Section IV The New Faith and a
New Fellowship
To Paul the gospel of Jesus Christ was a new and vital force in life. In the first four chapters the apostle emphasized the truth that the new faith in Christ should result in a sense of unity and purpose. He pointed out in precise terms the fact that the divisions and quarrelings in the church were contrary to the new faith. In c. 5, Paul pinpointed the principle that the new faith produced a new morality. This new morality was not based on human wisdom, but was the result of God’s revelation in Christ.
In c. 6 the apostle discusses the problem of lawsuits among the members of the church. He asks them to settle their problems within the church fellowship rather than submitting the cases to unchristian courts. After showing the folly of Christians taking each other before heathen tribunals, Paul warns them against the danger of a lapse back into sin. He is particularly concerned about the sin of fornication, which seemed to be an acute problem in Corinth. He ends this section by reminding the Corinthians of the inspiring truth that they were, in reality, temples of the Holy Spirit.
A. FELLOWSHIP VERSUS CARNAL LITIGATION, 6:1-11
Paul felt that the church at Corinth was losing its spiritual balance within, and dissipating its missionary influence without. Among the several reasons for loss of vitality and influence was the spectacle of Christians parading their differences before the civil courts.
1. Lawsuits Unworthy of the Church (6:1-4)
To Paul the church was a union of believers in Christ. The union should be characterized by fellowship with man as well as worship before God. But the church at Corinth seemed to prefer carnal litigation to Christian fellowship.
a. Christian arbitration is better than pagan verdicts (6:1). To Paul, public lawsuits involving Christians were unthinkable. Thus he writes: Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? This abrupt question “marks an outburst of indignant feeling.”1 One commentator suggests that Paul’s language indicates that he regards public lawsuits as “treason against Christian brotherhood.”2
The apostle did not deny the possibility of real differences between Christians. The phrase having a matter against another means “a cause for trial, a case.”3 But the thing Paul opposed was the increasing number of Christians who were submitting their differences to the heathen courts. To go to law (krino) is an attempt to have a verdict rendered, to seek for judgment. The verb form used here (krinesthai) indicates that the parties involved took the initiative in taking their problems to court. And these lawsuits were between fellow believers, not between Christians and those outside the church.
Jesus had already laid down the principle that His followers ought to settle their differences between each other (Matt. 5: 39-40). The example of the Jews should also have been a lesson to the church. Rabbinical literature prohibited lawsuits before idolatrous judges. To the rabbis such action was in the same category as blasphemy.4 The Roman government permitted the Jews autonomy in matters of disputes between themselves. In the Jewish community the house of judgment (Bethdin) was almost as common as the synagogue (Beth-keneseth). So it was probably not Jewish converts who were involved in these lawsuits. The Greeks, however, were fond of disputings and litigations, and they may have been involved.
The term unjust (unrighteous) does not necessarily mean that it was impossible to secure justice in the civil courts. The Romans were proud of their sense of justice and their record of legal tolerance. Paul himself had appealed to Roman justice (Acts 28:19). But Paul’s case in that instance was not made against a fellow believer. However, the trial of Jesus before Pilate and the record of the public courts regarding the Christians was a rather sad picture of justice (Acts 12:1-2; 16:19-24; 24:27).
Christian fellowship would call for a hearing in matters of everyday life before the saints. Christians here are given a title of honor and dignity—the saints (hoi hagioi, “the holy ones”). God had separated them from the world and He had provided for them a holy life in Christ. He had given them wisdom and power. Then why should those whom God has so honored be called to appear before men who recognized no God, or only heathen gods? Further, the whole procedure of civil courts operates according to impersonal evidence and technical details. The Christian Church, on the other hand, operates as a personal, united group which lives according to the motives of mercy, love, and kindly concern for one another. Thus Christian arbitration was better than pagan verdicts.
b. Christian potential versus carnal procedure (6:2). The Corinthians faced a choice of measuring up to their spiritual potential or descending to carnal procedures. The potential of the Christian is breathtaking indeed, as Paul points out in these words: Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? The question Do ye not know? is used 10 times in the Corinthian letters, but only three times elsewhere in Paul’s writings (Rom. 6:3, 16; 7:1). The Corinthians were either carnally indifferent to their spiritual potential or were ignorant of their unique destiny.
