PDA

View Full Version : Greek in 1 Cor 6:19



Littlejoe
07-11-2014, 10:12 PM
Hello Greek experts,

I need your help please, I'm preparing my lesson for Sunday morning Group (otherwise known as Sunday School). I'm making a point about the body of Christ. I want to show how Paul is continuing his image of from 1 Cor 3, and drawing a parallel where it's talking about the Body of Christ an in 1 Cor 6:12-20. However, In the Book "Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes" The authors say that 6:19 is frequently misunderstood. The quote from the book is :We typically understand the singulars and the plurals in this verse backwards. In the original Greek, the you is plural and temple is singular. Paul is saying, "All of you together are the singular temple for the Holy spirit" So, does this seem to reflect your understanding? When they say the "you" is plural, do they mean "your bodies" versus "your body"? I see some render the verse your body and others your bodies. Can you elaborate and/or corroborate?

thanks!
LJ

Manwë Súlimo
07-11-2014, 11:38 PM
I don't know Greek but I "know" ancient personalities to a limited degree. They always think of themselves as members of a group, not individuals that sometimes hang out with other people. This collectivist mindset would mean that they see God working His salvation through the church as a whole.

Littlejoe
07-12-2014, 07:03 AM
Right! And that's the exactly the point I'm emphasizing. How we here in the western church tend to read these passages as individualistic, but how we should be reading it as pertaining to the collective. But I just wanted some input on the Greek behind it. :thumb:

robrecht
07-12-2014, 07:40 AM
Hello Greek experts,

I need your help please, I'm preparing my lesson for Sunday morning Group (otherwise known as Sunday School). I'm making a point about the body of Christ. I want to show how Paul is continuing his image of from 1 Cor 3, and drawing a parallel where it's talking about the Body of Christ an in 1 Cor 6:12-20. However, In the Book "Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes" The authors say that 6:19 is frequently misunderstood. The quote from the book is :We typically understand the singulars and the plurals in this verse backwards. In the original Greek, the you is plural and temple is singular. Paul is saying, "All of you together are the singular temple for the Holy spirit" So, does this seem to reflect your understanding? When they say the "you" is plural, do they mean "your bodies" versus "your body"? I see some render the verse your body and others your bodies. Can you elaborate and/or corroborate?

thanks!
LJ
Paul is definitely using the body and the temple in the singular, but referring to you in the plural, ye as opposed to thou in older English, or yawl or you'all in the dialects of my people from Louisiana and Kentucky. There is a strong collective sense here, which can be seen also in 1 Cor 3,16-17 and 12,26-27 so it is indeed important that we are all together the Body of Christ and the Temple of God. I suspect Paul is speaking about temple prostitution in pagan religions and that any individual could be participating in such with ramifications for themselves individually as well as whole Body of Christ, but perhaps this was being practiced by a number of the Corinthian faithful or at least had been in the past. The translation 'your (plural) body' is more literal but in modern English (except in the Southern states) plural dimension cannot be expressed very easily and is lost. The other translation of 'your bodies' brings out the plural dimension, but less literally, and it diminishes the collective sense of the singular Body of Christ and the Temple of God. Some translate as the 'the body of you people' or something like that, which is about the best way I've seen of trying to retain both senses of the collective singular.

Not sure if I'm explaining the Greek very clearly. Suffice it to say that Manwë is right. If I could find my Jerusalem Bible, I could tell you the JRR Tolkein approved translation.

John Reece
07-12-2014, 08:05 AM
Hello Greek experts,

I need your help please, I'm preparing my lesson for Sunday morning Group (otherwise known as Sunday School). I'm making a point about the body of Christ. I want to show how Paul is continuing his image of from 1 Cor 3, and drawing a parallel where it's talking about the Body of Christ an in 1 Cor 6:12-20. However, In the Book "Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes" The authors say that 6:19 is frequently misunderstood. The quote from the book is :We typically understand the singulars and the plurals in this verse backwards. In the original Greek, the you is plural and temple is singular. Paul is saying, "All of you together are the singular temple for the Holy spirit" So, does this seem to reflect your understanding? When they say the "you" is plural, do they mean "your bodies" versus "your body"? I see some render the verse your body and others your bodies. Can you elaborate and/or corroborate?

1 Cor 6:19 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν; Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? (NRSV) Do you not realise that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you and whom you received from God? (NJB)

A few randomly selected comments:


Thiselton: "The corporate aspect of the community as the Spirit's temple in 3:16 receives a more individual application here, which arises in the context of the personal lifestyle at issue in this chapter.

Conzelmann: "What was said in 3:16 of the community ... is here transferred to the individual".

Bruce: "Cf. 3:16, where the statement that the community is a temple of God is similarly introduced; but here the reference is to the individual's body as the sanctuary of the indwelling Spirit."

Morris: "Earlier he had referred to the church as a whole as God's temple (3:16), but here body is singular, so that each believer is a temple in which God dwells."

Barrett: "Though the language at iii. 16f (...) is similar the thought is very different; there Paul thought of the community as the dwelling-place of the Spirit, whereas here, in closer agreement with the hellenistic parallels (for many examples see Weiss), he thinks of the individual. There is no inconsistency between the two ways of using the metaphor; both are correct, and each is used in an appropriate context. When the unity and purity of the church are at stake Paul recalls that the church is the shrine in which the Spirit dwells; when the unity and purity of the moral life of the individual are threatened, he recalls that the Spirit dwells in each Christian, who ought not therefore to defile the Spirit's shrine."

Context, context, context.

Littlejoe
07-12-2014, 03:24 PM
Thank you both for the information!

