Posted by 1 Corinthians on Thursday, 7 January 2016
B. Failure to resolve personal disputes (6:1-11).
The topic of judgment continued as Paul shifted to another disorder afflicting the Corinthian church. The same laxity in dealing with the immoral brother was found in cases of personal disputes between members which the church refused to adjudicate. It was yet another manifestation of the divisive spirit which racked the congregation.
With the introductory phrase “Do you not know,” Paul pointed toward certain truths which should have prevented the problem in the first place. The phrase recurs six times in this chapter alone. (Outside this letter this construction appears only three other times in the NT.) Paul had used it before (3:16; 5:6) and would subsequently use it again (9:13, 24) to the same effect. The implication that they should have known these things must have painfully hit home to a church enamored with its own wisdom and knowledge.
6:1. Paul’s chagrin about this issue was great, not only because it further divided the church, but also because it hindered the work of God among the non-Christians in Corinth (cf. 10:32). Those related by faith needed to settle their disputes like brothers, not adversaries (cf. Gen. 13:7-9).
6:2. The first of six do you not know phrases in this chapter (cf. vv. 3, 9, 15-16, 19) concerned the role of saints in judging (cf. John 5:22; Rev. 3:21). Paul had probably taught this doctrine in Corinth in the course of his founding the church there, since he cited it as an indisputable proposition.
6:3. Since they were going to judge supernatural beings (the fallen angels, 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6), surely they should handle mundane matters satisfactorily.
6:4. The form of the Greek word (kathizete, appoint) may be a statement (indicative) or a command (imper.). The NIV has taken it as a command, making the difficult phrase men of little account refer to those in the church not too highly esteemed for their “wisdom”; but Paul considered them more than adequate for the task.
“Appoint” may be indicative (and therefore a question; see alternate trans. in marg.) which seems more likely in view of verse 5. If so, the participle translated “men of little account” would be better rendered “men who have no standing” in the church, that is, non-Christians. The sad refrain of verse 1 to which Paul would refer yet a third time in verse 6 was thus heard again.
6:5-6. No doubt the statement in verse 5 reddened some of the wise Corinthians’ faces. Certainly a part of Paul’s concern in this issue was the harmful effect such legal wrangling would have on the cause of the gospel in Corinth (9:23). Such lawsuits certainly did not glorify God (10:31-33).
6:7-8. Because their greed dishonored God, Paul concluded that the important issue was lost before the case had begun. He therefore said that mundane loss was preferable to the spiritual loss which the lawsuits produced. As it was, the Corinthian lawsuits seemed not to have been so much a matter of redressing wrong or seeing justice served as a means for personal gratification at the expense of fellow believers. This was “body life” at its worst!
6:9-10. Paul’s third reminder (Do you not know . . . cf. vv. 2-3) was probably meant to complement the thought of verse 4, but it also illustrated the gap which existed between the Corinthians’ future position and their present practice. The wicked would have no share in God’s future kingdom because they were not related to Christ, the Heir (cf. Mark 12:7). The wicked would one day be judged by the saints (1 Cor. 6:2) on the basis of their works (Rev. 20:13) which would condemn them. Yet the saints were acting no differently.
The word adikoi (“the wicked”) in 1 Corinthians 6:9 was used in verse 1, there translated “the ungodly.” The verb form adikeite (“do wrong”) however, was used in verse 8 to describe the Corinthians’ behavior. Their future role should have radically affected their practice in the present (cf. 1 John 3:3). If they thought otherwise, Paul warned, they were deceived (cf. 1 Cor. 5:11; Rev. 21:7-8; 22:14-15).
The list of offenders was similar to that noted earlier (1 Cor. 5:10-11), which no doubt corresponded to problems in Corinth and in other large cities of the day (cf. Eph. 5:3-6). Homosexuality and male prostitution, for example, were especially characteristic of Greco-Roman society. Plato lauded homosexual love in The Symposium (181B). Nero, emperor at the time Paul wrote this letter, was about to marry the boy Sporus (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, 6. 28), an incident bizarre only in its formality, since 14 of the first 15 Roman emperors were homosexual or bisexual.
