1 Cor 6.12-20 - Corinthian Slogans

7/28/2019 1 Cor 6.12-20 - Corinthian Slogans

1/7

Corinthian Slogans i n i Cor6:12-20

JEROME MURPHY-O'CONNOR, O.P.

Ecole Biblique91019 JerusalemIsrael

THE INTERPRETATION of 1 Corinthians is greatly conditioned by theexegete's assessment of the situation at Corinth, because Paul's words canmean different things when read against various backgrounds. Hence theneed to determine as objectively as possible the positions adopted by theCorinthians. In any such investigation pride of place must be given to citations of Corinthian statements which occur occasionally in the Apostle'sargumentation. The purpose of the present note is to focus attention ontwo such statements which occur in the difficult passage 1 Cor 6:12-20.

In 1934 E.-B. Alio calculated that there were between 20 and 30 explanations of the statement "Every sin which a man may commit is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against his own body" (1 Cor 6:18).The contemporary situation is no better with the commentators who attribute it to Paul divided into those who take him seriously and those whorefuse to do so. The former generate a labyrinth of subtle distinctions designed to justify the idea that fornication is essentially different from anyother sort of sin. The latter cannot see Paul in such scholastic reasoning

and so postulate a laxity of expression which permits them to say what theywill. As early as 1874, however, W. J. Conybears and J. S. Howson sugt d th t th ti "E i hi h it i t id


2/7

392 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 40,1978

influence of a puritanical morality may explain why this hypothesis won noacceptance. An inspired statement that appeared to stress the unique evilof fornication was too valuable an ally to lose.

Some eighty years later C. F. D. Moule in the context of a discussionon diatribe and implied dialogue in NT Greek independently made thesame suggestion. 2 Apparently unaware of Moule's proposal, R. M. Grantfelt constrained to postulate the same hypothesis. 3 Neither of these authorsappears totally convinced; their formulations are characterized by extremediffidence. For Grant it merely seems to come from Paul's opponents, while Moule thinks that it is possibly worth considering. Such reserve,particularly when coupled with the absence of any positive arguments, may have something to do with the fact that the hypothesis has had virtually noimpact. The vast majority of commentators do not even mention it. To the best of my knowledge, only three commentators accept it, 4 and only twohave taken the trouble to formulate a refutation.

C. K. Barrett finds Moule's explanation attractive. The latter hadclaimed that the slogan meant: " no sin can affect a man's true 'body ':physical lust cannot touch the secure 'personality' of the initiated." 5 Barrett, however, finds that it is not entirely satisfying "because Paul's reply seems to accept the general proposition, and make an exception to it (cf.

vv 12-13), which leaves us with the original problem." 6 This is not in factthe case, because the ho de introducing 18c is parallel to the to de introducing 13c which, as we shall see, is a flat negation of the precedingphrase.

R. H. Gundry also rejects Moule's formulation of the hypothesis arguing (a) that it is unjustifiable to give soma the meaning 'personality,'and (b) that

2 An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1953) 196-97.

3 "Hellenistic Elements in I Corinthians," Early Christian Origins. Studies in Honor of Harold R. Willoughby (ed. A. Wikgren; Chicago: Quadrangle, 1961)64, n. 19.

4 L. Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Tyndale NT Commentaries;London: Tyndale, 1958) 103; F. C. Grant, The New Testament: The Letters and the Revela-tion to John (Nelsons Bible Commentary; New York: Nelson, 1962) 7, 86; R. Kempthorne,"Incest and the Body of Christ: A Study of I Corinthians VI. 12-20," NTS 14 (1967-68) 572.