Brother John, in vs 18, the context seems to indicate that sins are "outside the body", I read that as not our physical body, but the body of Christ, so to me the context doesn't entirely narrow to individual. I particularly like the way Barrett put it though! :thumb:

Littlejoe
07-12-2014, 08:13 PM
Paul is definitely using the body and the temple in the singular, but referring to you in the plural, ye as opposed to thou in older English, or yawl or you'all in the dialects of my people from Louisiana and Kentucky. There is a strong collective sense here, which can be seen also in 1 Cor 3,16-17 and 12,26-27 so it is indeed important that we are all together the Body of Christ and the Temple of God. I suspect Paul is speaking about temple prostitution in pagan religions and that any individual could be participating in such with ramifications for themselves individually as well as whole Body of Christ, but perhaps this was being practiced by a number of the Corinthian faithful or at least had been in the past. The translation 'your (plural) body' is more literal but in modern English (except in the Southern states) plural dimension cannot be expressed very easily and is lost. The other translation of 'your bodies' brings out the plural dimension, but less literally, and it diminishes the collective sense of the singular Body of Christ and the Temple of God. Some translate as the 'the body of you people' or something like that, which is about the best way I've seen of trying to retain both senses of the collective singular.

Not sure if I'm explaining the Greek very clearly. Suffice it to say that Manwë is right. If I could find my Jerusalem Bible, I could tell you the JRR Tolkein approved translation.

I hope you don't mind, but I am directly quoting the bolded part of your post! :thumb:

robrecht
07-13-2014, 05:44 AM
I hope you don't mind, but I am directly quoting the bolded part of your post! :thumb:No, not at all, I'm honored to be quoted by a professor. Hope it does not become a source of prideful arrogance for me.

John Reece
07-13-2014, 07:12 AM
Not to be contentious ― which I am not ― but simply to supply more information for consideration, the following is from Gordon Fee in his NICNT commentary (via Accordance):


[1 Cor 6]: 19–20 (http://biblehub.com/context/1_corinthians/6-19.htm) With yet another “Or do you not know that?” Paul gives theological justification for the prohibition of v. 18a (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-18.htm) and theological explanation of v. 18bc (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-18.htm). At the same time the content of this question serves to reinforce and elaborate the theology of the body expressed in vv. 13–17 (http://biblehub.com/context/1_corinthians/6-13.htm). With the use of two images (temple and purchase of slaves = the Spirit and the cross) he reasserts that the body in its present existence belongs to God. Thus the body is included in the full redemptive work of Christ crucifixion, resurrection, and the present work of the Spirit. All of which leads to the final inferential imperative: They must therefore glorify God in their bodies, which of course in this context means no sexual immorality.

The tie to what has immediately preceded is achieved with the conjunction “or” (again omitted from the NIV). “The one who sins sexually sins against his own body,” he has just affirmed, by which he means his own body as it is “for the Lord.” “Or do you not know that your body[65] is a[66] temple of the Holy Spirit,[67] who is in you, whom you have received from God, and that you are not your own?” As in this translation, the final clause should be included in the question.[68] The two parts complement each other. The body is the present habitation of God’s Spirit, which means by implication that one belongs to the God whose Spirit dwells within. At the same time the second part results in a shift of metaphors, so that God’s proper ownership of the body is affirmed in terms of their being “bought at a price.” The emphasis, therefore, is especially on the body as “for the Lord” in the sense of being God’s rightful possession, which is evidenced both through the indwelling Spirit and the redemptive work of Christ. This, of course, stands in stark contrast to the pneumatics’ view that the body is destined for destruction and therefore has no present or eternal significance.

In referring to the body as the temple of the Spirit, Paul has taken the imagery that properly belongs to the church as a whole (cf. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21–22) and applied it to the individual believer.[69] On the imagery itself, see on 3:16. The use of the possessives reflects something of the difference. The church through the Spirit is God’s temple in Corinth, in contrast to all the pagan temples and shrines. Through the phenomenon of the indwelling Spirit, Paul now images the body as the Spirit’s temple, emphasizing that it is the “place” of the Spirit’s dwelling in the individual believers’ lives. In the same way that the temple in Jerusalem “housed” the presence of the living God, so the Spirit of God is “housed” in the believer’s body. This is imagery pure and simple, in which the significance of the body for the present is being affirmed; it is not intended to be a statement of Christian anthropology, as though the body were the mere external casing of the spirit or Spirit.

The Spirit’s indwelling is the presupposition of the imagery, reinforced here by the two modifiers, “who is in you”[70] and “whom you have received[71] from God.” What Paul seems to be doing is taking over their own theological starting point, namely that they are “spiritual” because they have the Spirit, and redirecting it to include the sanctity of the body. The reality of the indwelling Spirit is now turned against them. They thought the presence of the Spirit meant a negation of the body; Paul argues the exact opposite: The presence of the Spirit in their present bodily existence is God’s affirmation of the body.

Paul moves easily from the fact that the Spirit is “from God” to his final point: Do you not know that the presence of God’s Spirit in you means that “you are not you own,” that is, that your bodies are not your own to do with as you wish in the matter of sexuality? This is the final punctuation of the original affirmation that the “body is for the Lord.” As evidence for this final assertion,[72] Paul shifts metaphors once more, this time to the slave market, imagery to which he will return in the concrete situation of the slave in 7:22. That passage makes it clear that the imagery here is that of slavery; the verb “bought”[73] with its accompanying genitive of quantity, “at a price,” places it squarely in the slave market.[74] In contrast to the use of this metaphor elsewhere in the NT, where redemption for freedom is in view (e.g., Gal. 3:13; 4:5; Rev. 5:9; 14:3), this passage images their new position as “slaves” of God, bought with a price to do his will.[75] Although some have argued otherwise,[76] the related usage in Galatians and especially the liturgical passage in Rev. 5:9 indicate that Paul has the cross in view, whereby at the “cost” of his life (“by your blood,” Rev. 5:9) Christ purchased us for God. His point here is that even the body is included in that purchase. Thus at the end of the argument he joins the cross to the resurrection, along with the present gift of the Spirit, as evidence that the “body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”

The final imperative flows directly out of the argument from the two preceding images. The body is the shrine of the indwelling Spirit and is therefore not one’s own but God’s, who purchased it through the work of the cross. “Therefore[77] honor[78] God with[79] your body.” At the same time, it serves to bring the entire argument to its conclusion. This is the positive side of the imperative of v. 18a: “Flee from sexual immorality.” Because the body is God’s, one must not use it in illicit intercourse; instead, one must make it a chaste temple whereby to honor God.

