All Things Are Lawful

Tree of Life · Mar 22, 2019

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?

com7fy8 · Mar 22, 2019

Tree of Life said:
Sex is like food, reasoned the Corinthians. You get hungry, you eat. You desire sex, you go and get it. No problem.

In one of his verses like this, Paul also says,

"but I will not be brought under the power of any." (in 1 Corinthians 6:12)

So, it is not only about if something is good or not, but if it has us under its power.

So, in the case of food, there is abuse where food has power over the person.

And I see how marriage can be abused. Paul says, elsewhere >

"not in passion of lust" (in 1 Thessalonians 4:5).

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

I would say love does not have us only using someone for pleasure. And God's love is gentle and humble, not with dominating drives > Jesus is "gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:29)

RDKirk · Mar 22, 2019

Tree of Life said:
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?

There are no quotes in the Greek, so there really isn't any reason within the context of the passage to suppose that "all things are lawful" isn't actually Paul's own sentiment--a paraphrase of a concept he'd actually taught them.

It would be in perfect keeping with Paul's other teachings about the "written code" to dispense with reference to written code to determine the righteousness of an act.

In other words, saying, "Do not refer to a written code to determine what is permissible."

Rather--and I think I agree with you here--Paul is raising the bar for judging what actions are in the direction of righteousness. It's not by a written code, but by determining by virtue of a mind transformed to be in conformance with the mind of Christ what actions are beneficial and edifying (Romans 12, Romans 14).

RDKirk · Mar 22, 2019

com7fy8 said:
In one of his verses like this, Paul also says,

"but I will not be brought under the power of any." (in 1 Corinthians 6:12)

So, it is not only about if something is good or not, but if it has us under its power.

So, in the case of food, there is abuse where food has power over the person.

And I see how marriage can be abused. Paul says, elsewhere >

"not in passion of lust" (in 1 Thessalonians 4:5).

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)

I would say love does not have us only using someone for pleasure. And God's love is gentle and humble, not with dominating drives > Jesus is "gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." (in Matthew 11:29)

And all that falls under what Paul teaches in Romans 6: Whatever you obey is your master. If we allow our flesh dictate what we do, then our flesh is our master.

Doing what comes naturally is idolatry of the flesh.

Josephus · Mar 22, 2019

Tree of Life said:
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?

I find it a bit difficult to consider Paul's approach here, namely in that one's yetzer hara, or evil inclination is always looking for an excuse to sin. All it would take to satisfy the argument of the evil inclination is to provide evidence of the benefits of sexual immorality (while hiding the negatives). For people struggling with sexual sin, all it takes is just one solid sounding argument from the evil inclination to justify trying fruit that is forbidden.

So then, why does Paul take the tack here to give the judgement of what is beneficial a justification to continue in sexual immorality?

He's not. He's not even addressing sexual immorality. He's addressing a rabbinic allowance providing their congregations permission to eat meat sold in the public sphere. This issue is not a matter of sin, but of custom to avoid the possible eating of meat sacrificed to idols. The context is key since this very topic is the background in the verse and verses preceeding the "beneficial" statement in the letter to the Corinthians.

In other words, Paul is only saying it is permissible to eat meat bought in the marketplace of unknown origin, saying if you know its tainted with being sacrificed to an idol, don't eat it, else you're engaging in idolatry. Everything is permitted - all meat sold is public is permitted, but not everything is beneficial - especially questionable meat that is likely to have been sacrificed to an idol.

Bible Highlighter · Mar 22, 2019

Context:

9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

So does Paul mean by the phrase: "all things are lawful for me" in 1 Corinthians 6:12?

Is he referring to God's laws or man's laws?

The context is talking about the laws of men because the Corinthians were trying to handle their disputes by the courts of the law of the land and not amongst each other (using God's Word).

1 "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers." (1 Corinthians 6:1-6).

So it may have been lawful to sleep around according to the law of the land, but according to God's laws, this is not the case. For be not deceived. The unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Jesus even warns that looking upon a woman in lust will cause a person to be cast bodily into the Lake of Fire (See Matthew 5:28-30).

So Paul is talking from the perspective of the laws of the land. Yes, "all things are lawful" in the context of the law of the land, but they are not expedient (i.e. they are not moral). Even one of the definitions for the word "expedient" is "immoral."