6:11. Some (but not all) the Corinthian Christians had been guilty of the sins listed in verses 9-10, but God had intervened. They were washed . . . by the Spirit (cf. Titus 3:5), sanctified in the Son (cf. 1 Cor. 1:2), and justified before God (cf. Rom. 8:33). This fact of justification was an appropriate thought for those judicially carping Corinthians.
C. Failure to practice sexual purity (6:12-20).
The theme of legality continued as Paul turned to another problem troubling the Corinthian assembly. This problem was the issue of freedom from the Old Testament Law in the area of sexual relationships. Paul addressed this issue in the manner of a dialogue, the diatribe style, familiar to his readers. This also enabled him to prepare them for both his subject matter and his approach in the rest of the letter, which concerned answers to questions and objections they had raised.
The issue of the limits of liberty (v. 12) was developed later by Paul in chapters 8-10. To a degree this subject also colored the discussion on public worship in chapters 11-14. The question of a Christian’s relationship to food (6:13) was taken up in chapter 8. The resurrection of Christ (6:14) was expounded in chapter 15. The church as the body of Christ (6:15) was enlarged on in chapter 12. The sanctity of sex (6:16), about which Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 on the divine establishment of marriage, occupied his attention in chapter 7.
6:12. The words, Everything is permissible for me, had apparently become a slogan to cloak the immorality of some in Corinth. The statement was true but it required qualification. Paul qualified liberty with the principle of love applied to both neighbor and self (cf. Mark 12:31). Liberty which was not beneficial but detrimental to someone else was not loving (1 Cor. 8:1; 10:23) and was to be avoided. So too, liberty which became slavery (I will not be mastered by anything) was not love but hatred of self.
6:13-14. Food for the stomach and the stomach for food was another slogan by which some Corinthians sought to justify their immorality. They reasoned that “food” was both pleasurable and necessary. When their stomachs signaled hunger, food was taken to satisfy them. So too, they argued, sex was pleasurable and necessary. When their bodies signaled sexual desire, they needed to be satisfied. But Paul drew a sharp line between the stomach and the body. The body (soma) in this context (cf. 2 Cor. 12:3) meant more than the physical frame; it referred to the whole person, composed of flesh (the material) and spirit (the immaterial; cf. 2 Cor. 2:13 with 7:5). The “body,” therefore, was not perishable but eternal (1 Cor. 6:14), and it was not meant for sexual immorality (porneia) but for union with the Lord (vv. 15-17), which is reciprocal (cf. Eph. 1:23). The eternality of the body, the future destiny of the individual, was made certain by Christ’s resurrection (1 Cor. 6:14; cf. 15:20).
6:15-17. So too the work of the Spirit (cf. 12:13) has affected Christians’ present destiny and joined them to Christ (6:15). Could a Christian practice immorality without grieving Christ? (cf. 12:26) Never!
The union of two people involves more than physical contact. It is also a union of personalities which, however transient, alters both of them (6:16). Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 (The two will become one flesh) not to affirm that a man and a prostitute are married but to indicate the gravity of the sin (cf. Eph. 5:31-32).
A Christian’s union with Christ likewise affects both him and the Savior, and one cannot act without affecting the other.
6:18. Corinthian Christians, when faced with immorality, should respond as did Joseph (Gen. 39:12)—they should run. Flee from sexual immorality. Immorality was a unique sin but not the most serious (cf. Matt. 12:32). It was, however, an offense against the sinner and those with whom he was related.
It is possible that the statement All other sins a man commits are outside his body (the word “other” is a translator’s addition and is not represented by any word in the Gr. text) should be taken as a third slogan (cf. 1 Cor. 6:12-13) bandied about by some in Corinth. If so, then Paul’s rejoinder (he who sins sexually sins against his own body) is a straight forward denial. The Greek construction is similar to that in verse 13.
6:19-20. Among those grieved was the Holy Spirit who indwells every Christian (who is in you; cf. 12:13; 1 John 3:24). Also God the Father is grieved, for He seeks honor (Matt. 5:16), not shame, from those who are bought at a price (cf. 1 Cor. 7:23), that price being “the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:19).
Excerpt from:
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985).
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures.
Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