The later addition of “and in your spirit, which are God’s”[80] may have been the result of early Christian liturgy, as Lightfoot (p. 218) suggests. Unfortunately, it also became Scripture to generations of Christians and had the net result of deflecting Paul’s point toward the position of the Corinthian pneumatics. Not that the addition is untrue; rather, it completely misses the concern of the present argument, which stands over against the Corinthian view that the body counts for nothing and therefore it does not matter what one does with it. To the contrary, Paul argues throughout, the body is included in the redemptive work of God and therefore may not be involved in sexual immorality.

Two points from this passage need to be emphasized in the contemporary church. First, in most Western cultures, where sexual mores have blatantly moved toward pagan standards, the doctrine of the sanctity of the body needs to be heard anew within the church. Sexual immorality is still sin, even though it has been justified under every conceivable rationalization. Those who take Scripture seriously are not prudes or legalists at this point; rather, they recognize that God has purchased us for higher things. Our bodies belong to God through the redemption of the cross; and they are destined for resurrection. Part of the reason why Christians flee sexual immorality is that their bodies are for the Lord, who is to be honored in the deeds of the body as well as in all other behavior and attitudes.

Second, this passage needs to be heard again and again over against every encroachment of Hellenistic dualism that would negate the body in favor of the soul. God made us whole people; and in Christ he has redeemed us wholly. In the Christian view there is no dichotomy between body and spirit that either indulges the body because it is irrelevant or punishes it so as to purify the spirit. This pagan view of physical existence finds its way into Christian theology in a number of subtle ways, including the penchant on the part of some to “save souls” while caring little for people’s material needs. The Christian creed, based on NT revelation, is not the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of the body. That creed does not lead to crass materialism; rather, it affirms a holistic view of redemption that is predicated in part on the doctrine of creation both the physical and spiritual orders are good because God created them and in part on the doctrine of redemption, including the consummation the whole fallen order, including the body, has been redeemed in Christ and awaits its final redemption.


65. Gk. τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν. For the grammar see Turner, Syntax, pp. 23–24; this reflects semitic preference for a distributive singular, where “something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the singular.” Cf. Rom. 8:23.

66. Probably “the temple,” another illustration of Colwell’s rule (see on 3:16).

67. On the possibility that this imagery is prompted by temple prostitution, see n. 39 above. Cf. Gundry, 76.

68. This is not demanded by the Greek text, but makes far better sense of it. See Findlay, 821; Barrett, 151.

69. Otherwise Kempthorne, “Incest,” pp. 572–73; see the refutation in Gundry, 76.

70. Gk. ἐν ὑμῖν; in contrast to 3:16 this is distributive, referring to the Spirit in the life of each of them.

71. The Greek has simply οὗ ἒχετε ἀπ θεοῦ (“which you have from God”), but since the emphasis here is not on “possession” but source, the addition “received” is legitimate.

72. The sentence has an explanatory γάρ, omitted in the NIV.

73. Gk. ἀγοράζω. On the use of this verb in slave “buying” see the discussion by W. Elert, “Redemptio ab hostibus,” ThLZ 72 (1947), 267; see also the discussion in Bartchy, 124, n. 450.

74. Otherwise, Deissmann, LAE, pp. 318–30, who argues that the imagery of sacral manumission of slaves, such as one finds at Delphi, is in view, thus emphasizing the “purchase for freedom” aspect of the metaphor. In this he has been followed by BAGD and others (e.g., Bailey, “Foundation,” pp. 33–34), but this has been thoroughly refuted by Elert (see the preceding note) and others. For a overview of the discussion, see Bartchy, 121–25; cf. Conzelmann, 113.

75. Cf. D. H. Field, NIDNTT I, 267–68.

76. E.g., Conzelmann, 113. While it is true that the metaphor “is not developed,” it is too restricting to assert further “that the metaphor should not be pressed.” It is not a question of “pressing” a metaphor, but of recognizing what is inherent in the use of the metaphor in the first place.

77. Gk. δή; used with the imperative to strike a note of urgency. Cf. R-P, 129, “be sure to glorify.”

78. Gk. δοξάζω.

79. Gk. ἐν; more likely Paul intends “in your body,” that is, in the personal activities of the body. Cf. Parry, 107 (“the ἐν perhaps not strictly instrumental, but to mark the sphere of action”); Findlay, 822.


ETA: Gordon Fee's commentary above ― confirming the comments of Thiselton, Conzelmann, Bruce, Morris, and Barrett ― presents the exegetical basis for the TNIV translation of 1 Cor 6:19-20 ― 19 "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."

tabibito
07-13-2014, 08:23 AM
The question arises, why does the passage say "your+ (plural) body(singular) is" rather than "your+ bodies are". Admittedly I have only a limited understanding of Koine, but I can't see any way to make this "the body of each", only "the body of all".

Never mind - "body of each" it is.

John Reece
07-13-2014, 08:50 AM
The question arises, why does the passage say "your+ (plural) body(singular) is" rather than "your+ bodies are". Admittedly I have only a limited understanding of Koine, but I can't see any way to make this "the body of each", only "the body of all".

Never mind - "body of each" it is.

Excerpt from post #9 above (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811):


65. Gk. τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν. For the grammar see Turner, Syntax, pp. 23–24; this reflects semitic preference for a distributive singular, where “something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the singular.” Cf. Rom. 8:23 (http://biblehub.com/romans/8-23.htm) [NRSV: 8:23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες, ἡμεῖς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος (singular 'body') ἡμῶν.]

robrecht
07-13-2014, 09:23 AM
[size=4]Not to be contentious ― which I am not ― but simply to supply more information for consideration ... Hi, John. Thank you for all the quotes from commentaries. There is no question in my mind that the individual sense of sin is primary here, but I also think that our communal participation in the singular Body of Christ is never far from Paul's mind. Sin is individualistic; it separates us from others, and therefore it also has an affect on others, quite apart from the fact that sin is typically sin against others. Both sin and repentance also have a communal dimension. Do you agree?

Like the Body of Christ, Paul does not merely see us individually as a bodily temple of the Spirit, but it is also a collective image, eg, in 2 Cor 6,16:

[FONT=Times New Roman]
τίς δὲ συγκατάθεσις ναῷ θεοῦ μετὰ εἰδώλων; ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν ζῶντος, καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι ἐνοικήσω ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν θεὸς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μου λαός.

