1st Corinthians Chapter 6 (please read the chapter first)
In chapter 6 Paul begins with a discourse on lawsuits between church members. Was there such a lawsuit? Paul’s tone of astonishment (see 6:6) appears to assume such a case is in progress. Then in verse 7 Paul opined, “To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you.” The ‘you’ in that sentence is plural in the Greek. All members together have been defeated by the existence of lawsuits within the church.
Lawsuits are about defending rights, and receiving compensation. Lawsuits are about winning and losing. Each party seeks to have their point of view validated by a governing authority. Paul is keen to say such competition, and the winning and losing have no place in the church. If winning is a way to put oneself above others, Paul says it is better to lose and maintain unity- and humility- in the church. (This unity theme runs all through the letter. Example: 1st Cor. 12:26)
Returning to his concern about the Corinthians taking freedom too far, Paul wrote, “…wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God…” Taken out of context, this is a daunting message. Anyone who does an honest self-examination will find sin and wrongdoing in their life. If this verse is taken as Paul’s only pronouncement about inheriting the kingdom of God, we are all toast. Paul himself recognizes that sin is pervasive. “…since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift…” (Romans 3:23-24a)
In the current context Paul is arguing against a rather libertine interpretation of God’s mercy. This is supported by his quotation in verse 12: “All things are lawful for me.” Paul is here understood to be quoting something that represents the attitude of the Corinthians. Then Paul quickly refutes it with “…but not all things are beneficial.”
Freedom in Christ is real, but not for the sake of lawless living. He does indicate that sin incurs wrath. Paul sets out a list of rogues; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers. Apparently everyone makes the list of the ineligible.
CAUTION: To focus on one particular part of this list as a way of pointing your own supposedly righteous fingers at others is a complete misapprehension of Paul’s intent. Don’t use this list to figure out whom you may condemn. Everyone stands convicted in this laundry list. Anyone who thinks God’s forgiveness is a ticket to live a selfish, undisciplined life has misunderstood the gospel. To live careless of others, keen on your own position and advantage (lawsuits) is to miss the call to unity, humility, service, and compassion.
For many readers, the elephant in the room of this passage is homosexuality. A diversity of opinion will surely obtain in teachings about this chapter, but I will here offer mine. I will not duck the issue, but I will plead that a full treatment of this subject is beyond my expertise and far beyond the intent of this little Bible blog. Here goes.
Don’t read this (or any) passage assuming your thoughts match those of the writer. Paul had very different mental and psychological furniture than people today. Paul, a product of his time, would tell you, if asked, that the earth was flat, stood on legs like a giant table, and that the sky was a rigid dome with water above it.
In like fashion he did not and could not have a modern sense of what we think of as sexual orientation. No one in Paul’s time would imagine a same sex relationship between equals for the sake of companionship. In fact no one thought of any kind of sex as occurring between equals.
I caution all readers to remember the huge differences between the first century culture and ours. In Paul’s time, ALL human interaction carried with it a win/lose dimension. The whole Mediterranean basin shared an honor/shame culture in which establishing and maintaining dominance was the equivalent of maintaining honor. Honor was not equated with being noble. It was closely aligned with power. Homosexual acts between males were not mutual expressions of affection. They took place as an expression of dominance and humiliation.
Men of high position could affirm their status by ‘using’ younger, lesser men. Men of position could assert their status by grooming and using younger men and boys. Having a kept boy was a status symbol. The sex act enhanced the status of the more powerful party, and eroded or destroyed the status of the less powerful party. Enid Bloch, a professor of Political Philosophy has said, “The most shameful thing that could happen to any Greek male was penetration by another male.” (-Enid Bloch article: “Sex between Men and Boys in Classical Greece” Page 186 Sage Journals: The Journal of Men’s Studies http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3149/jms.0902.183
I believe Paul was railing against all exploitation. Exploitation takes many forms. It might exist in the form of a lawsuit. In that day and age, exploitation included older men abusing younger men. (and women in general) In the larger context of Paul’s belief that Christ was re-making all of society, it makes sense to assume his indignation as aimed at anything that got in the way of a vision of unity in Christ. That vision of unity was directly counter-cultural in a time and place where everyone constantly thought about the social pecking order. Paul was calling believers to break out of some very deeply worn social ruts.
On the flip side of domination for its own sake is the reality of being dominated. Christians are to renounce their own desire to dominate. But Christians also renounce the desires and compulsions by which they themselves might be dominated. Whatever enslaves us- like compulsions about food, or sex – are also excluded. This is discussed in verses 12 – 19.
Finally Paul arrives at the reason we are equal in Christ. All belong to Christ. He borrows from the familiar cultural condition of slavery. Notice how he does not talk of believers’ emancipation. “You were bought with a price…”
When misconstrued- freedom might mean we get to do whatever we want. Properly understood, Christian freedom consists in knowing all belong to God. Jesus died for ALL so all are under the same Lord and in the same family. Try to imagine Paul shouting “Get that through your heads!”
This was a long entry. Thanks for hanging in there. Peace be with you.
