These are some of my notes for Sunday, June 20, 2010 in the Lifeway Explore the Bible series.
Books referenced in these notes are:
1. NIGTC: First Epistle to the Corinthians by Anthony Thiselton
2. BECNT: 1 Corinthians by David Garland
3. IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament by Craig Keener
1 Cor 6:1
Roman society was as overrun with lawsuits as modern America. Cases started to be heard at dawn and could run as late as dawn. Judges were always among the wealthy and most lawsuits involved money. How the times they change!(BBCNT)
The Greek begins as the KJV, with “dare”, expressing Paul’s indignation over the Corinthians’ resort to the secular court system.(garland)
“Has a complaint against another” translates a Greek idiom for civil lawsuits. (Garland)
“Before the unrighteous” expresses another part of Paul’s concern, for ancient legal disputes usually involved much legal character assassination, as well as bribery and social pressure, the opposite of the love Christians are to show one another. (Garland)
While “unrighteous” might simply be a term for non-Christians, it night also be a judgment against the morality of the Corinthian legal system, for the judges and the juries were subject to class bias, bribery, and politics. Many court cases were won by (Garland)
There is no direct evidence of what sort of case was involved here, except the use of “cases pertaining to this life” in 6:4 and “defrauded/cheated” in 6:7, which indicate a civil, not criminal case. Speculation has included:
1.Something of a sexual matter, based on 5:1-13 and 6:12-20. But Paul’s suggestion that one of the one in the case was better to accept being cheated makes the case seem more monetary and less serious than some sexual offense.
2.Some have thought it dealt with business dealings, which is entirely possible given Corinth’s standing as the commercial heart of Greece.
3.Perhaps most plausibly, some inheritance dispute might be indicated, as “cases of this life” and “defrauded” are terms often found in property disputes.
1 Cor 6:2
The upper classes were favored by practice and the penalties in Roman law, creditors favored before debtors and landlords over tenants . In fact lower class types could not sue upper class types, as this was felt too easy a way to strike back at superiors and leap the social classes by winning fortunes in lawsuits. Thus it was legally forbidden.(BBCNT)
1 Cor 6:3
Jewish tradition held that the righteous would judge the nations;(Dan 7:22; Wis 3:7-8; Sir 4:15; numerous places in apocalyptic 1 Enoch) this would include the angels believed to be the heavenly rulers of nations, as well (each nation in Jewish thought having a ruling/guardian angel). (BBCNT, Garland)
Smallest cases: Greek kriterion elachiston. Kriterion is usually used of low-level courts (james 2:6; Dan 7:10,26)
1 Cor 6:4
This difficult verse might have three meanings:
1.Question: Are you selecting as judges those ill-esteemed by the church? Ill-esteemed equals non-Christians, and thus the question is one of outrage.
2.Statement, very similar to option 1, with the same indignant outrage being expressed.
3.Order: You must appoint those with no standing (here meaning Christians, disparaged by the rest of the world) to be judges among the church. This order would presumably be to show that church members were at least (and presumably better) ethically equal to non-Christians who made up the civil courts.(
Traditionally interpreters have preferred option three, the order or imperative. More recently(the last 150 years or so) option 1, the question, or interrogative, has been the favored choice. Garland differs from my other commentators in preferring the imperative order option. (Garland, Thiselton)
“Things of this life” usually refers to property concerns of the well-to-do. Adultery might also fit into this category in ancient thought, though. (BBCNT)
The KJV version of this verse reflects the notion that the least Christian should be a better judge than any non-Christian due to his connection to God. (BBCNT)
1 Cor 6:5
Family disputes like inheritances could be settled by private arbitrators, usually wealthy landowners. Juries judged some criminal cases and magistrates others. Keener speculates the case Paul refers to went before a secular jury, and based on chapters five and six, assumes adultery or incest were involved. Garland, on the other hand, thinks it more likely some small property dispute.(BBCNT, Garland)
“To your shame” might be referring to the previous verses, but most likely is tied to what follows it: the notion that the Corinthian church has to go outside its membership to settle disputes. (Garland)
“Is there not one wise person among you”: This is biting irony and a calculated insult, because Paul pretty consistently uses “wisdom” in the letter to refer to the world’s foolish, incorrect idea of wisdom. The Corinthians think themselves wise, yet they can’t judge their own squabbles.(Garland)
1 Cor 6:6
Jews traditionally dealt with their legal problems within the Jewish community. Paul takes that as good precedent for Christians, and for the same reason: pagans were spiritually and morally inferior. Brothers in disharmony is a shameful thing in ancient pagan culture as well.(BBCNT, Garland)
1 Cor 6:7-8
Ancient philosophers who denied the value of property advised being wronged or robbed rather than going to court. Paul expects Christians to accept injustice, especially from other Christians, but given the necessity of a trial, he would rather have it take place with the church, thereby insuring both justice and the good reputation of the church to the pagan world.(BBCNT)
“Defeat” translates Greek hettema, the term for losing a legal case. Paul considers the whole notion of Christians suing each other a loss, never mind who wins. The Corinthian church shows only greed, not love, in taking this action.
Injustice, cheated: Paul is pointing back to Jesus’ own statement about turning the other cheek (Matt 5:39) and the apostles’ attitude in 1 Cor 4:12-13 (also Rom 12:17, 1 Thess 5:15)(Garland)
1 Cor 6:9-10
That the immoral/unrighteous would not share in God’s kingdom is standard Jewish and Christian teaching.