John knows the Greek like the back of his hand, but for others, I will provide the NRSV translation; note the interplay of plurals (idols, we, them, their, they, people) and singularity of God, his Temple, his people:


What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

We are called to union with God, which also implies unity with each other. There is only one God; he has only one Temple.

robrecht
07-13-2014, 09:50 AM
The idea of the people of God as the Temple of God was not original to Paul. Aside from his or other OT allusions, it can also be found more explicitly in Qumran, eg, in the Manual of Discipline (1QS 8,5-9) where a hoped for community of twelve laymen and 3 priests were spoken of as the true holy house (ie, temple) of Israel (בית קודש לישראל), the holy of holies (קודש קודשים), the true house of perfect ones in Israel (בית תמים ואמת בישראל).

John Reece
07-13-2014, 10:03 AM
There is no question in my mind that the individual sense of sin is primary here...

Which is the point of difference between all you have posted in this thread (up to your belated acknowledgement in the post to which I am now responding) and the point of all the best exegetical commentators, none of which ― nor do I ― differ from you re Paul's strong belief in "The idea of the people of God as the Temple of God"; it's just that within the immediate context of 1 Cor 6:19, Paul focused on individual behavior ― which he was well able to do without denying the larger truth that was not his immediate focus in the text in question.

P.S.: see ETA here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811).

robrecht
07-13-2014, 10:10 AM
Which is the point of difference between all you have posted in this thread (up to your belated acknowledgement in the post to which I am now responding) and the point of all the best exegetical commentators, none of which ― nor do I ― differ with you re Paul's strong belief in "The idea of the people of God as the Temple of God"; it's just that within the immediate context of 1 Cor 6:19, Paul focused on individual behavior ― which he was well able to do without denying the larger truth that was not his immediate focus in the text in question.
I tried to acknowledge this in my first post: "... I suspect Paul is speaking about temple prostitution in pagan religions and that any individual could be participating in such with ramifications for themselves individually as well as whole Body of Christ ... "

John Reece
07-13-2014, 10:20 AM
I tried to acknowledge this in my first post: "... I suspect Paul is speaking about temple prostitution in pagan religions and that any individual could be participating in such with ramifications for themselves individually as well as whole Body of Christ ... "

:thumb:

robrecht
07-13-2014, 11:25 AM
Excerpt from post #9 above (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811):


65. Gk. τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν. For the grammar see Turner, Syntax, pp. 23–24; this reflects semitic preference for a distributive singular, where “something belonging to each person in a group of people is placed in the singular.” Cf. Rom. 8:23 (http://biblehub.com/romans/8-23.htm) [NRSV: 8:23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἔχοντες, ἡμεῖς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος (singular 'body') ἡμῶν.] The only problem I have with this explanation is that Paul is perfectly capable of using the plural when he wants to emphasize our bodies plural and in this very passage he does so and he also points to the individual sense of one's own body when he wants to do so. And while doing so, he is also trying to emphasize our belonging as (body) parts (plural) of Chirst (singular):


οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν μέλη Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ἄρας οὖν τὰ μέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποιήσω πόρνης μέλη; μὴ γένοιτο. ... ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει. ...

Do you not know that your bodies (plural in Greek) are members (plural) of Christ? Should I therefore take the members (plural) of Christ and make them members (plural) of a prostitute? Never! ... the fornicator sins against his very own individual (singular) body.

This unity of parts which we have in Christ is in stark contrast to the example of sexual immorality in which two bodies become one body, one flesh, in contrast to our being joined to the one Spirit of the Lord:


ὁ κολλώμενος τῇ πόρνῃ ἓν σῶμά ἐστιν; ἔσονται γάρ, φησίν, οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.
ὁ δὲ κολλώμενος τῷ κυρίῳ ἓν πνεῦμά ἐστιν.

The one uniting to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, "The two shall be one flesh."
But the one uniting to the Lord becomes one spirit.

So, while the sin may emphasize individual bodies, I think Paul is still alluding to our union as body parts (plural) with the (Body) of Christ (singular). Likewise the singular Temple of the Holy Spirit among us which we have received from God. We do not belong to ourselves in any individualistic sense when we are part of the Body of Christ, because Christ has redeemed us for a price. He owns us:


τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν.

The body of you (plural) is [the] temple of the Holy Spirit in you (plural), which you (plural) have from God, and that you are (plural) not your own (plural).

I do think there are some nuances that can be lost here if we do not attend to Paul's imagery spelled out more clearly elsewhere of the singular Body of Christ and the singular Temple of God, which is what Littlejoe is trying to do with his Sunday School class.

John Reece
07-13-2014, 12:18 PM
The only problem I have with this explanation is that Paul is perfectly capable of using the plural when he wants to emphasize our bodies plural and in this very passage he does so and he also points to the individual sense of one's own body when he wants to do so. And while doing so, he is also trying to emphasize our belonging as (body) parts (plural) of Chirst (singular):


οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν μέλη Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ἄρας οὖν τὰ μέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποιήσω πόρνης μέλη; μὴ γένοιτο. ... ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει. ...

Do you not know that your bodies (plural in Greek) are members (plural) of Christ? Should I therefore take the members (plural) of Christ and make them members (plural) of a prostitute? Never!

This unity of parts which we have in Christ is in stark contrast to the example of sexual immorality in which two bodies become one body, one flesh, in contrast to our being joined to the one Spirit of the Lord:


ὁ κολλώμενος τῇ πόρνῃ ἓν σῶμά ἐστιν; ἔσονται γάρ, φησίν, οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.

ὁ δὲ κολλώμενος τῷ κυρίῳ ἓν πνεῦμά ἐστιν.

The one uniting to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, "The two shall be one flesh."

But the one uniting to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

So, while the sin may emphasize individual bodies, I think Paul is still alluding to our union as body parts (plural) with the (Body) of Christ (singular). Likewise the singular Temple of the Holy Spirit among us (plural) which we (plural) have received from God. We do not belong to ourselves (plural):

τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν.