In Paul’s thinking, the believers are to participate as associates of Christ in the rulership of the entire world. Jesus said of the apostles that they should “sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28). This is extended here to all the followers of Christ. Lightfoot comments: “Just as the faithful shall reign with Christ as kings (2 Tim. ii: 12, Rev. xxii: 5), so shall they sit with Him as judges of the world.”5
The inspiring spiritual potential of the people of God as future rulers and judges of the world appears in Dan. 7:22; Ps. 49:14; Matt. 19:28; Rev. 2:26-27; 3:21; 20:4. The term world here includes all those who have rejected the appeal of the gospel.6 Another way of stating the meaning of v. 2 would be: Don’t you realize that you, the future judges of final destinies and the arbiters of eternal matters, are able to make decisions regarding routine matters of life?
The truth Paul is trying to impress upon the Corinthians is that ultimately the heathen will come under the divine judgment, in which all Christians participate. How strange, then, that these same heathen are called upon to settle the disputes of the Christians!
c. Celestial power versus earthly confusion (6:3). Not only will the redeemed believers assist Christ in the rulership of the world. They also will participate in the judgment pronounced on angels. The angels are the highest order of beings under God, as things now exist, yet they are part of the universe in general. Christ will rule over the entire universe and the believers in Christ “shall share in His regal exaltation, which exceeds any angelic dignity.”7
Whether good angels or bad angels are indicated in this passage is not specified. Tertulhan, Chrysostom, and other Early Church writers regarded them as fallen angels. Later commentators, such as Alford, regarded them as good angels.8 But the meaning is the same in either case. Even an exalted order of beings like the angels will be subject to the judgment of the Christians, because of the Christians’ unique relationship to Christ. If, then, these Corinthians expect to assist in the judgment of angels, they ought to be competent to settle disputes regarding life on the earth. If they are to exercise celestial power, they should be able to eliminate earthly confusion.
d. Christian perspective on worldly authority (6:4). Paul was concerned for the spiritual influence of the church. He felt that Christians should avoid lawsuits entirely. But if they found it necessary to establish tribunals to deal with the everyday affairs of this life, then let them set as judges the lowest in the churches.
There are various interpretations given to the phrase least esteemed in the church. Some have interpreted this as a touch of irony in Paul’s speech, and interpret the words to refer to the most simple among the church—that any, “however low in the church, rather than the heathen,”9 should judge. Others feel that the words refer to “persons of proved inferiority of judgment.”10 Still others regard the words as a reference to the unbelievers, who pass for nothing in the church and enjoy no confidence or authority there.11 The RSV thus interprets the verse, “If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church?” Christian arbitration is superior to pagan verdicts.
2. Lawsuits a Disgrace to the Church (6:5-6)
Paul was concerned for the spiritual development of the church and for the impact of the church on the world. He realized that lawsuits between members of the church were a sign of spiritual weakness—and a symbol of disgrace. Thus Paul wrote: I speak to your shame (5). He may have added this comment “to account for the severe irony of the last remark,”12 or to actually humiliate them by the question he is about to ask.13 The question was double-barrelled. First Paul asked: Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? Can it really be that this church, which was so proud of its wisdom, of its gifts, and of its superior spirituality, could not find anyone wise enough and fair enough to settle disputes?
The second part of the question would be equally embarrassing to the Corinthians. Was there not even one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? The nature of the problems causing these lawsuits appeared to be such that a person was needed to decide between conflicting ethical practices (diakrinai) rather than to judge (krinai) legal crimes. The reason for these questions was to bring the Corinthians to their senses. “Considering how wise they were in their own conceit, the question is a very cutting one.”14
The climax to Paul’s indictment of shame came in the next statement: But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers (6). It is dismal when sharp differences arise between church members. But when professed believers persist to the point of parading these differences in a pagan court, it is a scandal before the world.
