenced the view of
marriage and, therefore, its sexual expressions, it also shaped the perspective
of the role of women in society. The
traditional view was that maintenance of order demanded the woman’s place be
in the home in subservience to the male who
was in the marketplace. Meeks
notes that this perception of women was “deeply entrenched in law and custom
and its erosion constantly deplored by the rhetorical moralists and the
satirists.”11 However, the first century saw an increase in the
number of women entering non-traditional fields, perhaps partly as a backlash to
the strict dominance of the male-oriented society of the past.
As a reaction, and probably as a result, morality began to change to meet
the situation.
The Christian congregation in the first century
faced issues in which being the body of Christ meant departing from accepted
societal norms, as in the case where Paul commanded an end to the adulterous
relationship. They faced other
issues in which being the body of Christ meant conformity with societal
norms—for example, monogamous marital relationships and the maintenance of
sexual purity. Whether departing
from societal norms or conforming to them, the question for the early church as
for the church in any age is not: What are the norms of our society, but in
which direction blows the wind of the Spirit?
Before we can answer this question in any age, of course, we must know
what the societal norms are. Further,
we must have an open sensitivity to the Spirit to avoid confusing societal norms
with the Spirit’s leadership. Through
the careful use of Scripture and a close walk with God we can know when He would
have us support the customs of society and when we should respectfully resist
those norms!
1.
Wayne Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1986), p. 97.
2.
The Geography of Strabo, trans. Horace Leonard Jones, in Loeb Classical
Library, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1927), 8.6.20.
3.
Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians:
The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), pp. 15-16.
4.
Georgia Harkness, The Sources of Western
Morality: From Primitive Society Through the Beginnings of Christianity (New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1954), p. 151.
5.
Ibid., p. 152.
6.
William Harlen Hale, Ancient Greece
(New York: American Heritage Press, 1970), p. 174.
7.
Ibid., p. 195.
8.
Meeks, The
First Urban Christians, p. 101.
9.
A Yarbro Gollins, “The Function of
‘Excommunication’ in Paul,” Harvard
Theological Review 73 (1980), p.
252.
10.
Hale, p. 188.
11.
Meeks, The
First Urban Christians, p. 23.
SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian
Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Winter
1989.
Prostitution
in the First Century
By
Glenn McCoy
Glenn McCoy
is associate professor of religion, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, NM.
|
T |
HE
NEW TESTAMENT unequivocally repudiates all extramarital and unnatural sexual
contact. Paul argues in the strongest of terms that Christians are to have no
part in sexual immorality. He recognized that we are tempted to immorality (1
Cor. 7:2) and therefore suggested we should shun it (1 Cor. 6:18), put it to
death (Col. 3:5), and abstain from it (1
Cor. 10:8; 1 Thess. 4:3). In fact, sexual immorality is not even to be
“named” among Christians (Eph. 5:3). He suggested that the Christians at
Corinth should not associate with fellow Christians who were guilty of
immorality (1 Cor. 5:11).
Why
did Paul argue so strongly against sexual immorality? For many reasons, no
doubt, but certainly for the following ones. First, the sexual drive of the
human is so strong. Perhaps next to the drive for self-survival the sexual drive
is the strongest. Second, sexual immorality is such a serious moral offense.
Paul underscored this seriousness by saying that when one engages in sexual
relations with a prostitute his body becomes one with the body of a prostitute
(1 Cor. 6:15). Even more seriously, a Christian who has sexual relations with a
prostitute is joining Christ to the prostitute
(1 Cor. 6:15-16). Third, sexual immorality was so prevalent in the world
of the first century. It was a way of life among many people of that day,
especially among the Greeks. Prostitution was legalized (and regulated) by the
Greek government. The Greeks regarded sexual intercourse as just a natural,
necessary, and justifiable function, such as eating and drinking. Sexual
abstinence was regarded as more harmful that moderate, free intercourse. The
married man was allowed extramarital intercourse as he pleased as long as he did
not violate another’s marriage. However, his wife was not afforded the same
freedom.1
Cult
prostitution (prostitutes attached to a temple) was practiced during New
Testament times throughout Asia Minor, Syria, Babylonia, Phoenicia, and Egypt.