I do think there are some nuances that can be lost here if we do not attend to Paul's imagery spelled out more clearly elsewhere of the singular Body of Christ and the singular Temple of God, which is what Littlejoe is trying to do with his Sunday School class.

I think Littlejoe's class is probably over. In any case, this exchange interests me above and beyond Littlejoe's reason for posting the OP.

As I ponder the context of 1 Cor 6:19 one thing ― heretofore unmentioned ― arrests my attention: that is, the possessive pronoun ὑμῶν as the modifier of τὸ σῶμα ― as though (per your interpretation) the corporate temple of God/Body of Christ is your/our temple/Body. It is appropriate to refer to a single person's body as "your body"; or to refer collectively to the individual body of each member of the temple of God/Body of Christ as "your body" ― but a possessive adjective meaning a human being or human beings used as a modifier of "body" in the sense of God's corporate Temple/Christ's corporate Body seems to me to be somewhat incongruous.

That by itself would not to my mind be dispositive. But it fits better with all the comments by all the best exegetical scholars than does the alternative ― or so it seems to me.

P.S.: It also fits better with the belated ETA here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811).

tabibito
07-13-2014, 12:31 PM
Even more interesting from my point of view is the genitive article immediately preceding the dative preposition. If I've seen that before, it escaped notice.

robrecht
07-13-2014, 12:33 PM
I think Littlejoe's class is probably over. In any case, this exchange interests me above and beyond Littlejoe's reason for posting the OP.

As I ponder the context of 1 Cor 6:19 one thing ― heretofore unmentioned ― arrests my attention: that is, the possessive pronoun ὑμῶν as the modifier of τὸ σῶμα ― as though (per your interpretation) the corporate temple of God/Body of Christ is your/our temple/Body. It is appropriate to refer to a single person's body as "your body"; or to refer collectively to the individual body of each member of the temple of God/Body of Christ as "your body" ― but a possessive adjective meaning a human being or human beings used as a modifier of "body" in the sense of God's corporate Temple/Christ's corporate Body seems to me to be somewhat incongruous.

That by itself would not to my mind be dispositive. But it fits better with all the comments by all the best exegetical scholars than does the alternative ― or so it seems to me.
This is an interesting thought that I will continue to think about. After you started quoting me above, I added to my post: We do not belong to ourselves in any individualistic sense when we are part of the Body of Christ, because Christ has redeemed us for a price. He owns us.

Is it therefore correct, according to Paul, to speak of our bodies as our own? καὶ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν.

I think Littlejoe's class will continue in the coming weeks or months and eventually we all should come to a fuller understanding, 'though it will take some of us, me especially, longer than others.

robrecht
07-13-2014, 12:41 PM
Even more interesting from my point of view is the genitive article immediately preceding the dative preposition. If I've seen that before, it escaped notice.Do you think we receive the Holy Spirit individually or only as part of the Church or both or neither or something else? I think there is always an impulse toward communion and unity within the Body of Christ but that we all fail to realize that communion here on earth.

John Reece
07-13-2014, 01:10 PM
Is it therefore correct, according to Paul, to speak of our bodies as our own?

Certainly not when the ultimate truth is in view; however, καὶ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν is a truth that is not invalidated or abused by normal use of language that does not always speak in terms of said ultimate truth.

When I refer, in normal conversation, to my life, I am not denying the truth that my life is not my own but God's.

Moreover, I would never think of conversing with other members of Christ's Body and referring to said Body as "your" or "our" Body, or to God's Temple as "your" or "our" Temple.

Furthermore, I doubt Paul would have referred to either the Temple of God meaning the corporate Temple inclusive of all believers, as your Temple; nor would he have referred to the corporate Body of Christ as your Body.

Whereas it is a quite natural use of language to refer to the body of individual believers as your body.

P.S.: see ETA here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811).

Also, it is of course not uncommon the hear lay members as well as pastors speak of "my church"; however, no human being in normal conversation speaks of "my Body of Christ" or "my Temple of God".

tabibito
07-13-2014, 01:48 PM
Do you think we receive the Holy Spirit individually or only as part of the Church or both or neither or something else? I think there is always an impulse toward communion and unity within the Body of Christ but that we all fail to realize that communion here on earth.

The Holy Spirit is received individually: that is beyond doubt.
However, with regard to the Holy Spirit being "given" to the church as body corporate ... Each person's body proving a temple of the Holy Spirit in this specific passage is just a little bit disappointing - when the topic first came up, I was hoping it would be the congregation forming the temple of the Holy Spirit for the purposes of the section.
I can't see any way for the Holy Spirit to be acting on the body corporate except through his working through each member for the common good.
As to the final bit, yup. The early church, even with all the fully active apostles and prophets, still managed to avoid be saddled with unity.

robrecht
07-13-2014, 03:06 PM
Certainly not when the ultimate truth is in view; however, καὶ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν is a truth that is not invalidated or abused by normal use of language that does not always speak in terms of said ultimate truth.

When I refer, in normal conversation, to my life, I am not denying the truth that my life is not my own but God's.

Moreover, I would never think of conversing with other members of Christ's Body and referring to said Body as "your" or "our" Body, or to God's Temple as "your" or "our" Temple.And yet even pastors will speak of 'my church' or 'my congregation'. Not correctly in the ultimate sense or even in the normal sense. Perhaps we should keep in mind the deeper profundities more often; I think Paul does here. That is my whole point, I think. That 1 Cor 6,9-20 is better understood when 1 Cor 3,16-17 12,26-27 and 2 Cor 6,16 are kept in mind. That even when Paul is speaking of individual bodily sin, probably still practiced in Corinth by a number of members of the church, we should keep in mind his more profound theology of the body whereby even our individual bodies have been redeemed or are in the process of being redeemed and incorporated into the Body of Christ. I am not opposed to speaking of individual bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit, and Paul may only be doing that here, but I do not think that is the more profound reality seen more clearly elsewhere in Paul and, I think, still implied here. Even here where Paul seems to be speaking of some kind of temple prostitution engaged in by some members of the church in Corinth, he is also alluding to this highter perspecive, where we are all individual body parts of Christ, part of his larger reality, where we are all joined to the one Spirit of the Lord, where we have all received the one Holy Spririt from God. Paul is not just speaking with normal conversational language here; he is using and alluding to some very profound theological ideas, some of which he's already mentioned in this very letter and others that he will expound upon later. As you affirm, Paul is speaking of ultimate truth when he does in fact say that you (plural) are not your own (plural). οὐκ ἐστὲ ἑαυτῶν. This ultimate truth is Paul's destination in this negative rhetorical question. Neither Paul nor I am speaking of "your" Body of Christ or "your" Temple of God, but rather, if I might paraphrase a little bit, he is really saying the opposite: it is not merely "your" body; it is not merely "your" temple; it is the Temple of God, the Temple of the Holy Spirit among you (plural), which you (plural) have received from God. Your body is not your own, for it has been redeemed for a price.