In other word, Paul is saying, "all things are lawful for me [in view of one obeying the law of the land], but not all things are moral or good."

For we know that to sin is not something that is of God.

Kenny'sID · Mar 22, 2019

RDKirk said:
In other words, saying, "Do not refer to a written code to determine what is permissible."

Or maybe the code and more. Though the written code is a good pace to start and the simplest way to get the rules understood, they far from cover everything, and if they did, there would be no "simple" about it. Hence Jesus's 2 commandments where all the law hangs from, and things like the Golden rule.

That rule alone, which is basically one of Christs commandments, opens a whole new detailed set of rules on how we should act. It's the perfect formula for determining right and wrong

Also on the Scripture in the title, and though I may want to revisit it, my take has always been, all that is not sin is lawful, not all things period.

Ttalkkugjil · Mar 22, 2019

Paul has touched upon the fact that Christian liberty and flesh's license are incompatible. Christ's love's to regulate Christian liberty according to the rule that our deeds which we've the power to do are to aid our neighbors; and on the other hand, Christian liberty won't suffer anything over which we've power to overpower us.

Morals' laxity in the Corinthian congregation could not be excused.

We'll find that all things aren't advantageous, aren't good for our welfare. It'd be foolish to use things to excess. By our liberty's abuse we'll forfeit this liberty's best fruits.

fhansen · Mar 22, 2019

Tree of Life said:
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?

I agree. But I think there's a bit more to it perhaps. All things are lawful in the sense that all things in creation are good-simply because God made them so. Lawlessness comes due to the misuse of those goods by fallen man. For a sanctified believer, however, ideally all things are always good, as originally intended, but he should therefore know how to use them rightly, in accordance with God's will.

FireDragon76 · Mar 22, 2019

Josephus said:
I find it a bit difficult to consider Paul's approach here, namely in that one's yetzer hara, or evil inclination is always looking for an excuse to sin. All it would take to satisfy the argument of the evil inclination is to provide evidence of the benefits of sexual immorality (while hiding the negatives). For people struggling with sexual sin, all it takes is just one solid sounding argument from the evil inclination to justify trying fruit that is forbidden.

So then, why does Paul take the tack here to give the judgement of what is beneficial a justification to continue in sexual immorality?

He's not. He's not even addressing sexual immorality. He's addressing a rabbinic allowance providing their congregations permission to eat meat sold in the public sphere. This issue is not a matter of sin, but of custom to avoid the possible eating of meat sacrificed to idols. The context is key since this very topic is the background in the verse and verses preceeding the "beneficial" statement in the letter to the Corinthians.

In other words, Paul is only saying it is permissible to eat meat bought in the marketplace of unknown origin, saying if you know its tainted with being sacrificed to an idol, don't eat it, else you're engaging in idolatry. Everything is permitted - all meat sold is public is permitted, but not everything is beneficial - especially questionable meat that is likely to have been sacrificed to an idol.

Paul is not preaching that we are bound by the religious scruples of idolators. Idols are nothing, and food sacrificed to idols is just food, and therefore lawful. However, we should not abuse that liberty if someone of weaker conscience might take offense. That doesn't make the weaker conscience the correct or safe one, but our actions should be ruled by love.

FireDragon76 · Mar 22, 2019

RDKirk said:
There are no quotes in the Greek, so there really isn't any reason within the context of the passage to suppose that "all things are lawful" isn't actually Paul's own sentiment--a paraphrase of a concept he'd actually taught them.

It would be in perfect keeping with Paul's other teachings about the "written code" to dispense with reference to written code to determine the righteousness of an act.

I think its beyond that, the Law cannot make us righteous. There is no way to sneak that in through the back door and keep the promise of the Gospel intact. So I disagree with the idea that Paul was merely making a rhetorical point here, also, but I think I would emphasize it even more strongly.

In Lutheran theology and ethics, Christian freedom is real, and not just a rhetorical point. Luther is clear when he discusses this with an anxious Melanchthon in 1521, that "no sin can separate us from the Lamb".

Martin Luther: Sin Boldly | Page 1 of 1

FireDragon76 · Mar 22, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Context:

9 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

So does Paul mean by the phrase: "all things are lawful for me" in 1 Corinthians 6:12?

Is he referring to God's laws or man's laws?

The context is talking about the laws of men because the Corinthians were trying to handle their disputes by the courts of the law of the land and not amongst each other (using God's Word).