Greece generally rejected this particular style of prostitution except at Athens
and Corinth. At Corinth there was a temple of Aphrodite (the goddess of love)
that had one thousand female prostitutes. This temple was located on the top of
Acrocorinth, overlooking the city.
Aphrodite,
according to ancient thought, both bestowed the enjoyment of love and commanded
that it should be sought. Thus, temple prostitution was necessary according to
the thought of the day. If girls earned their dowry by prostitution, marriage
was promoted and Aphrodite was pleased. If girls put their profits into the
temple treasury, Aphrodite was honored. So either way Aphrodite was the
beneficiary.
Prostitution
was carried on widely outside the temples as well. Several classes of
prostitutes may be distinguished. The lowest class was those in the brothels,
mostly female slaves, who were under the full power of their owners. Fees were
low in the brothels, since they represented the lowest form of prostitution.
Some sort of entrance fee was charged, then a present had to be given to the
girls themselves.
The
brothel-keeper had to pay a yearly tax to the state. The honorarium that the
visitor had to pay to the girls was fixed by special officials. The whole system
of prostitution was supervised closely by the city.
The
prostitute that walked the streets, using this trade as a secondary employment,
occupied a social position between the slave prostitute and the hetairae ([heh-TIE-ray]
“comrades” or “companions”). The wandering prostitutes were found
wherever there were potential customers, usually at or near harbors. They took
their customers into their own or hired rooms.
The
hetairae were the highest class of prostitute. They were highly respected and
well educated. They were well informed and capable conversationalists. They
associated with generals, statesman, men of letters, and artists. Most of the
other educated women in society found nothing wrong with this trade. Statues of
some of the more prominent hetairae were set up in temples and other public
buildings beside those of generals and statesmen.
The
hetairae were not especially trustworthy persons. It was not uncommon for them
to replace or forsake their lovers. Many of them were greedy for money,
sometimes robbing their clients. They were trained to ignore men who had no
money. Also, they knew how to get the highest fees from those who did have
money.
The
hetairae made themselves as attractive as possible. Their hair was curled, their
nails were neatly cut and polished, and their dresses were colorful. They dyed
their hair and wore rouge to make themselves more appealing. To enhance their
looks, they made use of clippers, mirrors, scissors, greasepaint, soda, false
hair, eye paint, earrings, bracelets, and necklaces.
Male prostitution also was practiced among the Greeks. In
general, Greek society did not frown on relations between a man and a youth,
unless the boy sold himself for money. Aristophanes spoke disapprovingly of the
practice of make prostitution for money.
And
they say that the boys do this very thing, not for their lovers’, but for
money’s sake. Not the better sort, but the sodomites; for the better sort do
not ask for money.2
Still
boys and youths were to be had everywhere in Greece for money and presents. Boys
also could be hired by contract for a longer or shorter time. At least in Athens
and other harbor towns, there were brothels in which boys and youths entertained
clients alone or with girls for money. Some of these were prisoners of war who
afterwards were sold and forced into prostitution. The best known example of
this is Phaedo [FAY-dough] of Elis, with whom Socrates, on the day of his death,
dialogued on the immortality of the soul. However, free youths also were found
in these houses, earning money from the sale of their bodies.
Prostitution
especially was prevalent in Greece. This is evidenced by Paul’s great concern
for the issue as reflected in the two New Testament epistles addressed to Greece
(1 and 2 Corinthians). No less than 10 times in these tow letters, Paul referred
to some aspect of sexual immorality.
One
thing that contributed to the prevalence of prostitution in Greece was a law
passed in 451 B.C. in Athens. This law made a sharp distinction between natives
and foreigners, and denied civil rights to the children of mixed marriages.