I thought it was right for Littlejoe to explain this passage with reference to 1 Cor 3,16-17, because I do think Paul had the ultimate reality in mind here, that his language is alluding to his ultimate theological perspecive. But I could be wrong.

robrecht
07-13-2014, 03:10 PM
The Holy Spirit is received individually: that is beyond doubt.
However, with regard to the Holy Spirit being "given" to the church as body corporate ... Each person's body proving a temple of the Holy Spirit in this specific passage is just a little bit disappointing - when the topic first came up, I was hoping it would be the congregation forming the temple of the Holy Spirit for the purposes of the section.
I can't see any way for the Holy Spirit to be acting on the body corporate except through his working through each member for the common good. As to the final bit, yup. The early church, even with all the fully active apostles and prophets, still managed to avoid be saddled with unity.Take a look at your sentence that I underlined. Did you not receive the Holy Spirit through some type of mediation or ministry of others? So did you really receive it individually or as part of a church or through becoming a member of the church?

robrecht
07-13-2014, 04:51 PM
Thiselton: "The corporate aspect of the community as the Spirit's temple in 3:16 receives a more individual application here, which arises in the context of the personal lifestyle at issue in this chapter."


I agree. Does that mean that the corporate aspect of the community as the Spirit's temple should be forgotten?

Conzelmann: "What was said in 3:16 of the community ... is here transferred to the individual".


I agree. Does that mean that what was said in 3,16 of the community is not also true here?

Bruce: "Cf. 3:16, where the statement that the community is a temple of God is similarly introduced; but here the reference is to the individual's body as the sanctuary of the indwelling Spirit."


You get the idea, but I don't really disagree, execpt to say that Paul clearly says here that the the individual's body does not really belong to the individual; it is not your own, for it was purchased with a price.

Morris: "Earlier he had referred to the church as a whole as God's temple (3:16), but here body is singular, so that each believer is a temple in which God dwells."


Does this individual sense in which each believer is a temple in which God dwells give the full meaning of Paul's thought? Are we all individual temples of God with no sense of all of us all together being The Temple of God?

Barrett: "Though the language at iii. 16f (...) is similar the thought is very different; there Paul thought of the community as the dwelling-place of the Spirit, whereas here, in closer agreement with the hellenistic parallels (for many examples see Weiss), he thinks of the individual. There is no inconsistency between the two ways of using the metaphor; both are correct, and each is used in an appropriate context. When the unity and purity of the church are at stake Paul recalls that the church is the shrine in which the Spirit dwells; when the unity and purity of the moral life of the individual are threatened, he recalls that the Spirit dwells in each Christian, who ought not therefore to defile the Spirit's shrine."


It would be nice to take a look at Weiss' (Bernhard or Johannes?) Hellenistic parallels before making a final judgment here, but, if push comes to shove, I'd rather understand Paul with reference to Paul, rather than to others. I don't really think Paul's fundamental thought is all that different in 3,16-17 and 6,9-20, in fact I think 3,16-17 is perhaps the more fundamental idea and 6,19-20 is an individual application as Thiselton is quoted above as saying. Did Paul get the idea of the people of God being collectively the Temple of God from reflecting upon the experience of individuals engaging in pagan temple prostitution? Or from reading Weiss' Hellenistic parallels?

John Reece
07-14-2014, 05:34 AM
Does this individual sense in which each believer is a temple in which God dwells give the full meaning of Paul's thought?

No, of course not; however, it does give the full meaning of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 6:19.



Are we all individual temples of God with no sense of all of us all together being The Temple of God?

No, of course not, and no such thing is implied by the masterful exegesis provided by Gordon Fee here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811).

No one has been more aware of and appreciative of the corporate nature of the Body of Christ and the corresponding corporate nature of the Temple of God than I have been ever since I began reading the Greek texts of Paul's writings many decades ago.

However, that keen sense of the corporate nature of the Body of Christ and the Temple of God does not impede my understanding and acceptance of the different focus of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 6:19.

P.S.: see ETA here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811).

tabibito
07-14-2014, 05:48 AM
Take a look at your sentence that I underlined. Did you not receive the Holy Spirit through some type of mediation or ministry of others? No - regrettably, that is not the way it happened.

So did you really receive it individually or as part of a church or through becoming a member of the church? Even it the Holy Spirit is received through mediation of a person, it remains that the Holy Spirit is imparted to the individual.

robrecht
07-14-2014, 06:54 AM
No - regrettably, that is not the way it happened.
Even it the Holy Spirit is received through mediation of a person, it remains that the Holy Spirit is imparted to the individual.
I'm not contesting that we receive it individually, but I do think most Christians receive it through the mediation of others, be it through prayer, sacraments, the witness of others, or even the private reading of the Scriptures, which were written by others. St Paul had the witness of Stephen and others that he was persecuting. In this sense, I do not think that it is only received individually, but that it always has an impulse toward community and fellowship. I think we agree on the last part, but it sounds like you might have a more unique experience.

robrecht
07-14-2014, 07:39 AM
No, of course not; however, it does give the full meaning of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 6:19. I think the full meaning of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 6,19 is best understood as an application of an idea that he already introduced in 1 Cor 3,9.16-17. It is the same idea, applied to a specific type of sinfulness.