The magistrates and judges of these pagan courts are called “unjust” (adikia, unrighteous) in v. 1. Now they are called unbelievers (apistia)—devoid of faith. These pagan officials decided legal cases according to technical details, debating skill, or the weight of evidence. Christians, on the other hand, must consider problems in the light of God’s grace and of personal fellowship, as well as in the light of legal procedure.
3. Warning Against Spiritual Degeneration (6:7-11)
The outbreak of lawsuits among the Corinthians was actually a sign of spiritual degeneration in the church. In rapid-fire order Paul listed their spiritual failures. Then, as was his custom, he softened the charge with a reminder of their spiritual heritage.
a. Spiritual loss and defeat (6:7a). Looking at the problem as a whole, Paul stated, There is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. The word fault (hettema) is given various shades of meaning. It may mean “the spiritual loss sustained by the assembly because of their disputes and habits of going to law.”15 Another writer interprets fault as a falling short of their “inheritance of the kingdom of God.”16Still another says that it means more than a defect, or a loss—it is a clear spiritual defeat for those who go to court.17 Any of these interpretations reveal that this church was in a state of spiritual degeneration and was living far below its Christian potential.
b. The Christian method of settling problems (6:7b). Paul had pointed out the proper method of solving disputes when he had first preached to them. He here repeats the Christian method of solving differences: Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? A Christian need not be a pawn, nor should he permit himself to be misused. But, in Paul’s thinking, it was better to endure an injustice or to sustain a financial loss than to suffer spiritual damage. Jesus himself teaches that the Christian should not resist evil (Matt.5:39). The church was suffering a loss in dignity and honor; it was experiencing a decline of influence and respect; it was sapping its evangelical strength. The Christian method of avoiding lawsuits was to suffer instead of retaliating.
c. Fraud instead of charity (6:8). Not only had these Corinthians refused to suffer injustices and losses; they also were aggressively exploiting their fellow Christians. Paul states the situation in these words: Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. They were not spiritual enough to endure wrong for the sake of the gospel. But they were carnal enough to inflict injury on others. And those being wronged were not outside the church; they were fellow believers. Such action was contrary to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:38-40); it was contrary to the unity of believers in Christ (I Cor. 12:12-13); it was contrary to the idea of regarding oneself as the temple of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19). Thus there was more than the absence of love; there was the presence of injustice. Instead of displaying Christian unity, they were guilty of outright fraud.
d. A solemn warning (6:9-10). Paul insists that they already know the proper course of action. They knew, or should have known, that unrighteousness was sin, that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God (9). The word unrighteous put their actions on a level with the heathen. “But here the word denotes the immoral generally, those who offend God and man by iniquities of every kind.”18 The warning of Paul included a sharp note: Be not deceived. The verb shows that “seductive arguments are in circulation by which the vicious succeeded in quieting their consciences.”19
In order that he make himself absolutely clear, Paul presented a list of sins which apparently were special temptations to the Corinthians. Any of these sins would break a man’s relationship in Christ and would disqualify him as an heir to the kingdom of God. The tenfold list is representative rather than exhaustive. The sins are associated with personality response, thus making them more specific. (1) Fornicators generally means those “who practice sexual immorality.”20 (2) Idolaters are those who follow false religions or who are totally irreligious. (3) Adulterers are married persons who indulge in sexual activity outside the married relation, which violates the divine commandment as well as disregards the rights of the married partner. (4) Effeminate means soft or voluptuous, and is used by Paul “to signify general addiction to sins of the flesh.”21 Godet translates it “those who pamper the body,”22 while Arndt and Gingrich render it “men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually.”23 (5) Abusers of themselves with mankind— the sin of sodomy was widely practiced by the Greeks. (6) Thieves were the swindlers, cheaters, and robbers. (7) The covetous are those who are greedy for gain, with an insatiable desire to have more. (8) Drunkards refers to those who drink freely and habitually, who become intoxicated. (9) Revilers would be persons guilty of using abusive speech, slanderers; perhaps the “scoffer” of the OT who brazenly rejected the claims of God. (10) Extortioners are those who rob or confiscate property during a persecution. Here it may mean those who take unfair legal advantage of others.
