Continuing in this
stream of thought, Paul goes on to write “Or do you not know that anyone who is
united with a prostitute is one body with her? For it is said ‘The two
will become one flesh.’” (1 Corinthians 6:16) Paul then hammers home the
communal aspect of his use of “body,” thus enabling us to read “But the one
united with the Lord is one spirit with Him” (6:17). To this is then
added “Flee sexual immorality!” (6:18a) Having made this statement, Paul
goes on to quote what must have been a portion of what has been reported to him
about this church, writing “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body”
(6:18b).
This seems to have
unavoidable communal implications, as if Paul was being informed that practices
in which some were engaging, which it could be argued did not rightly bear out
the image of the Creator God as was intended for ambassadors of the kingdom of that
God that had been established upon the earth, should not have a negative effect
on the way that Paul views this church or the way that the church is viewed by
the community in which it is present---especially if the practices would not necessarily
have been considered scandalous to the observing community or if it might have
been proposed that such practices were a means of outreach and inclusion of all
and sundry in the mold of Jesus’ inclusion, at His tables, of those outside the
boundaries of the covenant people.
To this, Paul replies
“but the immoral person sins against his own body” (6:18c). The use of
“immoral” is clearly linked with the previously referenced sexual immorality
and the mention of prostitutes, while the use of “body,” taking into consideration
the union and uniting aspects that Paul has already mentioned, should be taken
as a reference to the church. Therefore, Paul’s critique asks to be
understood as a critique of practices that are allowed to take place within the
church (and not necessarily personal practices of individuals in their “private
lives”), with these practices causing the church as a body to fall short of its
responsibility to bear the image of the Creator God, which it can only do as it
imitates Jesus---seeing the Father in Him and in the deeds and practices of His
ministry.
Naturally, Paul is
not buying their argument, so the dissertation closes with Paul writing “Or do
you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you,
whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at
a price. Therefore glorify God with your body” (6:19-20). With
this, there are obvious and unmistakably individual and corporate applications
and implications. Clearly, if all of
this is considered within the responsibility of the church and its members to
be the representatives of a kingdom (a community), one is not to be separated
from the other.
Returning to the
thirteenth verse then, it is most interesting to note that talk of prostitutes
and sin and the body follows immediately after “Food is for the stomach and the
stomach is for food, but God will do away with both” (6:13a), which in turn
follows Paul’s rejoinders of “but not everything is beneficial” and “but I will
not be controlled by anything” (6:12b,d), which are his apparent responses to
the statement that has come to him (again, presumably from this church) that
“All things are lawful for me” (6:12a,c). The juxtaposition of an
elaboration on what is lawful, beneficial, controlling, and food, against a
statement about sexual immorality and the body, cannot help but cause one to
consider yet another common and accepted aspect of ancient meal practice upon
which this study has yet to elaborate. This situating of content
concerning sexual morality (or immorality) in the context of food
considerations and meal practice may be quite telling for an understanding of
the issues at hand in the church at Corinth.
No comments:
Post a Comment