Consequently, a great number of alien women had to become self-supporting. Many
turned to prostitution.
Sparta
and the Doric branch of the Greeks maintained a more disciplined sexual life
than did the Athenians, Corinthians, and the lonians. It is not surprising that
Paul know of different examples of sexual immorality at Corinth (1Cor. 5:1; 2
Cor. 12:21). In the first instance, a man was living with his stepmother. Roman
and Greek law forbade this practice, to say nothing of its wrongness form the
Christian perspective.
The
impression could be left that Greece was nothing more than an early day,
oversized sex club. This was not the case. There were those among the Greeks who
maintained a chaste life. Although they did not reject sexual enjoyment as such,
the Stoics (a philosophy founded in the third century B.C.) did try to free men
from the control of passion. For married persons, this group consistently
condemned any kind of sexual activity with someone other than one’s spouse. C.
Musonius Rufus, s Stoic who lived at the time of Nero, regarded all sexual
intercourse outside marriage as unlawful and infamous. He rejected even that
between master and female slave. He held that the man who has intercourse with
hetairae sins against himself (see 1 Cor. 6:15). He stated that all unclean acts
a man commits defiles the god in his own breast (compare 1 Cor. 6:15-16).3
It
is easy to see that the early Christian church was liked an island of morality
in a sea of immorality. Many of its members had come out of a society that
condoned all types of sexual immorality. A radical transformation was necessary
for the new Christians to practice chastity when, in their previous life-styles,
they had been free to dabble in all kinds of sexual affairs.
Thus,
Paul and other New Testament writers spent much time and effort to show the new
Christians they no longer could live lives of sexual license. He reminded them
that the body was not meant for immorality but for the Lord (1 Cor. 6:13). He
charged that no person whose style of life is characterized by sexual impurity
has any inheritance in the kingdom of God (Eph. 5:5). In light of the problem of
sexual immorality in the first century, we should not be surprised to see that
the New Testament writers in general, and Paul in particular, unequivocally
repudiated all extramarital and unnatural sexual contact.
1.
Gerhard
Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), 6:582-83.
2.
Quoted
in Hans Licht, Sexual Life in Ancient Greece (New York: Barnes &
Noble, Inc., 1963), 437.
3.
Kittel,
583.
SOURCE:
Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist
Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Fall 1991.
Paul’s Missing Epistles
By Naymond H. Keathley
Dr.
Keathley is assistant professor of New Testament, Golden Gate Baptist
Theological Seminary.
|
F |
IRST CORINTHIANS was
not the first letter that Paul wrote to the Christians in Corinth.
As startling as this statement may seem, its truth becomes obvious as one
reads Paul’s own words in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, “I wrote to you in my
letter. . . . “ Here he indicated
that he had already sent at least one epistle to these readers before this
letter known today as First Corinthians.
What happened to this previous correspondence?
Even a cursory glance at the New Testament and other early Christian
literature indicates that the letter in
its original form no longer
exists. A careful examination of the
New Testament, moreover, indicates that other letters written by Paul are also
lost. In Colossians 4:16, for
example, he mentioned a letter to the Laodiceans which he encouraged the
Colossians to read; yet there is no epistle bearing that name in the New
Testament. Although not generally
accepted, some scholars have identified the epistle to the Laodiceans with the
epistle to Philemon. Furthermore,
Paul perhaps referred to yet another “lost” Corinthian epistle in 2
Corinthians 2:2-4 and 7:8. Since he
indicated that this particular letter had been written with great anguish and
many tears, many scholars feel that he was not referring to 1 Corinthians, but
to yet another epistle, a “Severe Letter” sent to the same church.
Evidently, when Paul’s epistles were being collected at the end of the
first century, not all of the letters were known or preserved as they had been
written.
Interestingly enough, however, many present day New Testament scholars
feel that at least portions of these two other letters to the Corinthians have
been preserved within the extant (presently available) correspondence from Paul.
