1 Corinthians 6

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (Peace-making versus peace-faking)

(6:1) “Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?”

The Corinthians were having personal legal disputes with one another. Rather than seeking mediation in the church, they were taking it to court. The cases here were not criminal cases. Paul states elsewhere that the government is “an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4). The words “has a case” (pragma echōn) refer to “different kinds of property cases”[] or “civil litigation.”[] To be clear, criminal cases are not in view. Paul teaches that the government has authority to litigate criminal cases (Rom. 13:4).

Paul uses the term “dare” (tolmaō) at the beginning of the sentence to show emphasis in the Greek. This term can be mean to “have the audacity.”[]

(6:2) “Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?”

“Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” In what sense will believers judge the world? Jesus told his twelve disciples that they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt. 19:28). Paul even states that this judgment will include the angels (v.3).

“If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?” The term “competent” (anaxios) means “unworthy” (BDAG). In other words, if believers are considered worthy enough to judge the world, are they not worthy enough to judge insignificant legal disputes among one another?

(6:3) “Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?”

To support the need for peacemakers and Christian arbitration, Paul points out that believers will judge the world (v.2) and angels (v.3). This verse always makes me laugh. If I knew Paul and I asked me this question, I would say, “No, Paul, nobody ever told me that I would be judging the world!”

(6:4) “So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church?”

Just as Christians have no right in criminal or legal judging, Paul states that the government should have no right in personal conflicts like these. Instead, we should work through Christian mediation. A former Supreme Court Justice once wrote, “I think [1 Corinthians 6:1-8] has something to say about the proper Christian attitude toward civil litigation. Paul is making two points: first, he says that the mediation of a mutual friend, such as the parish priest, should be sought before parties run off to the law courts… I think we are too ready today to seek vindication or vengeance through adversary proceedings rather than peace through mediation…. Good Christians, just as they are slow to anger, should be slow to sue.”[]

(6:5) “I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren.”

This really shows the immaturity of the Corinthian church. They were priding themselves on their wisdom and maturity, but no one was mature or “wise” enough to perform basic mediation like this. If the Corinthians were so wise (as they often claimed and prided themselves on), then why couldn’t they find one wise person to adjudicate this situation? Paul isn’t “shaming” these people, but he does share this to point out how shameful this is—for the purpose of admonishment (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14).

 (6:6) “But brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?”

It’s an embarrassment to Christ when Christians can’t work through conflict in front of non-Christians. What does it say about us if we can’t work through simple conflict? Of all people, Christian believers should be the ones who should be able to work through conflict.

(6:7) “Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?”

Paul’s point is that it would simply be better to be wronged, rather than drag Christ’s reputation through the mud and divide the church (Mt. 5:39-40; 1 Pet. 2:23).

(6:8) “On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.”

Paul states that it would be better to be wronged, but here, he points out that they are the ones doing the wrong. He is saying that “even if you have been wronged, you wrong others by taking them to court.”[]

Questions for Reflection

What could be some helpful steps to resolve a personal conflict?

What are some ways we might prepare in advance to make reconciliation more likely?

1 Corinthians 6:9-20 (Sexual immorality)

In this chapter, Paul asks, “Do you not know…?” four times (ten times in this letter). He seems to think that changing behavior is based on changing false beliefs. As we argued earlier, Paul could be taking a rhetorical jab at all of the “knowledgeable” and “wise” Corinthians. It’s as if he is saying, “You’re so knowledgeable… But you don’t even know this basic truth?”

(6:9-10) “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Paul contrasts the identity of the unrighteous with the righteous. Why would we continue to live in sin, if we know that this will result in forfeiting our stake in heaven? This is either a positional contrast (unrighteous versus righteous), or it is a contrast of reward (inheritors versus those who don’t inherit). Taylor writes, “Instead of ‘becoming what they are’ the Corinthians are ‘behaving like they were’ (6:11).”[]

“Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.” Let’s look at these terms closely:

Fornicators (pornoi) refer to “someone who practices sexual immorality” (BDAG).

