1Co 6:16

[wizholt7]

I have a question about how the early church would have handled situations such as the one described in 1Corinthians 6:16 about sex with prostitutes.

Admittedly, I know very little about the early church, save what we know from God's word. This verse says: "Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."" (NIV)

I have studied this text, and here is what I believe it means: The Bible talks about Adam and Eve's relationship and the relationship of married couples, when Adam talks about 2 fleshes becoming 1 in Genesis 2:24: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." This is speaking about marriage, however, in regards to sexual intercourse ("joining" oneself with another), Paul says that through this action, the "two will become one flesh". Paul is clearly pointing out that the act of marriage has the same effect, or commitment if you will, than having sex with someone, whether you are already married to that person or not. Furthermore, God created man and women with the intention that one man would only ever sleep with one woman for his entire life, unless he/she was widowed and remarried.

What we see here is that Paul is pointing out, indirectly (or directly depending on your point of view), that to sleep with someone is to make a commitment, a covenant, with your body that they are the only person you will sleep with (as is God's intent for a man/woman), and that, because you are one flesh, you must therefore marry that person. Basically, through the act of sex with that person, you have, non-verbally, betrothed yourself to that person. This is so because if "the two will become one flesh", they must then get married. Two cannot be one flesh, while living two separate lives with one another. Furthermore, if you are one flesh with someone through sex, but marry another person (or have sex with another person), then you are in essence committing adultery.

Anyway, whether everyone agrees with all of this or not, here is my question: how did the early church handle situations when two people had premarital sex with each other? When I say early church, I mean pre-second century.

Thanks, and God bless

 

[WinBySurrender]

What we see here is that Paul is pointing out, indirectly (or directly depending on your point of view), that to sleep with someone is to make a commitment, a covenant, with your body that they are the only person you will sleep with (as is God's intent for a man/woman), and that, because you are one flesh, you must therefore marry that person. Basically, through the act of sex with that person, you have, non-verbally, betrothed yourself to that person.

Naw, don't think so. Note the context ...

1 Corinthians 6
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."
17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
​

This is a comparative passage. Just as we enter into sin by allying ourselves with sin, so we also enter into justification by allying ourselves with Christ. The "two shall become one flesh" is the comparison of truths; as one is true so must also the other be.

 

[wizholt7]

Thanks for your input I know there will be a few different interpretations for the text, but what I'm more interested in right now is merely how the early church would have handled a situation like this. Where two people, unmarried, had sex with one another. I am curious if the church simply disciplined them, if they lead them toward marrying each other to honor the covenant they made with their bodies, and how they handled situations where someone, known to have had sex with someone outside of marriage, seeks to marry someone else.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Thanks for your input I know there will be a few different interpretations for the text, but what I'm more interested in right now is merely how the early church would have handled a situation like this. Where two people, unmarried, had sex with one another. I am curious if the church simply disciplined them, if they lead them toward marrying each other to honor the covenant they made with their bodies, and how they handled situations where someone, known to have had sex with someone outside of marriage, seeks to marry someone else.

Read 1 Corinthians 5:2-7. Paul deals with the situation there.

 

[wizholt7]

That situation is not quite the same. That is someone that has gone beyond the point of being corrected by another christian, and needs to leave to Church and be confronted by his sin because his lifestyle was given up to that sin.

I am talking about someone who may have only had sex with one person before (therefore one flesh with them) and seeks marriage (to become one flesh again) with someone else. And specifically, historically, how the church handled this. By historically I mean in the church shortly after the bible was written.

 

[WinBySurrender]

That situation is not quite the same. That is someone that has gone beyond the point of being corrected by another christian, and needs to leave to Church and be confronted by his sin because his lifestyle was given up to that sin.

I am talking about someone who may have only had sex with one person before (therefore one flesh with them) and seeks marriage (to become one flesh again) with someone else. And specifically, historically, how the church handled this. By historically I mean in the church shortly after the bible was written.

That's going to take a lot of research, and how the church (Body of Christ) dealt with the issue in the first or second century really isn't reflective of how the church deals with similar situations today. Each generation has its own interpretations of biblical truth, which does leave room for error but also allows us to get away from extremes like the Inquisition.

 

[wizholt7]

Right, that's why I posted here. I was hoping someone might already know.

I don't know, I think for the most part, the early church, those started with the teaching of the bible and the disciples, had a more clear picture on most things than our modern, American church. Most American churches are a far cry from the church that Christ established. It's kind of like the telephone game: you tell something to someone, then they tell it to someone else, and so on and eventually it sounds nothing like what was originally said. Unfortunately, even though we have the written word that doesn't change, that's still happens.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Right, that's why I posted here. I was hoping someone might already know.

I don't know, I think for the most part, the early church, those started with the teaching of the bible and the disciples, had a more clear picture on most things than our modern, American church. Most American churches are a far cry from the church that Christ established. It's kind of like the telephone game: you tell something to someone, then they tell it to someone else, and so on and eventually it sounds nothing like what was originally said. Unfortunately, even though we have the written word that doesn't change, that's still happens.

Don't get too hung up on the fact that the church has changed in 2000 years. So has the rest of the world. But Christianity is still relevant to the world as it is, so practices of church discipline from the first century have nothing to do with church discipline practices of today, and they shouldn't be viewed as preferable, just different.