The last mentioned author, however, gives the slogan an aberrant twist by postulating thatit was used by the Corinthians to justify their acceptance of the incestuous man (1 Corinthians5); since his stepmother was not a Christian his sin was outside the Body i e did not affect


3/7

I COR 6:12-20 393

the libertines at Corinth would hardly have divorced all sins from the physical body. Since they would rather have put sin on the side of the physical body and dissociated the true (consisting in the spirit) from the body with its sin,

a slogan from them would more naturally have read, 'Every sin . . . is outsidethe spirit. ' . . . So long as any remnant of physicality remains in soma, thelibertines could not have used the term for the true self in a slogan designed toseparate the true self from the sins of its unessential physique. 7

The validity of Gundry's first point is, in my opinion, beyond dispute.His careful analysis of all the available evidence demonstrates that theholistic definition of soma, first proposed by J. Weiss in his commentary on 1 Cor 6:13 and given the status of common currency by R. Bultmann

and J. A. T. Robinson, is not demanded by any text. Every passage in which the term appears is susceptible of a reasonable interpretation in which soma carries its normal physical connotation. In consequence, itmust be admitted that Moule's interpretation of the Corinthian slogan is nolonger tenable. In his second point, however, Gundry goes on to deny the

very existence of the slogan, but here his argument is wide of the mark because, instead of concentrating on the slogan in itself, he has permittedhimself to be hypnotized by Moule's suggestion regarding the purpose of the slogan. He says, in effect, that if the libertines had Moule's purpose inmind they would have expressed themselves otherwise. No doubt, but whatreason is there to think that they had such a purpose in mind at all?

If we take the statement "Every sin which a man may commit is outside the body" at its face value, the most natural meaning is that the body has nothing to do with sin. The physical body is morally irrelevant for sintakes place on an entirely different level of one's being. In the words of R. M. Grant, "Motives, not actions, are important." 8 Thus understood,the statement could only come from someone who gave primary impor

tance to the preservation of a spiritual commitment, and for whom the feeling of being true to that commitment carried greater weight than any objective contradiction between theory and practice. Tensions would bemuch less likely to arise, of course, if the body (essentially related to action)

were ruled to be irrelevant in principle. For Paul, on the contrary, action was the only sphere in which commitment became real (e.g. Rom 6:19;12:1-2; Gal 6:2). This last point goes some way towards proving that 1 Cor6:18b was a Corinthian slogan, but a complete demonstration demands

verification of the assumption that the Corinthians considered the body morally irrelevant.


4/7


WITHIN this same pericope we encounter another Corinthian sloganwhich has a prima facie right to be considered the essential argument. Thereis general agreement that the phrase "Foods are for the belly and the belly

for foods" (v 13a) is to be attributed to the Corinthians. Opinion, however,is divided with regards to the words which follow, "but God will destroyboth one and the other" (v 13b). The majority take this statement to bethe beginning of Paul's reaction to the slogan just cited. 9 This, however,necessarily involves imputing to Paul an inept contrast which does not servehis argument, and implies a distinction between soma and koilia whichGundry's study has shown to be untenable. 10 Moreover, while Paul can usekatarge in the sense it has in 13b (e.g. 1 Cor 13:8-11; 15:24-26), he never

does so in the same type of context. The existential use in Rom 6:6, whichis the closest parallel, formally underlines the difference. Hence, withgreater probability, a number of scholars maintain that "but God will destroy both one and the other" formed part of the Corinthian slogan. ' '

This hypothesis enables us to account for the proliferation of the particle de in vv 13-14 because it becomes clear that Paul has taken the structure of the slogan as the basis of his response: ,2

Corinthians Paul

ta bromata te koili to de soma . . . t kyrikai h koilia tois brmasin kai ho kyrios t smatiho de theos ho de theoskai tauten kai tauta kai ton kyrion geiren kai hmaskatargsei exegerei

There are too many links to be attributed to chance, and the intentionalityof the parallelism is confirmed by the appearance of the phrase kai hokyrios t smati. Many commentators (e.g. Barrett, Conzelmann, Lietz-mann-Kmmel, Orr-Walther, Spicq) make no attempt to explain it. Suchdiscretion is at first a disappointment, but a survey of the proposed explanations makes it appear a virtue, because they must be classified as unin-

9To the list of scholars provided by J. C. Hurd, Jr. (The Origin of I Corinthians [Lon

don: SPCK, 1965] 68) can be added more recent studies, e.g. E. Gttgemanns, Der leidende Apostle und sein Herr (FRLANT 90; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 229; H.Conzelmann, / Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 110.