Idolaters (eidōlolatrēs) refer to an “image-worshipper/idolater” (BDAG).

Adulterers (moichos) refer to “one who is unfaithful to a spouse, adulterer” (BDAG).

Effeminate (malakoi) are only mentioned here in the NT. It pertains to “being yielding to touch, soft” or “being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate” (BDAG).

Homosexuals (arsenokoitēs) is a compound word which literally means “male” (arsēn)[] and “bed” (koitē)—or “to lie down” (keimai).[] Paul uses this term here and in 1 Timothy 1:10. Since the Greek word arsenokoitēs does not appear in extrabiblical Greek before Paul’s time,[] we need to consider where Paul is drawing this term. In 1 Timothy, in verse 8, Paul writes, “We know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully.” Clearly, Paul had the OT law on his mind. But from where (in the OT) was he drawing this concept?

The clearest source is the book of Leviticus. In Leviticus 18:22, we read: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 explains: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act.” In fact, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) renders both Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 very closely to Paul’s term arsenokoitēs:[]

(Lev. 18:22) meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos.

(Lev. 20:13) hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos.

After the time of Paul, the church fathers consistently used this term to refer to same-sex sexual acts.”[] If Paul was merely attacking male prostitution (as some have claimed), he would have used the common word porneuon or pornē, as seen in the context of 1 Corinthians 6:15 (“Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her?”).

“Nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” Let’s look at these terms closely:

Thieves (kleptēs) simply refer to being a “thief.” Nothing complicated here!

Covetous (pleonektēs) is “one who desires to have more than is due, a greedy person” (BDAG). This is a compound word in Greek. It combines the terms “more” (pleon) and “to have” (echō).

Drunkards (methusos) simply refer to being “a drunkard.”

Revilers (loidoros) refers to an “abusive person.”

Swindlers (harpax) can also be referred to as a “robber” (BDAG).

(6:11) “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

Paul is stating that their identity has changed (“such were some of you”). We usually associate sanctification with spiritual growth. Yet, in this context, Paul seems to be using the term “sanctified” as synonymous with “washed” and “justified.”

(6:12) “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.”

This is a play on words from Paul: “All things are in my power, but I shall not be overpowered by anything.”[] Paul states that sexual sin is permissible to the Christian, but it doesn’t profit the Christian. You can do it, but should you? You’re free to do it, but you’re not free to stop doing it. Sin leads to debilitating slavery and addiction (Jn. 8:34).

Most commentators believe this expression (“All things are lawful for me…”) was a Corinthians catch phrase or common slogan.[] They believe this because the expression is used four times in this book: twice here and twice in 10:23. Moreover, after each instance, Paul clarifies the use of this aphorism.

Some commentators believe that Paul is negating the statement “all things are lawful.” For instance, Fee writes, “For him it is only as one is in Christ that “everything is permitted me,” and in any case that would have to do with adiaphora (the nonessentials: food, drink, days, circumcision, etc.), not with Christian ethics.”[] But, in our estimation, this goes too far. Of all places to bring in a fear-threat, law-based motivation, this would be the place! Yet Paul doesn’t negate this view; instead, he merely qualifies it. Sin, he writes, is enslaving (“I will not be mastered by anything”). This so-called freedom of sexual sin actually results in slavery (Jn. 8:34).

(6:13) “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them.”

The Corinthians were arguing from our design: If the stomach was made for food, then other parts of the body (e.g. sexual organs) were made for their designed purpose as well.[] Yet Paul argues that God has created the body for another design entirely. In other words, we can’t always accurately assess the use and intent of our bodies; we need to talk with the Engineer to discover their design.

We see this argument today, don’t we? We often hear, “I was born with these sexual drives” or “It’s only natural to sleep around.” Yet, this cheapens sex to a mere impulse or throb. It doesn’t raise our sexuality, but lowers it to that of an animal.

“Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body.” The Corinthians were dividing the material body from the spiritual soul, which was common in neo-Platonic Greek thought.[] This would explain why they were denying the resurrection of the dead (ch.15). This also fits with Paul’s mention of the resurrection in verse 14. Paul argues from another perspective: God cares about the body and what we do in it.

