SUNDAY SCHOOL LESSON STUDYGUIDE

Fairview Baptist Church
2040 Main Street WW - Ashland, Kentucky 41102
"Where Everybody Is Somebody and Jesus is Lord"

Sunday School Archives
The lessons below are for the current month

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week5

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)?

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?

13. Does living in an immoral society justify casual acceptance of immorality? Why or why not?

16. How do confrontation and redemption go hand in hand when confronting open immorality?

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?

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?

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?

10. When, if ever, should a church remove a person from involvement in the fellowship?

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?

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?

3. What rhetorical question does Paul ask in verse 15? How does Paul answer his own question?

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?

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?

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.)

I. Does Sin Still Shock Us? (1 Cor. 5:1-2) Commentary

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

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:

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).

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.

II. How Should We Respond to Immoral Members? (1 Cor. 5:9-13) Commentary

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

5:9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—

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.

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.

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.

III. What’s Wrong with Sexual Immorality? (1 Cor. 6:15-20) Commentary

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

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:

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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. Corinth was noted for the immorality associated with the temple worship of Aphrodite located on their acropolis. Ships were moved over land on the Isthmus of Corinth and sailors, waiting for their ships to be moved, often sought prostitutes when they visited the city. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul mentioned “sexually immoral people, … adulterers, male prostitutes, [and] homosexuals” as previous sins of some in the Corinthian church who had repented and trusted Christ.

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.

Gary M. Poulton is professor of history and president emeritus of Virginia Intermont College, Bristol, Virginia.

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 19^th 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, 3^rd 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.

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.

6. William Harlen Hale, Ancient Greece (New York: American Heritage Press, 1970), p. 174.

9. A Yarbro Gollins, “The Function of ‘Excommunication’ in Paul,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980), p. 252.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Winter 1989.

Glenn McCoy is associate professor of religion, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, NM.

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.

SOURCE: Biblical Illustrator; LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nashville, TN 37234; Fall 1991.

Dr. Keathley is assistant professor of New Testament, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary.

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.

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.

I. Does Sin Still Shock Us? (1 Cor. 5:1-2) Commentary

II. How Should We Respond to Immoral Members? (1 Cor. 5:9-13) Commentary

III. What’s Wrong with Sexual Immorality? (1 Cor. 6:15-20) Commentary

DIGGING DEEPER: