"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 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. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 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! 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." 17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 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. 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; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body (NIV).The quotation marks in the NIV translation above are a pretty good guess at where Paul was quoting the slogans being tossed around in the Corinthian churches by those who were flaunting their "liberty" in Christ. But we cannot be sure in all cases if the quotation might have continued farther than indicated. For example, in v. 13 it is possible that "but God will destroy them both" also belongs to the slogan, not to Paul's reply.
We would all like to know just who in the Corinthian churches was using which slogans. Gender-wise, it has been plausibly suggested on the basis of the mention of "liberated" believers using prostitutes (v. 16) that those urging sexual freedom were men, not women. Perhaps, but we should be aware that the NIV's "he" and "his" in verse 16-18 is gender-neutral which can equally correctly be translated "she" and "her". And the Greek word anthropos which the NIV renders "man" in v. 18 is also the gender-neutral word "person". Were these "liberated" persons Jew or Gentile believers in Jesus? Would Gentile (i.e., pagan) converts have felt "un-liberated" sexually before becoming believers? These are questions for which we simply do not have answers. And in terms of the corrosive sexual liberation in today's world, the great hue and cry in TV, movies and mass media is for women to be liberated and to enjoy a promiscuous life style. So in terms of application of this passage to today's Christians, it is best not to pigeon-hole it with a gender category. All of us believers—men and women—need to hear this word of God through Paul.
As in his previous remarks about civil lawsuits, Paul stresses that what one has a right to do—even if that claim were to be correct—is not the really important issue for a disciple of Jesus. The issue is not what is permissible, but what is beneficial to all persons concerned. He has stressed in chapter 3 that it is corporately that the believers constitute God's temple. So much about the ways in which God has richly endowed them (1 Cor. 1:4-7) is true only in their corporate—not their individual—existence. Consequently, their personal lives and ethical decisions must all be governed by what is good for the entire body of believers. What will be helpful in strengthening others in the believing community? What will clarify the witness of the community to the outsiders? Will my action help or hinder the growth of my brothers and sisters in Christ?
What appear to be "free" choices, especially in matters of sexual practice, also usually lead to habits—and habits have a way of becoming addictions. Hence, Paul's warning "'Everything is permissible for me'—but I will not be mastered by anything" (v. 12).
The slogan "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food" in v. 13 has a very modern ring to it. Some people today reason this way: If I have an urge for sexual intercourse with someone, is it not just as much a natural bodily function as being hungry or thirsty? Why should it be considered wrong to satisfy that urge? If the slogan Paul quotes includes "and God will destroy them both", it is possible that the "liberated" person claims that what one does with one's body, which eventually dies, is unimportant. It is the soul that continues and will live on with God. Paul will eventually puncture that "balloon" with teaching on the resurrection of the body of believers as an essential part of eternal living in God's final kingdom. David Wenham has raised the interesting possibility that these "liberated" believers were basing their view on what they understood of the teachings of Jesus himself.
"It may seem surprising, but it is possible that the men going to prostitutes were [quoting Jesus' teaching]! … This is suggested by the way Paul describes their view: 'Food for the stomach and the stomach for food. But God will destroy both' (6.13). We may wonder what the food and stomach have to do with the question of prostitution. Is the context one of orgiastic meals, with sex thrown in? Possibly. But it is also possible that the Corinthians were taking what Jesus said about food and applying it to sex. To understand this point, we need to recall a story of Jesus in Mark and Matthew (Mark 7.1-23; Matthew 15.l-20). Jesus' disciples, according to the gospels, caused offence to the Pharisees and scribes by 'eating food with hands that were unclean, that is, unwashed' (Mark 7.3). Jesus replied by attacking his opponents' inverted priorities, and then commented, 'Nothing outside a person can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean' (Mark 7.15). When pressed by his disciples to clarify this he comments: 'Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him "unclean"? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body' (7.18 19a). Mark then adds, 'In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean' (7.19b). … It is entirely likely, given its importance for him, that Paul will have passed on this teaching to the Corinthians (cf. also Colossians 2.21-2). He will have taught them about Christians being free from the law, and quoted Jesus' teaching in that connection. What he will not, presumably, have anticipated is that some of the Corinthians would seize on his teaching about Christian freedom, and in particular on the idea of 'nothing coming into a person from outside' making a person unclean, to justify sexual licence. After all, in the gospel story itself the question of food is linked to the question of hand-washing, and it was convenient logic for the Corinthians to apply the teaching about food to another bodily function, i.e. sex. Jesus' comment about food going into the stomach and so passing on could well have led the Corinthians to say 'Food for the stomach, the stomach for food. God will destroy both', and then to argue that sex is a similarly harmless physical function of the body which has no relevance to the heart and the spirit; they are what matter, as Jesus said. This logic may seem perverse to us, but we are familiar enough in the modern world with people interpreting the Bible perversely to suit their own views! … What is interesting in this reconstruction of things is that both [Paul] and his opponents are quoting the teaching and traditions of Jesus. He had taught them what Jesus had said about all sorts of things, including marriage, divorce, celibacy, the kingdom of God, and cleanness; they took this teaching on board, but interpreted some of it in ways that Paul rejected; he then has to correct their interpretations. In doing so, he uses a variety of arguments, some of which draw further on the teaching of Jesus" (Wenham, Paul and Jesus: The True Story [2002], p. 153-55).If, however, the final phrase "and God will destroy them both" is not part of their slogan, but Paul's response, then he is stressing that even with a resurrected body, saints in eternity will no longer need to satisfy physical hunger or thirst.
Either way, Paul wishes to clear the air theologically. What believers do in their bodies now, in this life, is not unimportant. Our bodies are part of God's temple (v. 15-17). Our bodies have been redeemed by Jesus and belong to him (v. 19-20). As the bride is joined physically to her husband, so we as the bride of Christ are joined to him spiritually (v. 17), and must remain faithful to him in both body and spirit. Paul's biblical and theological logic is impeccable and irrefutable. What is expected of those whom Jesus has liberated from bondage to sin is purity of body and spirit. Purity does not exclude the proper use of our God-given sexual desires, which should be channeled through our marriage partners to the glory of God. Not every bodily urge is "innocent" or morally "neutral" like thirst. And even hunger and thirst must never dominate us. After all, both Jesus and Paul at times felt it necessary to practice the discipline of fasting.
What then should be the lessons that we leave this passage with?
- First of all, our bodies belong to Jesus and must be used to bring glory to him, not to satisfy selfish desires.
- Secondly, we belong to a worldwide community of believers in Jesus, as well as to a local sub-unit of that community. Our conduct, including out sexual conduct, should foster the very best goals of that community.
- And thirdly, we should all realize that actions become habits, which become addictions, and should avoid letting momentary urges create harmful patterns in our lives—even patterns of thinking about the opposite sex.
No comments:
Post a Comment