"good" or "better"

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Tue Jun 25 15:42:58 EDT 2002


Dale Wheeler has suggested a compromise position below that I am quite happy
to accept.
I agree that Paul is correcting two wrong extremes held by some in Corinth:
1) Total freedom (including both what to eat and what to do in general with
the body) 6:12ff
2) Total sexual abstinence, even within marriage (7:1ff)

However, I am still wondering whether we don't have a 3-step development:

1a) Paul said in his original teaching: "You am free from the Jewish law"
1b) Some Corinthians said after he left: "We are free to do whatever we
like".
1c) Paul now writes: "Hey, wait a minute, you are taking it to an extreme I
did not intend and which is wrong."
(Paul anticipates the 1b) possibility in Romans 6.)

2a) Paul said: "It is commendable to live a celibate life for various
reasons as I do"
2b) Some Corinthians said: "Everybody must live a life of sexual abstinence
to be real spiritual"
2c) Paul now says: "Hey, wait a minute, you are taking it to an extreme I
did not intend and which is wrong."

Sometimes Paul seems to restate his original position and clarify where the
Corinthians have taken it to a wrong extreme. Sometimes he seems to quote
their misapplication of his original statement.

The Corinthians seem to be a very independent lot with many original ideas
and a melting pot of cultures and opinions. No wonder there were divisions
among them and each faction tended to claim the support of their favorite
teacher, be it Paul or Apollos. They did not have the NT to study and it is
likely there was a considerable amount of mixing of new Christian teaching
with their former traditions and habits.
I think it was Paul Hiebert who said: "We are all syncretists."

Iver
>
> Greetings Ward from the Rose City of Portland:
>
> This has been an interesting discussion.  It occurs to me that if you are
> taking 7:1 as a Corinthian slogan, which certainly seems reasonable, I'm
> not sure that its necessary for your exegesis to take this slogan as
> referring to "wife".  By your exegesis there are two opposite
> forces/groups
> in Corinth, each advocating diametrically opposed positions.  The first
> group advocates total sexual freedom (their slogans are in 6:12, 13, and
> possibly 18), and Paul dealt with them and what he'd heard about them in
> chs 5-6.  The second group advocates radical celibacy for all
> (whether that is a carry over from a Mystery Cult or because they want to
> emulate Paul is unclear), thus *their* slogan quoted in 7:1, which Paul
sees as a direct
> assault on Christian marriage, and which he realizes ultimately leads to
> further immorality since only people with the "gift" can behave that way
> (vv 2-7).  I'm inclined to agree with Iver that ANQRWPOS does not
> disambiguate GUNH and that it should thus probably be understood as "a
> woman"; but for me it doesn't matter, since this is the radical
> Corinthian position of total celibacy and not Paul's.  Their slogan was an
> attempt to prohibit all sexual behavior, but since for Paul the only
appropriate
> context for sexual behavior is in marriage--as he's just pointed
> out in the previous chapters--this absolute restriction would only effect
Christians
> who accept his position on married-only sex in one area, marriage.  So
> that's what he discusses.
>
> For your consideration...
>
> Blessings...
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D.




More information about the B-Greek mailing list