10

Soma in Biblical Theology, 55-56.1 ' A. Wikenhauser, Die Kirche als der mystische Leib Christi nach dem Apostel Paulus(Mnster: Aschendorf 1937) 103; W Schmithals Die Gnosis in Korinth (FRLANT 66;


5/7

I COR 6:12-20 395

telligibly pretentious, 13 or ingeniously imaginative, 14 or intolerably pious. 15

The sole alternative to such desperate expedients is the recognition that thephrase has a purely formal function. 16 It exists only to balance the parallelism, and this is the only adequate explanation for its uniqueness in thePauline corpus. 17

The structure of the "dialogue" sets in relief the fundamental antithesis katargsei-exegerei and, incidentally, provides a further argument in favor of the future reading as opposed to the present (exegeirei)and the aorist (exgeireri) which are also attested. Paul's obvious intentionis to affirm what the Corinthians deny. We must presume, therefore, thatthe two verbs have the same object, for otherwise the two arguments would

slip past without encountering each other. Hence, Paul must intend by hmas what the Corinthians intended by koilia, namely, the human personviewed precisely as corporeal (soma). 16 The resurrection is adduced by Paulas proof of the value of corporeity. If the body is to be the object of adivine action, if it is to benefit by a display of divine power, it cannot beunimportant. Such emphasis permits one certain inference regarding theCorinthian attitude. They considered the body to be irrelevant. Since thestatement "Every sin which a man may commit is outside the body" ismerely the transposition of this attitude into the moral sphere, there canbe little doubt but that it also must be attributed to the Corinthians.

13 ". . . eine christologische Relation zwischen dem soma und dem kyrios besteht, diesowohl fur den Kyrios als auch fr das Menschsein so konstitutive ist, dass sei sogar umgekehrtwerden kann: kai ho kyrios t smati" (E. Gttgemanns, Der leidende Apostel, 230).

14 "Thus Paul states the full import of his enigmatic phrase in 1 Cor 6.13: ho kyrios tq somati, 'the Lord for the body.' Into the body of the old world of sin and death enters thePrince of Life, Himself in a body of flesh, to redeem, quicken and transfigure i t. , , (J. A. T.

Robinson, The Body. A Study in Pauline Theology [SBT 5; London: SCM, 1952] 34).Similarly, though with greater restraint, A. Robertson and A. Plummer, The First Epistle

of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1911) 124.15 "Et 'le Seigneur est pour lui' parce qu'il est le modle, le principe de vie surnaturelle

qui peu peu le change en sa parfaite image; il est mme son aliment, vivifiant et transformateur et s. Cyrille voit dans cette phrase une allusion l'Eucharistie." (E.-B. Alio, I Corin

thiens, 144).16 So rightly E. Fuchs, "Die Herrschaft Christi. Zur Auslegung von 1 Kor 6,12-20."

Neues Testament und christliche Existenz. Festschrift fr Herbert Braun (ed. H. D. Betz andL. Schottroff; Tbingen: Mohr, 1973) 188.

17In view of the current consensus, it must be emphasized that soma means 'body' and

not 'personality.' Hence, texts which suggest that Christ was for us are in no way parallel.18 Th f th l i l f th t d t i 14 i th l


6/7


T H E FACT that the two slogans of vv 13ab and 18b demonstrate that,for the Corinthians, the body was beneath serious consideration, has ob-

vious importance for the exegesis of many sections of 1 Corinthians notleast the important chapter in which Paul deals with those who say "thatthere is no resurrection from the dead" (15:12). Here, it is sufficient tonote that 18b establishes the parameters within which the Corinthiansmust have understood the third slogan panta moi exestin (v 12). It is trueonly on the level of what is done in and through the body. Since no corpo-real action has any importance, everything is permitted. 19 It cannot meanthat the true Self of the initiated is totally secure, 20 because the possibility of sin is implied in 18b.

19 So most accurately C. K. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 145. H. Conzelmann (1 Corin-thians, 109) is in fact correct but provides no foundation.

20 As W. Schmithals seems to imply (Die Gnosis in Korinth, 194).


7/7

1 Cor 6.12-20 - Corinthian Slogans

Documents

Transcript of 1 Cor 6.12-20 - Corinthian Slogans