Vice lists like the one here are common in ancient moral writings, whether Jewish, pagan, or Christian.(BBCNT)
1 Cor 6:11
Paul reverses standard ancient reasoning, inferring from what Christians are in principle to how they should behave, not vice versa. (BBCNT)
The Corinthians are no longer enslaved to the vices listed in verses 9-10, because God had cleaned them and freed them through the actions of Christ and His Spirit.(Garland)
1 Cor 6:12
In common ancient argument style, Paul quotes an opposing viewpoint, then proceeds to refute it. Whether this is an actual Corinthian slogan is debated. Thiselton believes it is, and sees the slogan as illegitimate license for immorality. Garland sees it as Paul’s portrayal of himself as the example of the washing, and sanctification, of verse 11, and sees them as Paul’s claim of freedom that must be tempered by usefulness to the Christian life and the need not to be enslaved to our pleasures. (BBCNT, Thiselton, Garland)
The terms here used by Paul “permissable” and “helpful” were criteria used by ancient philosophers to determine whether to perform an act or not.(BBCNT)
Paul overrides the usual classification in judgment of acts’ validity by insisting he would not be controlled by anything.
1 Cor 6:13-14
“Foods for stomachs and stomachs for foods” Classic argument by analogy that design makes behavior acceptable. “Food” and “stomachs” here are plainly polite ways of getting around direct reference to sex and sexual organs, though they also stand for the whole of physical life. Again sources Garland and Thiselton disagree whether or not the first part of verse 13 is a Corinthian slogan or not. People don’t even agree whether or not “God will do away with both of them” is part of the slogan or perhaps Paul’s terse dismissal of the slogan.(BBCNT, Garland, Thiselton)
That God would do away with food and stomachs is indicative of the Greco-Roman notion that the body died and any afterlife was bodiless (spirit). Paul responds with the biblical truth that there would be a day of Resurrection and it would be embodied resurrection. Bodies and their actions are therefore not eternally meaningless, but important, because God will raise the bodies of the dead.(BBCNT, Garland)
1 Cor 6:15-16
This is the fourth occurrence of “Don’t you know” in this chapter, and his first argument to back up verses 12-14.(Thiselton)
Members of Christ: There is a certain elegance in speaking of Christians being God’s embodiment on Earth, but more correctly here is the notion that Christians are Christ’s, as Christ is theirs, inseparably linked.
Prostitution is sexual immorality, and thus in a real sense of servant of Evil, and thus to be avoided. To tie a Christian, spiritually linked to Good in Christ, to Evil in prostitution, is both profoundly sacrilegious and contrary to all nature.. Thus Paul says “may it never be!”(Garland)
In Roman times non-marital sex was readily available with either slaves or prostitutes, and it was legally authorized, except between aristocratic people. Prostitution was disreputable but commonplace (available in inns and taverns), the prostitution workforce raised from slave girls who had been abandoned as babies. Jews and Christians despised the trade, but the Romans had the ancient/modern view that prostitution helped maintain the marriage institution.(BBCNT)
Old commentaries stress Corinth’s reputation as a city where “anything goes” sexually, but as the previous paragraph indicates, the whole Roman empire was a hotbed of prostitution and sex with slaves. (Garland)
Genesis 2:24 is normally applied to marriage, but the idea here is that sex within marriage seals a marriage, or sex outside marriage destroys a marriage, because sex represents a unique joining of two into one. Every sexual act between a man and a woman is in effect, the consummation of a marriage. Thus Paul says what pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease teaches us: there really is no such thing as casual sex. (BBCNT, Garland)
Verse 15 gives Paul’s first argument against sexual immorality as violation of Christ.(Thiselton)
1 Cor 6:17
The OT speaks of people being joined to God (Jer 50:5; Zech 2:11; Num 25:3; Hos 4:17). Paul here implies the OT notion that God is married to His chosen people. One in spirit is used because God does not have flesh and bones.
The idea of course is that the special union of God and his people would be defiled by the people uniting with prostitutes.(BBCNT)
1 Cor 6:18
“Flee from vice/sin” is a common admonition from moralists of all stripes.
“Every sin is outside the body” is again presumably a position of Paul’s opponents. Paul responds that sex is a sin against the body, and amplifies the sin in the next verse.(BBCNT)
Verse 18 gives Paul’s second argument against sexual immorality, seeing as a violation of the own person’s body, an especially damaging sin that affects the whole person unity that is body and soul, as well as how the individual relates to other people. (Thiselton)
1 Cor 6:19- 20
If the body is a temple of God’s Spirit, then like any other temple it should be treated honorably and reverently. How is sexual sin in any way honorable or reverent?
Verse 19 is Paul’s third argument against sexual immorality, calling it a sin against the Holy Spirit, who resides within the believer(Thiselton)
Furthermore, if the body is God’s temple, then it belongs to Him, not to you. Paul amplifies this notion by adding that Christians are God’s slaves, bought from another master at a redemption price. Slaves were often redeemed by lodging a sum of money at a temple, which in technical legal terms meant the temple’s god now owned the slave, though in practice they were freed. Here however, the Greek verb used is agorazein, which is used of the common sale of one slave to . The sacred freeing of slaves by purchase through a temple is described by the Greek verb priasthai. Thus Paul is not implying that Christians are free but rather have been transferred, still slaves/property, to a better master, God.(BBCNT, Garland)
“Price” both reminds one of the Cross, but also in context serves as a reminder of the completed process of transferring the believer/slave from his former owner Sin, to his new owner, God, for it is the actual payment that seals a transaction.(Thiselton)
A 'Goula Blogger 