(6:14) “Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.”

God will raise our bodies, so their use must be very valuable to him. Again, Paul will return to the physical resurrection in chapter 15.

(6:15) “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!”

To support his design argument, Paul points out that the Designer of our bodies has united them with Christ. Paul could have made an argument from our individual identity with Christ, but instead, he makes his argument based on their collective identity with Christ (the “you” is plural). Paul will build on the truth that we are the “Body of Christ” in chapter 12.

(6:16) “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, ‘The two shall become one flesh.’”

Paul grounds his ethic about sexuality in our design by God, quoting from Genesis 2:24. Since God designed us for a certain function, we damage ourselves and others when we go outside of this. When we drive drunk and smash our car, we can’t blame General Motors or Honda! They designed the car properly, but we misused the car.

(6:17) “But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.”

Paul creates a very important parallel between verses 16 and 17: In verse 16, the man “joins himself” and becomes “one body with her.” In verse 17, the man “joins himself” and becomes “one spirit with the Lord.” The body and the spirit are parallel concepts. When we engage in sex outside of marriage, we are not just connecting our bodies, but our very own souls.

(6:18) “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.”

“Flee immorality.” Paul tells us to stand against Satan and spiritual warfare (Eph. 6), but he tells us to flee sexual sin. Sexual sin is so tempting and pernicious that it can rip our lives apart. Think of how many pastors, politicians, and professionals have ruined their lives because they couldn’t control their sexuality.

“Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.” What does Paul mean that sexual sin actually sins against our own body? There are two ways of understanding this passage:

(1) Paul is again critiquing the Corinthian view. The first half of the verse is the Corinthian slogan (“…outside the body…”). Of course, the Corinthians had a high view of their souls, but not their bodies. Perhaps, they were arguing that sexual sin wasn’t an issue with their physical bodies (similar to vv.12-13).

(2) Paul is stating that there is something unique about how sexual sin harms a person’s body.[] When a person fornicates, he takes the “temple of the Lord” and uniquely joins it to another person. Fee writes, “Every other sin is apart from… the body in this singular sense.”[] This view seems more likely, because Paul goes on to argue about our bodies being temples of the Holy Spirit (v.19).

(6:19) “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?”

Earlier, Paul used the plural to describe that we are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16). Here, he says that even our individual bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, using the singular. The Corinthians led a licentious lifestyle based on the thought that their bodies were their own to use as they wish. Paul argues that you are not your own, but belong to Christ.

(6:20) “For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.”

The Corinthians were looking at sex as though it was amoral or morally neutral, but Christ paid a powerful price to forgive us. We shouldn’t throw our sexuality around in a cheap or frivolous way. We are far more valuable than we think.

Questions for Reflection

Paul calls our bodies “temples” of the Holy Spirit. How does this perspective compare to modern worldviews regarding Homo sapiens? How might this view affect our sexual ethics.

For discussion, read these popular blog articles and critique them as a group. Here is one from a father who is writing to his daughter.

“Dear Daughter: I Hope You Have Awesome Sex.” Ferrett Steinmetz writes:

Look, I love sex. It’s fun. And because I love my daughter, I want her to have all of the same delights in life that I do, and hopefully more. I don’t want to hear about the fine details because, heck, I don’t want those visuals any more than my daughter wants mine. But in the abstract, darling, go out and play. Because consensual sex isn’t something that men take from you; it’s something you give. It doesn’t lessen you to give someone else pleasure. It doesn’t degrade you to have some of your own. And anyone who implies otherwise is a man who probably thinks very poorly of women underneath the surface…

(1) There is nothing intrinsically wrong with sex, according to the Bible. God created sex, and he loves it too.

(2) This assumes that sex is nothing more than just giving and gaining “pleasure” or “play” or “delight.” But is that what sex is? Or is there a moral component to sex?

(3) How would he feel about her having sex with a boy from school at age 11? What about if she fell in love with her 50 year old friend from the playground?