No, of course not, and no such thing is implied by the masterful exegesis provided by Gordon Fee here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811). I did not mean to imply that Morris implied this. If I thought that I would not have agreed with his comment. My rhetorical question was merely meant to express how his comment can be understood without abandoning the foundational idea that Paul introduces in 1 Cor 3,9.16-17.


No one has been more aware of and appreciative of the corporate nature of the Body of Christ and the corresponding corporate nature of the Temple of God than I have been ever since I began reading the Greek texts of Paul's writings many decades ago.

However, that keen sense of the corporate nature of the Body of Christ and the Temple of God does not impede my understanding and acceptance of the different focus of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 6:19.I think that 1 Cor 3,9.16-17 helps us to understand 1 Cor 6,9-20 and does not impede our understanding.

John Reece
07-14-2014, 08:13 AM
I think the full meaning of what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 6,19 is best understood as an application of an idea that he already introduced in 1 Cor 3,9.16-17. It is the same idea, applied to a specific type of sinfulness.

One question: In 1 Cor 6:19, does τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν mean that the individual bodies of those to whom Paul was writing were each individually a ναὸς, or is the term τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν, in that context, an explicit reference to the corporate Temple of God?


I did not mean to imply that Morris implied this. If I thought that I would not have agreed with his comment. My rhetorical question was merely meant to express how his comment can be understood without abandoning the foundational idea that Paul introduces in 1 Cor 3,9.16-17.

I do not know why you single out Morris, as I have never singled him out for comment to you. The only scholar I singled out is the exceptional Gordon Fee, whose commentary (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811) you ignored when you listed all the other commentators for your responses to their brief comments ― none of which, unlike Fee, provided extensive and exhaustive exegesis of 1 Cor 6:19.


I think that 1 Cor 3,9.16-17 helps us to understand 1 Cor 6,9-20 and does not impede our understanding.

But does the former determine the specific meaning of τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν in the latter?

P.S.: see ETA here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811).

robrecht
07-14-2014, 09:21 AM
One question: In 1 Cor 6:19, does τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν mean that the individual bodies of those to whom Paul was writing were each individually a ναὸς, or is the term τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν, in that context, an explicit reference to the corporate Temple of God? It is certainly not an explicit or exclusive reference to the corporate Temple of God. But I do think many English speakers, unlike Paul and his audience, are completely unaware of the corporate dimension of this metaphor that Paul introduced a few chapters earlier in 1 Cor 3,9.16-17 because we lack second person plural verbs and pronouns. When Paul takes up this same metaphor here, I do think he is building upon (actually applying, but I could not resist the pun) the earlier methaphor and doing so in a way that reveals an individual dimension. I do not think it is helpful for readers to only be aware of the individual dimension of Paul's metaphor, as so many English speakers unfortuantely are. Thus I think Littlejohn is doing a great job with his Sunday school class to teach them about the fullness of Paul's metaphors. Paul does not teach merely that our individual bodies, which are not our own, are individual temples of the Holy Spirit. If St Paul were teaching Littlejohn's Sunday school class, I think he would make sure that the students understood both dimensions.


I do not know why you single out Morris, as I have never singled him out for comment to you. The only scholar I singled out is the exceptional Gordon Fee, whose commentary (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811) you ignored when you listed all the other commentators for your responses to their brief comments ― none of which, unlike Fee, provided extensive and exhaustive exegesis of 1 Cor 6:19.
I did not single out Morris. You quoted from Thiselton, Conzelmann, Bruce, Morris, Barrett, and Fee, and I agreed and commented upon all of their comments, except for one difficulty with Fee's use of a semiticism to explain Paul's language here--I think that can be explored further. The response I made to the comment of Morris was the one you just quoted and responded to, so, in responding to your response, I mentioned Morris again to make sure you did not misunderstand my comment regarding your quotatio of Morris. I have not yet read all of Fee's comments, but I intend to as time permits.


But does the former determine the specific meaning of τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν in the latter? Determine? No. Enhance our understanding of Paul's use of this metaphor, absolutely.

John Reece
07-14-2014, 10:01 AM
It is certainly not an explicit or exclusive reference to the corporate Temple of God. But I do think many English speakers, unlike Paul and his audience, are completely unaware of the corporate dimension of this metaphor that Paul introduced a few chapters earlier in 1 Cor 3,9.16-17 because we lack second person plural verbs and pronouns. When Paul takes up this same metaphor here, I do think he is building upon (actually applying, but I could not resist the pun) the earlier methaphor and doing so in a way that reveals an individual dimension. I do not think it is helpful for readers to only be aware of the individual dimension of Paul's metaphor, as so many English speakers unfortuantely are. Thus I think Littlejohn is doing a great job with his Sunday school class to teach them about the fullness of Paul's metaphors. Paul does not teach merely that our individual bodies, which are not our own, are individual temples of the Holy Spirit. If St Paul were teaching Littlejohn's Sunday school class, I think he would make sure that the students understood both dimensions.

By ignoring the main part of my question, you continue to obfuscate the point I was trying to clarify.


I did not single out Morris.

See the middle exchange in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=78055&viewfull=1#post78055)


You quoted from Thiselton, Conzelmann, Bruce, Morris, Barrett, and Fee, and I agreed and commented upon all of their comments,...

I cannot find your comment on Fee's comment; perhaps you can locate that for me?

P.S.: see ETA here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811).

John Reece
07-14-2014, 10:48 AM
I am sure that robrecht's comments have been most helpful for Littlejoe in the teaching of his Sunday School class.

My comments on the other hand have been oriented as though I were still participating in an exegetical course in a theological seminary 46 years ago, where I was trained to do the exact opposite of what robrecht has been doing in this thread* ― in the present case so helpfully for the benefit of Littlejoe and his Sunday School class.

So, please pardon my intrusion into this thread and please excuse me from further participation in it.

*A belated P.S.: see ETA here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=77811&viewfull=1#post77811) ― which illustrates what I was trained to do in the exegetical course in a theological seminary 46 years ago

robrecht
07-14-2014, 11:39 AM
By ignoring the main part of my question, you continue to obfuscate the point I was trying to clarify. I am no trying to obfuscate, but my way of clarifying does differ from yours. You asked if A or B was correct. I said B was not correct so that leaves A, right? My clarification beyond that is merely that Paul's metaphor is best understood with both dimensions, both B, which is the metaphor as Paul first introduced it to this audience, and A, which introduces the added dimension that becomes apparent here in this context.


