(1 Cor 6:15 ESV) 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
Why is prostitution wrong? Paul doesn’t say because it violates a command of God (although it does). Paul reasons from the gospel. It’s wrong because Christians have been baptized into Christ. We are his body on earth! And for a Christian to have sex with a prostitute is to join Christ himself to the prostitute!
(1 Cor 6:16 ESV) Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
Paul then refers back to Genesis 2 — regarding Adam and Eve — in which Moses comments on marriage. Paul points out that the sexual union is more than sex. It’s a union of two people who become in a sense one.
(1 Cor 6:17 ESV) But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
When we become Christians, we become one with Jesus. It’s not a physical union, but a spiritual union, an ever deeper, truer union. Hence, to desecrate oneself with a prostitute is to desecrate Jesus.
(1 Cor 6:18 ESV) Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
Paul then explains that sexual sins not only pollute our souls, they pollute our bodies — bodies intended to live forever with Jesus. It’s not just a mark against us. It’s a corruption of something eternal.
This is, of course, quite the opposite of the usual assumption that the “soul” lasts forever and the body is left behind. In both testaments, the body and soul are a unity, and the body is resurrected — transformed and improved in remarkable ways — and yet still a body. It’s our bodies that will be resurrected from the graves and live forever with Jesus.
And, no, I don’t understand it, but I do understand that this is one reason Paul sees sexual sins as especially dangerous. They are sins against the eternal part of us.
(1 Cor 6:19-20 ESV) Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Paul next draws from chapter 3, where he explained that the church is a temple of the Holy Spirit. We are now given to understand that this is true both individually and corporately. We are individually temples of the Spirit — and therefore God lives in us and we are to show the world God’s glory through our bodies.
Prostitution is therefore not unlike the Abomination of Desolation, that is, the time when Antiochus Epiphanes sacrificed pig flesh on the altar of the temple and filled the temple courts with prostitutes. When we realize God’s purposes for us, we see the blasphemy.
Finally, Paul points out that we were “bought with a price,” that is, Jesus paid the price to free us from slavery — to redeem us. But Paul is ending with a wink. Prostitutes are also bought with a price.
It had never occurred to me until reading this post that Paul’s moving so quickly to the subject of prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6 strengthens the possibility that the homosexual practice he condemns in verse 9 was homosexual prostitution. Even the new and improved NIV translation of verse 9 allows for this interpretation as most homosexual encounters with a prostitute would have consisted of an active participant and a passive participant. Prostitution is the likely context then for the homosexuality referenced in verse 9.
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/astrologers_song.html
Gary,
Why make this homosexual prostitution? While I believe it would include any porneia, why shouldn’t it also include all forms, whether heterosexual or homosexual? Or am I missing something in your comment? Or is it an attempt to make his mention of homosexual conduct in v. nine refer only to homosexual prostitution? It is my understanding that porneia (often translated as fornication) does not necessarily involve payment for services but includes all forms of sexual intercourse involving persons not married to each other. Is this true, or do I misunderstand the import of this word?
Jerry, it would be homosexual prostitution because, to the best of my understanding, arsenokoitai in 6:9 is a compound word meaning man bed.
Gary, yet in vv. 15-18, fornication and harlot (prostitute) or “those who practice sexual immorality” aren’t related to the term used in 6:9 for homosexuals. They are from the word family that gives us pornography when coupled with the word for a writing. Porne, pornia, and pornos are quite different words than arsenokoitēs, or coitus man with man.
There is similarity, not in etymology, but in that all these words speak of sexual sin. To these can be added adultery (moichos) and what the KJV translates as effeminate (malakos), which Thayer defines as a boy kept for homosexual purposes.
None of these words are complimentary. Today they are most politically incorrect. Yet Paul uses all of them in v. 9 of those practicing these things not inheriting the kingdom of God. None of these are unforgivable, for he hastens to add that though some of the Corinthians had been such, they had been washed and purified by the Spirit of God. To continue in those practices now would be to join The Lord to a prostitute.
So again I ask if you are trying to take “prostitute” in vv.13ff to mean that only those who practice any of the sins listed in v. 9 as prostitutes are included in Paul’s strictures? Would this mean that adulterers who were not selling themselves or buying the sexual services of another would not effectively be joining The Lord to harlotry?
Jerry, I’m having a hard time following you. But my answer is no, I’m not trying to limit the meaning of prostitute in vv.13ff to practitioners of the sins listed in v.9. Jay had tried, it seemed to me, in one comment to link the mention of homosexuality in v.9 to Paul’s later discussion of celibacy in chapter 7 I believe. That seemed a stretch to me. My comment in this thread was to show that prostitution was definitely in the mix because it comes up explicitly here in 6:15-20. I hope that answers your question if I understand it correctly which I’m not sure I do.
.
Jerry, you do know that my first comment in this thread was about v.9?
Gary,
The Greek word for “arsenokoitēs” is not “man bed”; Thayer’s says it is “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual”. Also note this same word is used in 1 Tim 1:10, where prostitution is neither mentioned or hinted at, yet is labeled by Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine”. Vine references the same verses.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G733&t=KJV
http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/vines?word=abuse
Even if the word was never referenced in the New Testament, the activity would still be condemned under the category of fornication, which is all sexual activity which occurs outside of the marriage bed (Heb. 13:4), of which said marriage is defined by scripture as a man joined to a woman (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-6; 1 Cor. 7:2-9).