1 "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers." (1 Corinthians 6:1-6).

So it may have been lawful to sleep around according to the law of the land, but according to God's laws, this is not the case. For be not deceived. The unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Jesus even warns that looking upon a woman in lust will cause a person to be cast bodily into the Lake of Fire (See Matthew 5:28-30).

So Paul is talking from the perspective of the laws of the land. Yes, "all things are lawful" in the context of the law of the land, but they are not expedient (i.e. they are not moral). Even one of the definitions for the word "expedient" is "immoral."

In other word, Paul is saying, "all things are lawful for me [in view of one obeying the law of the land], but not all things are moral or good."

For we know that to sin is not something that is of God.

Paul does not qualify "law" in that way . When he speaks of law, he always means Torah.

I would bracket that quote above in 1st Corinthians within the overall context of Paul's theology, which is about God justifying sinners freely apart from the works of the Law. It does not overturn the Gospel promise. Paul has a laundry list of sins that he believes are not part of God's kingdom (what exactly does "effeminate" or malakoi mean, since it varies so much by cultural anyways? Scholars still debate that), but it is not God's final verdict upon those whom he has justified, and it is wrong to use it as a "clobber passage" to try to coerce consciences.

I believe Paul is trying to tentatively move from morality grounded in obedience to religious rules to ethics based on human relationships grounded in responsibility and trust. But because he is a conservative pharisee by training, of course his ethics is going to be colored by that.

RDKirk · Mar 22, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
I think its beyond that, the Law cannot make us righteous. There is no way to sneak that in through the back door and keep the promise of the Gospel intact. So I disagree with the idea that Paul was merely making a rhetorical point here, also, but I think I would emphasize it even more strongly.

In Lutheran theology and ethics, Christian freedom is real, and not just a rhetorical point. Luther is clear when he discusses this with an anxious Melanchthon in 1521, that "no sin can separate us from the Lamb".

Martin Luther: Sin Boldly | Page 1 of 1

I'm not saying that Paul was merely making a rhetorical point.

I'm saying that Paul's position was that the righteousness (or sinfulness) of an action was not to be found in the written code. In other words, there should be no combing through a written code to determine whether flipping a light switch on the Sabbath is a sin, or whether accidentally swallowing a gnat in one's drinking water is a sin, or baking a cake for a homosexual wedding is a sin.

Rather--in consideration of one having already transformed his mind to conform with the mind of Christ so that he is able to test and approve God's good, pleasing and perfect will--one determines what actions are beneficial and edifying.

Given Romans 12, then Romans 14

FireDragon76 · Mar 22, 2019

RDKirk said:
I'm not saying that Paul was merely making a rhetorical point.

I'm saying that Paul's position was that the righteousness (or sinfulness) of an action was not to be found in the written code. In other words, there should be no combing through a written code to determine whether flipping a light switch on the Sabbath is a sin, or whether accidentally swallowing a gnat in one's drinking water is a sin, or baking a cake for

RDKirk said:

I'm not saying that Paul was merely making a rhetorical point.

I'm saying that Paul's position was that the righteousness (or sinfulness) of an action was not to be found in the written code. In other words, there should be no combing through a written code to determine whether flipping a light switch on the Sabbath is a sin, or whether accidentally swallowing a gnat in one's drinking water is a sin, or baking a cake for a homosexual wedding is a sin.

Rather--in consideration of one having already transformed his mind to conform with the mind of Christ so that he is able to test and approve God's good, pleasing and perfect will--one determines what actions are beneficial and edifying.

Given Romans 12, then Romans 14

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe you are onto something.

It always astounds me the same evangelicals that say "It's not a religion, it's a relationship", cannot seem to apply that same logic when discussing Christian ethics. Suddenly the "thou shalt nots" dominate the conversation.

The "thou shalt not" clobbering really remind me of William Blake's poem, "The Garden of Love"

I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And Thou shalt not. writ over the door;
So I turn'd to the Garden of Love,
That so many sweet flowers bore.

And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tomb-stones where flowers should be:
And Priests in black gowns, were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars, my joys & desires.

Blake's point is that religious scruples frequently drive out love, substituting something dead and dreary for something that used to be joyously alive.

All Things Are Lawful

Hide The Pain

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

<b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b>

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

Social Pastor

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Similar threads