Paul’s direct statement is that such people shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The Corinthians may have thought that they would be saved by the mere fact of making an open profession or by being publicly baptized. The apostle warns them that “faith without works is dead, and privileges without holiness are abrogated.”24 Paul is giving rather bitter medicine at this point. But he sweetens the bitterness with a reminder.
e. Spiritual heritage of the Corinthians (6:11). Paul does not accuse all of the Corinthians with being involved in the sins he has presented. Instead, he reminds them that such were some of you. The word translated such means literally “these things.” Some of them had been identified with these sins in the past. However, they had experienced a radical change. The triple use of the word but in this verse stresses the contrast between their present life in Christ and their past life of sin. These people had known a religious experience which Paul describes in a threefold fashion.
First, he says, But ye are washed. The construction of the verb in the aorist middle voice calls attention to the fact that the Corinthians were actively involved in the process. In response to the gospel message, they had deliberately and voluntarily sought to get rid of the filth of their old life. In presenting themselves for baptism their faith found open expression. They had desired to be baptized; so it was not a formal gesture. Thus being washed “refers to the putting away of sin in repentance, of which water baptism is the sacramental seal (Acts xxii: 16.).”25
Second, Paul asserts, But ye are sanctified. Here the word “sanctify” does not mean the removal of inherited impurities which hinder Christian development. In this instance it means “the initial act whereby the believer passed from his previous state of corruption to that of holiness.”26 This is what John Wesley called “initial sanctification,” the setting aside of the regenerated person to God’s way of living.
Third, Paul writes, But ye are justified. To “justify” means to declare to be just or right. Because they had thus been set apart to serve God, they were righteous before God. This kind of sanctification and justification is the work of the Spirit of our God.
Each of these three verbs—washed (baptized), sanctified, and justified—is a strong reminder of the past experiences of the Corinthians. They had experienced dramatic conversions. Now it would be tragic indeed if they returned to their old manner of living.
B. LIBERTY VERSUS SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINE, 6:12-14
Paul had fought for liberty from the law of the Judaizers, who wanted to impose the OT ceremonial law on Christianity. But carnal Christians seem prone to seize any point as an excuse to turn liberty into license. Apparently some of the Corinthians were defending their low living by the principle of Christian liberty. Paul does not retract his position on spiritual liberty, but he defines its proper application to the Christian life. This application has two major aspects.
1. Liberty Limited by Spiritual Expediency (6:12a)
Paul here gives his famous spiritual emancipation proclamation: All things are lawful unto me. He did not refer to things which are known to be wrong in either civil practice or in Scripture. He would not become a spiritual anarchist, rebelling against helpful law and attempting to annul all restrictions. Paul applied the principle mainly in reference to food, stating that he felt at liberty to satisfy his hunger by any foods available. This attitude contradicted the Jewish ceremonial law, which regarded some food as unclean (cf. Lev. 20:25; Acts 10:13-14). The Corinthians had broadened Paul’s idea to include the free satisfaction of all bodily hungers, but the missionary leader closed this loophole once and for all.
To the apostle all things may be lawful…but all things are not expedient. Thus liberty is not the final measure of Christian conduct. Liberty must be exercised in the light of all the facts. The verb “to be profitable” (sumphero, lit. “to bring with” or “bring together”) means to be helpful or advantageous. Thus all use of Christian liberty must be beneficial—to ourselves and to others. A Christian has no right to participate in activities which may appear innocent to him but which may be harmful to others.
2. Liberty Is Subject to Self-discipline (6:12b)
In addition to helpfulness, Paul limited liberty by the idea of self-discipline: I will not be brought under the power of any. All things are permissible, but Paul refused to be dominated by even legitimate things. Self-discipline is actually the greatest liberty of all. In self-discipline the Spirit directs, and the Christian lives free from the tyranny of either sinful deeds or the domination of things that in themselves are not wrong. Liberty becomes a snare when it weakens characters, saps spiritual vitality, or reduces the effectiveness of the Christian witness.
