I find it amusing when people today say that they want to be a “New Testament church”. I know what they mean to some degree, but I like to pretend that they’re hankering for the good ol’ days when church members were getting drunk on communion wine and sleeping with temple prostitutes. Oh to be a New Testament church like the one in Corinth, eh!?
Speaking of temple prostitutes (there’s a segue you don’t hear too often), one of the Bible verses that has long-bewildered me is found in Paul’s response to the Corinthians’ liaisons with some women of the night. Having explained that sex with a prostitute creates a bond that is not easily broken -- “the two will become one flesh” -- Paul goes on to write,
Flee fornication. That much is understandable. This is no arbitrary law to be kept for law-keeping’s sake, but a way of life that promotes our own good and that of others when we abide by it and causes us and others harm when we turn away from it.
But what about the next sentence? The belief that “Every sin which a man may do is outside the body” does not fit easily into the overall context of 1 Corinthians, nor into the theology/ethics of Scripture in general. Our bodies are either instruments of righteousness or instruments of sin. The univocal witness of Scripture is that what we do with our bodies matters, so how do we explain this verse?
The way I have usually heard it explained is that sexual sin is of a different class to all other sins. When we misuse our sexuality we are harming our own bodies in a deeper way than when we commit a more run-of-the-mill sin. Sex is an intimate thing, and so its abuse has intimate consequences.
I don’t necessarily question this diagnosis of sexual sin, but it has always seemed to me to set up a false contrast. After all, Paul usually groups sexual sin in with others like greed, envy, and bitterness, without marking it out as being “internal” as opposed to “external”. And besides, what does it even mean for greed or envy to be committed “outside the body”? That doesn’t make any good sense.
O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this exegetical conundrum? Thanks be to God through Richard B. Hays our scholar.
This particular section in 1 Corinthians starts with the much-loved phrase, “All things are lawful for me”. This is not a phrase of Paul’s creation, however, but a Corinthian slogan used to justify certain sinful actions. So the exchange between the Corinthians and Paul goes like this:
The next Corinthian slogan is more long-winded than most (if not all) translations allow for. As Hays argues, however, we must include all of the following lest we end up with a Platonic dualism of bad matter and good spirit:
Here (and at the end of the section) the body is affirmed as God’s good creation to be used for His glory. It is not something to be destroyed, but something to be redeemed. That is its raison d’etre.
And so we come to the most pertinent Corinthian--Paul exchange. How do you solve a problem like sins outside the body? Just assume that Paul never said it. Assume this, as Hays does rather convincingly, and you end up with the following back-and-forth:
Paul isn’t contrasting sexual sin with all other sins (and he's certainly not making it sound worse or more grievous, which is a possible and lamentable result of the usual interpretation). He’s simply exposing the fallacy of the Corinthians’ argument. To paraphrase Paul's intention:
The coup de grace comes in the next verse, where Paul makes the astounding claim that our bodies are the dwellings places of the Holy Spirit. But let’s not go there just yet.
For now, all you need to know is that if there is a verse you find difficult to swallow, just assume that the church in Corinth came up with it. You wouldn’t believe how liberating it is to think that “Love your neighbour as yourself” is a Corinthian slogan, for example.
Speaking of temple prostitutes (there’s a segue you don’t hear too often), one of the Bible verses that has long-bewildered me is found in Paul’s response to the Corinthians’ liaisons with some women of the night. Having explained that sex with a prostitute creates a bond that is not easily broken -- “the two will become one flesh” -- Paul goes on to write,
Flee fornication. Every sin which a man may do is outside the body, but he doing fornication sins against his own body.
Flee fornication. That much is understandable. This is no arbitrary law to be kept for law-keeping’s sake, but a way of life that promotes our own good and that of others when we abide by it and causes us and others harm when we turn away from it.
But what about the next sentence? The belief that “Every sin which a man may do is outside the body” does not fit easily into the overall context of 1 Corinthians, nor into the theology/ethics of Scripture in general. Our bodies are either instruments of righteousness or instruments of sin. The univocal witness of Scripture is that what we do with our bodies matters, so how do we explain this verse?
The way I have usually heard it explained is that sexual sin is of a different class to all other sins. When we misuse our sexuality we are harming our own bodies in a deeper way than when we commit a more run-of-the-mill sin. Sex is an intimate thing, and so its abuse has intimate consequences.
I don’t necessarily question this diagnosis of sexual sin, but it has always seemed to me to set up a false contrast. After all, Paul usually groups sexual sin in with others like greed, envy, and bitterness, without marking it out as being “internal” as opposed to “external”. And besides, what does it even mean for greed or envy to be committed “outside the body”? That doesn’t make any good sense.
O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this exegetical conundrum? Thanks be to God through Richard B. Hays our scholar.
This particular section in 1 Corinthians starts with the much-loved phrase, “All things are lawful for me”. This is not a phrase of Paul’s creation, however, but a Corinthian slogan used to justify certain sinful actions. So the exchange between the Corinthians and Paul goes like this:
Corinthians: All things are lawful to me.
Paul: But not all things are beneficial.
Corinthians: All things are lawful to me.
Paul: But I will not be enslaved by anything.
The next Corinthian slogan is more long-winded than most (if not all) translations allow for. As Hays argues, however, we must include all of the following lest we end up with a Platonic dualism of bad matter and good spirit:
Corinthians: Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy both one and the other.
Paul: The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
Here (and at the end of the section) the body is affirmed as God’s good creation to be used for His glory. It is not something to be destroyed, but something to be redeemed. That is its raison d’etre.
And so we come to the most pertinent Corinthian--Paul exchange. How do you solve a problem like sins outside the body? Just assume that Paul never said it. Assume this, as Hays does rather convincingly, and you end up with the following back-and-forth:
Corinthians: Every sin man does is outside the body.
Paul: But the man guilty of sexual immorality sins against his own body.
Paul isn’t contrasting sexual sin with all other sins (and he's certainly not making it sound worse or more grievous, which is a possible and lamentable result of the usual interpretation). He’s simply exposing the fallacy of the Corinthians’ argument. To paraphrase Paul's intention:
You Corinthians say that what we do with our bodies is of no consequence. You say that sin is not a bodily matter. I say that it is.
The coup de grace comes in the next verse, where Paul makes the astounding claim that our bodies are the dwellings places of the Holy Spirit. But let’s not go there just yet.
For now, all you need to know is that if there is a verse you find difficult to swallow, just assume that the church in Corinth came up with it. You wouldn’t believe how liberating it is to think that “Love your neighbour as yourself” is a Corinthian slogan, for example.
No comments:
Post a Comment