(4) Ad hominem. He’s saying, “If you disagree with me, then you’re just a woman-hating man!”

To see you in a glass cage, experiencing nothing but cold emptiness at your fingers, as Dear Old Dad ensured that you got to experience nothing until he decided what you should like.

He is equating refraining from sex as being in a “glass cage” and experiencing “cold emptiness.” He describes it like experiencing the “Skinner Box” of a mad scientist!

Nor are you an extension of my will. And so you need to make your own damn mistakes, to learn how to pick yourself up when you fall, to learn where the bandages are and to bind up your own cuts. I’ll help. I’ll be your consigliere when I can, the advisor, the person you come to when all seems lost. But I think there’s value in getting lost. I think there’s a strength that only comes from fumbling your own way out of the darkness.

What if we applied this in other areas of life? What is she said that she didn’t want to go to high school? At what point is a parent obligated to intervene?

He must have a pretty low view of sex and the consequences!

You’re your own person, and some of the things you’re going to love will strike me as insane, ugly, or unenjoyable. …And I would be a sad, sad little man if I manipulated you into becoming a cookie-cutter clone of my desires. Love the music I hate, watch the movies I loathe, become a strong woman who knows where her bliss is and knows just what to do to get it.

So, it’s wrong to want our own kids to have our values. Who am I to influence them?

Sex is being equated with movies and music.

I’m not the guard who locks you in the tower. Ideally, I am my daughter’s safe space, a garden to return to when the world has proved a little too cruel, a place where she can recuperate and reflect upon past mistakes and know that here, there is someone who loves her wholeheartedly and will hug her until the tears dry. That’s what I want for you, sweetie. A bold life filled with big mistakes and bigger triumphs.[]

This is a false dilemma. We EITHER love our kid emotionally and relationally and give them no restrictions on sex, OR we are cold and controlling to them and don’t have a good relationship.

Meghan Laslocky “Face it: Monogamy is unnatural.” CNN June 21, 2013

Meghan Laslocky—author of The Little Book of Heartbreak—writes, “Biologically, we humans are animals… The evidence shows that monogamy is a rarity among mammals. Only 3% to 5% of all the mammal species on Earth ‘practice any form of monogamy.’ In fact, no mammal species has been proven to be truly monogamous.

That is the case for other mammals, but should it ought to be the case for us?

Should we take our practices from animals? (If you think so, simply YouTube monkey-frog-zoo…)

Studies of prairie voles helped scientists understand that from a chemical and biological standpoint, sexual monogamy depends not just on particular hormones that are released in the brain, but on receptors for these hormones. Among humans, here’s the rub: we have the chemicals and the receptors, but it varies from person to person how much we have. Based on brain wiring alone, inclination toward fidelity can vary dramatically from one individual to another. In other words, “once a cheater, always a cheater,” might have as much to do with brain wiring as with a person’s moral compass, upbringing or culture. The bottom line is that flings are far from folly, at least in the animal kingdom.

What if our brain wiring was set to make us murderous or a child molester? Would this justify such a lifestyle?

As recent as over 100 years ago, it was far more likely that an individual would lose his or her spouse at a young age. Remarriage by widows and widowers—also known as serial monogamy—was one way for humans to fulfill the need for sexual variety…

The writer is saying that it was better a hundred years ago… because you might get lucky and have your spouse die on you!

This seems like a lot to expect of any human being—even the most honorable, ethical and moral. Those who are able to stay with one partner for a long haul are sometimes looked upon with awe. Certainly, a lasting and happy marriage tends to be far better for the children

True, but why would we have “awe” for them? We would be in awe of their biological hardware—not them.

Why do you think marriage is good for kids?

Human monogamy is influenced by many factors. Instead of pointing fingers or acting morally superior toward those who stray from marriages, we should recognize that strict sexual fidelity is a lofty but perhaps fundamentally doomed aspiration. No two individuals, and no two couples are alike, and we should respect that.”

See our earlier article “The Bible’s Sexual Position” for more on this subject.