In vv. 1-12, Paul gives the essence of “Christian Liberty.” (1) Charity in personal relationships, 1-7; (2) Vitality in personal experience, 9-11; (3) Discipline in personal outlook, 12.
3. Illustrations of Spiritual Liberty (6:13-14)
Paul had a genius for illustrating profound spiritual truth with simple ideas. In this instance he uses the normal appetites of eating and sex to illustrate the nature of liberty.
a. Liberty and food (6:13a). To show the nature of Christian liberty Paul spoke of one of the most common of all human practices—eating. He writes: Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats. Both false asceticism and unnecessary ceremonialism regarding food are rejected by Paul. Food and the stomach are made for each other. Food is essential to the natural functions of the body.
However, since the physical body represents a temporary aspect of existence, its functions will stop at death. God shall destroy both it (the stomach) and them (foods). In and of themselves the natural bodily functions have no moral or spiritual meaning. Such functions acquire spiritual significance only by the motivation and circumstances in which they take place.
b. The glory of the body (6:13b-14). Paul persists in warning against sexual looseness. He drives home the truth that the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord (13). Paul thus makes a valid distinction between the need of the body for food and for the expression of sex appetite. The body cannot exist without food, but it can exist without sexual indulgence. The body, unlike the meats and the stomach, will not be eliminated, but will be transformed and glorified. Not only is the body for the Lord, but the Lord is for the body. The Lord Jesus and sensual appetites both attempt to dominate the personality. When their claims are in conflict, to accept one is to reject the other. Christ is to be Lord over the total being. Though it is sometimes hard to realize, the lordship of Christ is meant for—and best for—the body.
To strengthen the Corinthians in their struggle to develop holy character Paul declared that the resurrection of Jesus points to the resurrection of the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power(14). The same divine power that caused the resurrection of the Lord will bring about the resurrection of the body. The raising of Christ from the dead and the coining resurrection of God’s people are the supreme manifestations of God’s power.
C. A WARNING AGAINST FORNICATION, 6:15-18
Paul repeats his favorite question: Know ye not?(15) It is a rhetorical question, for the answer is obvious. Like many of the questions of Christ and Paul, it is used as an unanswerable approach. Its purpose is to drive home spiritual truth. In warning against fornication Paul suggests two ideas.
1. The Body of the Christian Belongs to Christ (6:15)
Paul declares, Your bodies are the members of Christ. Every believer is a part of the body of which Christ is the Head (12: 12-27; Rom. 12:4-5; Eph. 4:15-16; 5:30). The body is a living organism “fitted to carry out His purpose through grace.”27 The believer’s relationship with Christ includes the fact that his body is an instrument through which the Lord acts.
The Greeks taught that man’s body was a drag or a lower part of nature that identified man with the beasts. They thought that only man’s intelligence and reason were in harmony with the higher realms of truth and reality. The Romans generally regarded the body as the instrument of power or pleasure. But in the NT the entire person, including his body, is a member of the body of Christ. The body is sacred and belongs to the Lord.
2. Fornication Cuts One Off from Christ (6:16-18)
All sin is a severing of our spiritual ties to God. Sin either directly denies or indirectly rejects the principle of spiritual union with Christ. The sin of fornication, in Paul’s view, certainly severed this relationship. The apostle declares that sexual intercourse with a harlot, unlike union with a wife, separates one from Christ.
Sexual union constitutes a permanent bond between two parties. The act is incorporated into their lives and can never be removed. Paul writes, He which is joined to an harlot is one body, for two … shall be one flesh (16). To be thus identified with a harlot was harsh language, for often the man feels contempt for her and uses her only as a lump of flesh, with no respect for her as a person. Paul will have none of this. A man united to a harlot is reduced to her level both physically and spiritually. To Paul the sexual relationship is more than an animal response—it is the complex and mystical union of two personalities. Thus the fornicator becomes one with the harlot he uses. The apostle does not debate the issue. He issues a pronouncement. Whether they believe it or not, accept it or not, know it or not—it is so.
