The Corinthians were confused about a lot of things.
It seems that one area of confusion had to do with sexual ethics. They were likely influenced by the proto-gnostic idea that the body does not matter. Since the body does not matter, we may do whatever we want with it and it does not affect our souls. Sex is like food, reasoned the Corinthians. You get hungry, you eat. You desire sex, you go and get it. No problem.
One of their mottos that they thought might've derived from the gospel was "All things are lawful for me." Paul appears to quote their motto in 1 Corinthians 6:12. Since all things are lawful, the Corinthians reason, then they may freely express themselves sexually however they please.
What's interesting to me is how Paul responds to their reasoning. Paul does not respond by saying: "All things are certainly not lawful, ya dinguses! We are called to obey God's law and he does not permit us to be sexually immoral." I believe that Paul would certainly be justified in responding in that way. Paul says elsewhere that we are called to obey God's law (Romans 13:8).
But Paul takes a different tack here. He changes the conversation from what is lawful to what is beneficial. And he begins to argue that sexual immorality is neither beneficial nor fitting for the Christian. He seems to concede, for the sake of argument, that all things are indeed lawful. But then he asks them to think in a different way: "Ok, well even if it is lawful, is it really beneficial? Is it really helping you to enjoy your union with Christ?"
I think that this shows Paul's pastoral wisdom. He could have taken the lawful angle, but he does not directly confront the Corinthians on this. Rather, he takes a different approach in order to reach their hearts.
Thoughts?
It seems that one area of confusion had to do with sexual ethics. They were likely influenced by the proto-gnostic idea that the body does not matter. Since the body does not matter, we may do whatever we want with it and it does not affect our souls. Sex is like food, reasoned the Corinthians. You get hungry, you eat. You desire sex, you go and get it. No problem.
One of their mottos that they thought might've derived from the gospel was "All things are lawful for me." Paul appears to quote their motto in 1 Corinthians 6:12. Since all things are lawful, the Corinthians reason, then they may freely express themselves sexually however they please.
What's interesting to me is how Paul responds to their reasoning. Paul does not respond by saying: "All things are certainly not lawful, ya dinguses! We are called to obey God's law and he does not permit us to be sexually immoral." I believe that Paul would certainly be justified in responding in that way. Paul says elsewhere that we are called to obey God's law (Romans 13:8).
But Paul takes a different tack here. He changes the conversation from what is lawful to what is beneficial. And he begins to argue that sexual immorality is neither beneficial nor fitting for the Christian. He seems to concede, for the sake of argument, that all things are indeed lawful. But then he asks them to think in a different way: "Ok, well even if it is lawful, is it really beneficial? Is it really helping you to enjoy your union with Christ?"
I think that this shows Paul's pastoral wisdom. He could have taken the lawful angle, but he does not directly confront the Corinthians on this. Rather, he takes a different approach in order to reach their hearts.
Thoughts?