Original Meaning

VERSES 9–11 HAVE provided a natural transition back into the broad area of sexual ethics, the theme that verses 12–20 now take up. Here appears the third error of the libertines in chapters 5–6. After the problems of the incestuous man (5:1–13) and of lawsuits against believers (6:1–11), Paul now turns to treat sexual immorality in general, but particularly manifested in prostitution, for which Corinth was infamous.

With verse 12 Paul begins a pattern that will frequently recur throughout the rest of the letter—quoting a Corinthian slogan, and thereby giving it a limited endorsement, but then at once substantially qualifying it. These Corinthian slogans (here the three sayings of verses 12–13 which the NIV encloses with quotation marks) all share four characteristics: (a) they are short, pithy, and proverbial; (b) they reflect the libertine wing of the church; (c) Paul himself could have conceivably uttered them in some specific context; and (d) apart from that context they were so misleading that abuse was almost inevitable.

Verse 12 quotes the first slogan twice (cf. also 10:23): “Everything is permissible for me.” Paul might have spoken this in the context of Christian freedom from the law. The slogan of verse 13 (“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”) could reflect his more specific reference to freedom from the Jewish dietary laws. But apart from these contexts the slogans virtually invite people to sin, as the Corinthians apparently were doing. Hence Paul explains that Christians still must submit to moral principles—not because they obey all 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law but because many things simply are not beneficial and not truly liberating. Verse 12b reflects a Greek word play that could be approximated in English by translating, “All things are in my power, but I shall not be overpowered by anything.”1

It is not clear if the next Corinthian slogan (v. 13) read as the NIV prints it or included in addition, “but God will destroy them both.” The NIV omits another “but” with which the next sentence begins—“But the body”—which could be Paul’s response to a longer slogan. Either way, the Corinthians were apparently inferring from the relatively accurate observation that food and stomach were made for each other that the body and sexual release were identically related. After all, both eating and having sex seem to be limited to this life. Not so, declares Paul! There may be no need for stomachs in resurrection bodies that do not need to eat, but there most certainly will be resurrection bodies! And sexual immorality affects one’s entire body in a way that overeating cannot, as verse 18 will explain. Hence, that body is to be dedicated to the Lord in holiness and not to sexual impurity (vv. 13b–14).

Verses 15–17 form a syllogism (a three-part argument with two premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows): (1) The bodies of Christians are members of Christ himself. (2) Sexual intercourse unites two human beings (as taught already in Gen. 2:24). (3) Sexual intercourse with a prostitute, therefore, unites the members of Christ with that prostitute.

Clearly this does not mean that such a person becomes saved. Rather Paul expresses his utter repugnance to associating something as impure as prostitution with Christ’s perfect holiness. Prostitution also creates the grotesque connection of the One who represents ultimate commitment with the act that represents the most casual of sexual relationships. Worse still, this sex is for hire, epitomizing the abuse of human beings by those with absolutely no commitment to their greater good.

Paul understandably reacts to this monstrous mismatch with a strong present tense command (suggesting ongoing action) to “flee” porneia. This is the broadest term for sexual sin in the Greek language, embracing any form of intercourse between two individuals who are not united in heterosexual marriage (v. 18a). At first glance, however, his next reason for this command seems patently false (v. 18b). Surely gluttony and drunkenness, self-mutilation, and suicide also sin against one’s own body. The solution to this problem lies with the term “body” (soma), which can often carry the connotation of an individual in bodily, interpersonal communion. As Brendan Byrne explains:

The immoral person perverts precisely that faculty within himself that is meant to be the instrument of the most intimate bodily communication between persons. He sins against his unique power of bodily communication and in this sense sins in a particular way ‘against his own body.’ All other sins are in this respect by comparison ‘outside’ the body—with ‘body’ having in this verse the strong sexual overtones that appear to cling to it throughout the passage as a whole. No other sin engages one’s power of bodily personal communication in precisely so intimate a way.2

Verses 19–20 reapply the temple imagery, with its connotations of holiness, to the bodies of individual believers. As in 3:16–17, Paul writes literally “your [pl.] body [sg.].” But given the context of verses 12–17 it is more likely that he is still talking about individual bodies here, using what grammarians call a “distributive singular” construction. Verse 20 alludes to Jesus’ costly atonement, which should cause believers to want to glorify God out of gratitude for the salvation he has purchased for them.