In direct opposition to the corrupt union of a man with a harlot is the spiritual union of the believer with Christ. Where the fornicator joins himself to a harlot in lust and corruption, the believer joins himself to the Lord in faith and love. The man who is joined unto the Lord is one (in) spirit (17) with the Lord. Here is man’s highest privilege, his unique opportunity. The believer enters into a mystical union with Christ. Not only the body but the total person is involved. This union with Christ does not nullify man’s nature nor minimize his personality. He remains man, but becomes more than man because his spirit is one with Christ.
After presenting the contrast between the union of a man with a harlot and the union of a believer with Christ, Paul again flashes the warning: Flee fornication (18). The verb here is a present imperative. Flee means to run from it, get out of danger. The command suggests the danger of thinking, reasoning, or arguing about it. Some sins may be faced, fought, and overcome. Other sins may bring a shock or a recoil which drives the person from them. But fornication is too subtle to discuss or to debate. The Christian’s course of action should be like that of Joseph in Pharaoh’s house (Gen. 39:12). The only sure way to guarantee abstinence from immorality is to immediately and decisively remove oneself from the possibility of it.
The reason for Paul’s drastic condemnation of sexual sin is its effect on human personality. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body (18). Other sins may be harmful to the body, but this one is more. In fornication people lower themselves, shed their dignity and honor, become completely carnal and corrupt. The harlot has already denied her intrinsic worth by placing a price tag on her body and selling it as merchandise. But she always loses, for money is a poor exchange for human value. Likewise the man involved regards his body as something to be bartered, abused, or destroyed.
Other sins, such as murder or theft, are projections or misuses of the powers of the body. But fornication involves the body as the very center, the motive as well as the seat of sin. All sin is a destructive force, and fornication is no exception. It cripples the entire personality, defies God, degrades others, and corrupts oneself.
D. THE CHRISTIAN’S BODY AS A SANCTUARY, 6:19-20
There are several ways a person may regard his body. He may pamper and idolize it. He may regard it with disgust or shame. He may use it like a machine to produce work. He may use it as a weapon to gain power. He may dedicate it to carnal pleasures and use it as an instrument of vice. Or with Paul, he may look upon it as a temple (naos, sanctuary). Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God? (19)
Jesus referred to His body as a temple when He said: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” John presented the interpretation of this statement when he said that Jesus spoke of “the temple of his body” (John 2:19-21). Paul had also referred to the local congregation as a temple (I Cor. 3:16). The temple was regarded by the Jews as the special residence of God. So the body as a temple becomes a special place of residence for the Holy Spirit.
When the Holy Spirit resides in a temple, it belongs to God. Thus Paul says: Ye are not your own. The Christian has entered into a transaction, signed a deed, and turned over possession to God. This indwelling Spirit is a Gift from a holy God and cannot dwell in a polluted sanctuary.
A further reason for placing a spiritual evaluation on the body is that each person has been bought with a price(20). The word means a payment which results in a change of the ownership. Paul inevitably pictures every phase of life against the background of the Cross. The sacrifice of Christ was the purchase price for man’s personal redemption. Paul next adds a positive note: Therefore glorify God in your body. It is absolutely necessary to keep the body from immorality. To do this, more than a negative legalism or passive submission is required. The positive idea of glorifying God in one’s body is both an obligation and a sign of gratitude and devotion. The believer is also to glorify God … in your spirit. Both body and spirit belong to God. Thus in act, in motive, in conduct, and in response the Christian is to glorify his Maker and Redeemer.
Looking back on all of c. 6 it is clear that, if the Christian is dedicated to glorifying God, both shameful lawsuits and fornication will disappear from the church. The new faith has produced a new fellowship which swallows up petty differences. Fellowship in Christ brings unity and peace to the believer.
In “The Christian Understanding of the Body” we see that: (1) The body belongs to God, 13-15; (2) The body is a temple, 19; (3) The body may glorify God, 20.