According to this view, 2 Corinthians 6:14 to 7:1 is actually a part of
the “Previous Letter” mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, while 2 Corinthians
10—13 is a portion of the “Severe Letter” to which Paul refers in 2
Corinthians 2:2-4 and 7:8. Several
reasons have been suggested for accepting this suggested structure of 2
Corinthians.
(1) Second Corinthians 6:14
to 7:11 does not seem to fit into its context.
In the verses that immediately precede and follow that passage, Paul
wrote of his relationship in Christian love with the Corinthians.
In fact we can read directly from 6:13 to 7:2 and not lose the author’s
line of thought. In the middle of
this passage, however, an abrupt digression occurs that admonishes the reader
not to be mismated with unbelievers! Since
this passage does not seem to fit into its context and since it deals with the
issue that Paul discussed within his “Previous Letter” (see 1 Cor. 5:9),
many have concluded that this passage is in fact a portion of that earlier
correspondence.
(2) Similarly, there
appears to be another abrupt change in style and mood between chapters 9 and 10
of 2 Corinthians. In the material up
to chapter 10 the mood is conciliatory. The
breach that once had existed between the Corinthians and Paul has been healed,
and Paul is thankful for the reconciliation that has been accomplished.
In chapters 10—13, however, the tone of the letter shifts to a fierce
defense of Paul’s apostleship and a rigorous attack against those opposing him
and charging him with impure motives. Because
of this shift in the author’s mood, many have concluded that chapters 10—13
were originally a part of the “Severe Letter” mentioned in 1 Corinthians
2:2-4 and 7:8.
(3) Those who accept this
understanding of the structure of 2 Corinthians assume that the epistle has been
handed down in edited form. According
to this view, when the letters of Paul were circulated and collected together at
the end of the first century, 1 Corinthians was preserved intact.
Besides this epistle, the collectors also had fragments of at least three
other letters written by Paul to the Corinthians, but at that time none had been
preserved in its entirety. The
collectors were unwilling to omit these genuine words of Paul from the
collection of his letters, so they combined these fragment together into one
manuscript—the present 2 Corinthians. Those
who hold this view do not deny the inspiration of Scripture; rather they suggest
that the process of inspiration included the editing and collecting of materials
as well as the writing of them. In
other words, some unknown person or group who assimilated Paul’s writings was
inspired not to discard authentic Pauline materials because of their fragmentary
nature but to combine them and preserve them as one document.
Conservative scholars who hold this view believe if these passages are
indeed parts of other Pauline letters, they are inspired in the same way as the
rest of Paul’s writings. We are
really dealing with when and to whom the material was written, now whether the
passages are inspired.
In contrast to this general position that portions of the “Previous
Letter” and the “Severe Letter” have been preserved in such a way, other
serious students of the New Testament reject the idea that 2 Corinthians is such
a compilation of fragmentary materials. They
point out the fact that Paul frequently made abrupt changes in mood or style and
that his thought often digressed within his epistles.
Moreover they further suggest that Paul did not necessarily write all of
2 Corinthians at one sitting. Sudden
changes in style or thought patterns, therefore, could represent a change in the
author’s mood as he sat once again to continue or to complete a letter after
some delay. These present day
students also note that no manuscript evidence in the various Greek texts
supports the idea that any portion of this letter ever circulated independently.
Thus they conclude that 2 Corinthians should be taken at face value as a
letter written by Paul in the same form as it has been preserved.
Those who take this position, however, do not deny that there was at one
time a “Previous Letter” or a “Severe Letter.”
This correspondence, they suggest, simply has not survived.
We do not have everything that Paul wrote.
SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian
Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Vol. 36, No.
3; Spring 2010.
BIBLE CHARACTER TRIVIA
Where In The Bible Is The Answer To This Week’s
Trivia Question Found? Who was the founder of the royal family which
continued until the downfall of the Jewish state? (Answer Next Week)
The answer to last week’s trivia question:
Whose proclamation of
God’s Word created great joy within the city?
Answer: Philip (the Evangelist); Acts 8:8.