Bridging Contexts

PAUL CERTAINLY BELIEVES that moral absolutes remain in the Christian era (cf. Gal. 5:19–23). But the fundamental contrast between the age of the Law and the age of the Spirit has to do with living by long lists of external standards versus loving from internal attitudes birthed by a correct relationship to God in Christ. The sense in which the Corinthian slogans remain valid is later captured by St. Augustine in his famous proverb, “Love God and do as you please.” But that proverb can equally easily be abused! Christians who operate out of heartfelt concern for their own and others’ well-being will recognize many things as inherently harmful or even addictive. “The great fact of the Christian faith is, not that it makes a man free to sin, but that it makes a man free not to sin.”3 Furthermore, “the man who has to express his freedom is actually in bondage to the need to show he is a free man. The genuinely free man has nothing to prove.”4

Paul’s affirmation of the body counteracts those forms of dualism which allege that the material world, including human bodies, is irredeemable. Here Paul counters the hedonistic outgrowth of such philosophy; in chapter 7 he will combat its ascetic counterpart. Christians must always guard against a truncated gospel that seeks to save souls but not bodies or that is unconcerned for the stewardship of the earth. To the extent that the kingdom is inaugurated, we must begin to model even in this life the priorities of care for our bodies and our planet that we will be able to perfect in the life to come.

Sexual immorality, and prostitution in particular, certainly have remained problems in almost every time and culture. But verse 20 closes Paul’s discussion with a generalization that suggests other applications. Any kind of bodily abuse dishonors God. On the other hand, we dare not lose sight of the unique seriousness of sexual sin that verse 18 upholds. The effects of gluttony are usually reversible by an increase in sweat and a decrease in calories. Some effects of illicit sex can never be undone (though of course they can be forgiven). Memories, emotions, and attachments stay with us for life, although excessive promiscuity can eventually dull or numb our senses in certain ways.

Paul’s theology of sexuality is profoundly humanizing, in that it treats people with the care and dignity that creatures made in God’s image deserve. Paul understands that sex has unique effects on a person’s psyche. Because sex reflects the most intimate of interpersonal relations among humans, it should be reserved for the most permanent of interpersonal commitments.5 God established the principle of lifelong monogamy as a creation ordinance, transcending all cultures and periods of human history (v. 16). The quotation from Genesis must be read in context as affirming the intimacy and commitment that sexual intercourse should imply. It does not offer any justification for claiming that sex by itself constitutes a marriage. That requires the first half of Genesis 2:24 as well: “A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife”—the transference of ultimate human allegiance from parents to spouse.

The strong command to keep on fleeing porneia (v. 18) may need to be reenacted literally, as with Joseph fleeing from Potiphar’s wife (Gen. 39:12). But it may also require refusing intimate friendships with people to whom one is improperly attracted, refraining in dating relationships from bodily contact that prematurely arouses too strong a sexual desire, or avoiding places that make pornography available in print or on television and film. It applies also at the mental level, whenever we dwell on that which is not true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy (Phil. 4:8).

Contemporary Significance

MUCH OF WHAT was said in applying 5:1–13 fits here too. Drastically countercultural themes persist in these verses. Ever since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, large segments of our modern world have subscribed to the “if it feels good do it” mentality. Yet when people adopt this ethic, families are destroyed and sexual addictions overwhelm many. We also overeat, particularly in the West, while our brothers and sisters around the globe starve. Other prevalent abuse of our bodies includes drunkenness, chain smoking, drug abuse, lack of proper exercise or diet, and workaholism.

The Christian view of sex—abstinence except in heterosexual marriage—makes good sense in our world, completely apart from Paul’s primary rationale. The AIDS epidemic has now infected the subculture of the heterosexually promiscuous, particularly prostitutes and their companions. Other sexually transmitted diseases remain widespread. The dangers of unwanted pregnancies and potential abortions only compound the problem. But the most central Christian reason for limiting sex to husbands and wives deals with the permanent commitment that should be implied by interpersonal relations this intimate. In countless ways, women and men defy God and confidently proclaim that they can have sex without that commitment and without any destructive side-effects. Time and time again, they regret those choices. But this is not a sin we can test and then back off from; we must trust that God knows best. Once a person yields to temptation, in little or big ways, there are mental and emotional scars that may never entirely disappear, even though God’s grace can bring substantial healing.6

But what of people who, for whatever reasons, never have the opportunity to marry? How can they find appropriate sexual release for one of the body’s strongest drives? Though still controversial and seldom talked about in public Christian discourse, a limited use of masturbation would appear to be the most appropriate answer. No biblical text directly addresses this practice, but if the one thing sexual sins have in common is the misuse of another human being to whom a person is not fully committed, then self-stimulation would seem to be exempt from this abuse. To be sure, it too can become addictive or lustful, but it need not, and it may in fact prevent improper interpersonal sexuality by periodically calming intense urges.7