No, Chris, I’ve checked again and arsen means man and koitai means beds so arsenokoitai most literally means “man beds.” This is the first instance in all of Greek literature (1 Corinthians 6:9) of arsenokoitai. Either Paul here invented a new word or any documents using arsenokoitai before Paul have not survived. What “man beds” means is then a matter of opinion no matter how respected the source because there are no prior usages of arsenokoitai to guide us as to its meaning. Some believe that the meaning of “man beds” is self-evident but 2,000 years later that is doubtful. Can you imagine scholars 2,000 years from now trying to understand the term “lady killer” as either a woman murderer or a murderer who kills women? There is no room for anyone to be adamant about the meaning of arsenokoitai. It’s meaning is disputed.
Gary,
No disrespect intended, but if “There is no room for anyone to be adamant about the meaning of arsenokoitai”, as you claim, then you cannot, with certainty, make the claim that the word “most literally means ‘man beds.'”
And of course the meaning of the word is disputed. There’s many more that would have us believe the existence of Jesus was a fairy tale as well. But they have another agenda to push than those who wish to say there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality by disputing the validity of the word that the Holy Spirit preserved through the book of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.
Your claim that Paul may have “invented a new word” is laughable, because every scripture is profitable for doctrine (2 Tim 3:16-17). An invented word that has no meaning is not profitable and would cause confusion – which in turn, of course, contradicts 1 Cor. 14:33 and makes God a liar.
This renders your second assertion – “any documents using ‘arsenokoitai’ before Paul have not survived” – pointless. The meaning of the word has still been preserved for all to understand.
You write: “Can you imagine scholars 2,000 years from now trying to understand the term “lady killer” as either a woman murderer or a murderer who kills women?” I don’t know imagine much about scholars, but I do know that Jesus had enough confidence in the Scriptures to base his argument on the single tense of a verb in Ex. 3:6 with his rebuttal to the Sadducees assertion that there was no resurrection in Matt. 22, and this scripture was written centuries before Jesus has ever been physically born. This is a testament to the divine providence of God, who used ungodly men throughout the ages to accomplish His divine purpose. This principle is found in Isa. 10:3-16.
And all of this does not change that homosexuality is still classified as fornication, per my last response, which means it’s still sinful – regardless of whether you believe it’s translated “man beds” or not.
Chris, if you don’t believe me ask Jay. I think Jay will confirm that arsenokoitai most literally means “man beds” and that 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the first recorded instance of the word in Greek literature that has survived. Where Jay will likely disagree with me is on my statement that the interpretation for today of arsenokoitai is disputed and not self-evident.
By the way, Chris, Paul is wellknown for having coined new Greek words.
Chris,
Thayer’s entry on arsenokoitia read —
The Greek characters are transliterated by the WordPress software for some reason. The “v” is an accent. “h” = eta or a long e.
Anyway, the etymology is male-bed.
Gary,
Here’s the BDAG entry —
This is from the Pillar NT commentary —
Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 242.
The New Int’l Commentary, by Gordon Fee, advises —
Fee goes on to agree with the NIV’s translation, “homosexual offender,” that is, someone who engages in homosexual conduct.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 244.
Jay, doesn’t the last sentence you quote from Fee say that it is not certain whether “male” is subject thus referring to male prostitutes or object referring more broadly to male homosexuals? I think that qualifies as uncertainty.
Gary,
Fee’s commentary continues —
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 244.
So Fee certainly admits some uncertainty as to the translation but not as to the theological conclusion. And he wrote in 1987 before the issue became as controversial as it is today. More recent commentators follow the ESV translation and feel more confident in their conclusions due to the extensive work done since then.
See, for example,
Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004), 69.
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 713.
In short, scholarship is less uncertain than it was when Fee wrote his commentary.
Jay, this overlaps with my last response to you in the thread about 6:9. I’m flummoxed by the statement in the quotation above that experts have now established that malakoi and arsenokoitai clearly refer to the practice of male homosexuality. Well of course experts have established that! There’s never been any question but that malakoi and arsenokoitai refer to the expression of male homosexuality. That’s not the issue. The issue and question is in what context? Is it in the context of committed and permanent same-sex relationships such as we have today in gay marriage in the Western world? Despite your excellent documentation of same-sex marriage in the ancient world it would have been rare. I don’t think you can find any expert who will say that it was commonplace as it is now in the nineteen states and the District of Columbia where it is legal. It would be a huge stretch to contend that that or anything similar to it is the context for malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9. As I pointed out in the earlier discussion a much more likely context that can be shown in 1 Corinthians 6 is either male prostitution or some other equally exploitative and sordid practice. From my reading there were about five well known Greek words Paul could have used to simply indicate homosexual intercourse if that’s all he intended to communicate. His use of an exceedingly rare Greek word or perhaps one he here coins (arsenokoitai) strongly suggests that he is describing homosexual sex plus- plus what? Plus something we cannot now know for sure but something predatory or exploitative.
I amend one statement from my comment above. There’s never been any question in my lifetime that malakoi and arsenokoitai refer to homosexuality. There certainly was question about it historically. For many centuries arsenokoitai was intetpreted as a reference to masturbation.