In chapter 6 Paul begins with a discourse on lawsuits between church members. Was there such a lawsuit? Paul’s tone of astonishment (see 6:6) appears to assume such a case is in progress. Then in verse 7 Paul opined, “To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you.” The ‘you’ in that sentence is plural in the Greek. All members together have been defeated by the existence of lawsuits within the church.
Lawsuits are about defending rights, and receiving compensation. Lawsuits are about winning and losing. Each party seeks to have their point of view validated by a governing authority. Paul is keen to say such competition, and the winning and losing have no place in the church. If winning is a way to put oneself above others, Paul says it is better to lose and maintain unity- and humility- in the church. (This unity theme runs all through the letter. Example: 1st Cor. 12:26)
Returning to his concern about the Corinthians taking freedom too far, Paul wrote, “…wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God…” Taken out of context, this is a daunting message. Anyone who does an honest self-examination will find sin and wrongdoing in their life. If this verse is taken as Paul’s only pronouncement about inheriting the kingdom of God, we are all toast. Paul himself recognizes that sin is pervasive. “…since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift…” (Romans 3:23-24a)
In the current context Paul is arguing against a rather libertine interpretation of God’s mercy. This is supported by his quotation in verse 12: “All things are lawful for me.” Paul is here understood to be quoting something that represents the attitude of the Corinthians. Then Paul quickly refutes it with “…but not all things are beneficial.”
Freedom in Christ is real, but not for the sake of lawless living. He does indicate that sin incurs wrath. Paul sets out a list of rogues; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers. Apparently everyone makes the list of the ineligible.
CAUTION: To focus on one particular part of this list as a way of pointing your own supposedly righteous fingers at others is a complete misapprehension of Paul’s intent. Don’t use this list to figure out whom you may condemn. Everyone stands convicted in this laundry list. Anyone who thinks God’s forgiveness is a ticket to live a selfish, undisciplined life has misunderstood the gospel. To live careless of others, keen on your own position and advantage (lawsuits) is to miss the call to unity, humility, service, and compassion.
For many readers, the elephant in the room of this passage is homosexuality. A diversity of opinion will surely obtain in teachings about this chapter, but I will here offer mine. I will not duck the issue, but I will plead that a full treatment of this subject is beyond my expertise and far beyond the intent of this little Bible blog. Here goes.
Don’t read this (or any) passage assuming your thoughts match those of the writer. Paul had very different mental and psychological furniture than people today. Paul, a product of his time, would tell you, if asked, that the earth was flat, stood on legs like a giant table, and that the sky was a rigid dome with water above it.
In like fashion he did not and could not have a modern sense of what we think of as sexual orientation. No one in Paul’s time would imagine a same sex relationship between equals for the sake of companionship. In fact no one thought of any kind of sex as occurring between equals.
I caution all readers to remember the huge differences between the first century culture and ours. In Paul’s time, ALL human interaction carried with it a win/lose dimension. The whole Mediterranean basin shared an honor/shame culture in which establishing and maintaining dominance was the equivalent of maintaining honor. Honor was not equated with being noble. It was closely aligned with power. Homosexual acts between males were not mutual expressions of affection. They took place as an expression of dominance and humiliation.
Men of high position could affirm their status by ‘using’ younger, lesser men. Men of position could assert their status by grooming and using younger men and boys. Having a kept boy was a status symbol. The sex act enhanced the status of the more powerful party, and eroded or destroyed the status of the less powerful party. Enid Bloch, a professor of Political Philosophy has said, “The most shameful thing that could happen to any Greek male was penetration by another male.” (-Enid Bloch article: “Sex between Men and Boys in Classical Greece” Page 186 Sage Journals: The Journal of Men’s Studies http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3149/jms.0902.183
I believe Paul was railing against all exploitation. Exploitation takes many forms. It might exist in the form of a lawsuit. In that day and age, exploitation included older men abusing younger men. (and women in general) In the larger context of Paul’s belief that Christ was re-making all of society, it makes sense to assume his indignation as aimed at anything that got in the way of a vision of unity in Christ. That vision of unity was directly counter-cultural in a time and place where everyone constantly thought about the social pecking order. Paul was calling believers to break out of some very deeply worn social ruts.
On the flip side of domination for its own sake is the reality of being dominated. Christians are to renounce their own desire to dominate. But Christians also renounce the desires and compulsions by which they themselves might be dominated. Whatever enslaves us- like compulsions about food, or sex – are also excluded. This is discussed in verses 12 – 19.
Finally Paul arrives at the reason we are equal in Christ. All belong to Christ. He borrows from the familiar cultural condition of slavery. Notice how he does not talk of believers’ emancipation. “You were bought with a price…”
When misconstrued- freedom might mean we get to do whatever we want. Properly understood, Christian freedom consists in knowing all belong to God. Jesus died for ALL so all are under the same Lord and in the same family. Try to imagine Paul shouting “Get that through your heads!”
This was a long entry. Thanks for hanging in there. Peace be with you.
RSS Feed