See the middle exchange in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2735-Greek-in-1-Cor-6-19&p=78055&viewfull=1#post78055) In Post #26, I responded to each of your quotations from Thiselton, Conzelmann, Bruce, Morris, and Barrett, not singling out Morris, but responding individually to each and every one of the quotes you had included in your post #5. I basically agreed with all of them but I did try to clarify how I agreed with some rhetorical questions. In Post #27, you took only what I said with respect to the Morris quote, and said that Fee did not imply that. So I clarified that my rhetorical question was not meant to imply that Morris implied an affirmative answer. My rhetorical question pertaining to the Morris quote was merely intended to show the limits of my agreement with Morris, which I believe Morris himself would be quick to accept as well. It was a rhetorical question to which I thought it would be understood that one would only answer in the negative.


I cannot find your comment on Fee's comment; perhaps you can locate that for me?Sure. Post #17.

robrecht
07-14-2014, 12:07 PM
I am sure that robrecht's comments have been most helpful for Littlejoe in the teaching of his Sunday School class.

My comments on the other hand have been oriented as though I were still participating in an exegetical course in a theological seminary 46 years ago, where I was trained to do the exact opposite of what robrecht has been doing in this thread ― in the present case so helpfully for the benefit of Littlejoe and his Sunday School class.

So, please pardon my intrusion into this thread and please excuse me from further participation in it.
Hi, John. I think your comments have been very helpful. I am sorry if I have not always been clear about the extent to which I have agreed with your comments. I'm not sure exactly what you were taught, but I do think good exegetical method should attempt to clarify the text in its many contexts. Looking at the different ways in which Paul introduces and later applies a metaphor is merely an attempt to understand the text of Chapter 6 in the context of the whole letter.

Littlejoe
07-14-2014, 04:33 PM
John and Robrecht, I have followed the discussion intimately and have really enjoyed the view points thoroughly! John, just so you know I highly value Gordon Fee as an exegete...(I'm Assemblies of God as is Dr. Fee) and do consider him one of the better exegetes...certainly in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles. In fact, I am teaching a series on Fee and Stuarts book "How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth". Obviously, I felt that these scriptures in 1 Corinthians could show how we miss the Community/Spiritual Family aspect of Paul's writing using our "modern day" western mentality. The lesson was to emphasize the basic principle of exegesis as they explain it, That we need to fully determine what the text meant to the original audience. I think it went very well using the helpful points you both made. So, thank you very much! I will be working on Hermeneutics the next two weeks and may have more questions! So again, Thank you both very much!!!

robrecht
07-14-2014, 06:08 PM
John and Robrecht, I have followed the discussion intimately and have really enjoyed the view points thoroughly! John, just so you know I highly value Gordon Fee as an exegete...(I'm Assemblies of God as is Dr. Fee) and do consider him one of the better exegetes...certainly in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles. In fact, I am teaching a series on Fee and Stuarts book "How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth". Obviously, I felt that these scriptures in 1 Corinthians could show how we miss the Community/Spiritual Family aspect of Paul's writing using our "modern day" western mentality. The lesson was to emphasize the basic principle of exegesis as they explain it, That we need to fully determine what the text meant to the original audience. I think it went very well using the helpful points you both made. So, thank you very much! I will be working on Hermeneutics the next two weeks and may have more questions! So again, Thank you both very much!!!My pleasure, Littlejoe. I love teaching Sunday school. Not sure if you're teaching kids, or what age, but I have found kids to be by and large much more imaginative and open hearted in their approach to God than most adults. It does not surprise me that Jesus acknowledged God for having hidden things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to kids.

Littlejoe
07-15-2014, 09:16 PM
My pleasure, Littlejoe. I love teaching Sunday school. Not sure if you're teaching kids, or what age, but I have found kids to be by and large much more imaginative and open hearted in their approach to God than most adults. It does not surprise me that Jesus acknowledged God for having hidden things from the wise and intelligent and revealed them to kids.
I'm substitute teaching (for the month of July) one of our Adult classes. I too love teaching, but, I've been just substituting for the most part lately. Our class has a broad age spectrum, we have a couple of young (college age) "kids" and several retired or near retired folks. I'm not sure I have the patience for teaching kids. I work with Royal Rangers along with the leader and another guy, it takes 3 of us to keep a lid on them. LOL!

John Reece
07-20-2014, 01:46 PM
I have posted a series of ETA's throughout this thread.

In addition to afterthoughts since I withdrew from the discussion herein, I have taken further note of tabibito's contributions in post #10 and post 23, to the latter of which the following is robrecht's response.


I'm not contesting that we receive it individually, but I do think most Christians receive it through the mediation of others, be it through prayer, sacraments, the witness of others, or even the private reading of the Scriptures, which were written by others. St Paul had the witness of Stephen and others that he was persecuting. In this sense, I do not think that it is only received individually, but that it always has an impulse toward community and fellowship. I think we agree on the last part, but it sounds like you might have a more unique experience.

Although, by means of a thorough reading of all of Paul's comments about the Church as the Body of Christ and the Temple of God, I have a very solid conception and appreciation of those spiritual realities, and although personal experience is purely anecdotal and not likely to be typical, my case is more in line with tabibito's comments.

Given that my whole life has been radically atypical in almost every way, it's not out of character for me that my initial reception of the Holy Spirit was quite individualistic.

I had never heard of the Holy Spirit ― at least, not in any way that registered a trace in my memory ― when I was in the second year of a Baptist junior college, and happened to attend a weekday evening meeting in the college auditorium during which a freshman student told the assembled large group of students and a few faculty members his story of having been saved by God when he was in the Navy. Nothing about his story impressed me; however, when he had finished speaking, he asked every who felt called into "full time Christian service" to raise their hands. No such thought had ever entered my mind, so I did not respond to that. Then he said, something like, "If you really want to dedicate your life to God, please raise your hand." I raised my hand. Then he said (something like), "All who raised their hands please come forward."

My immediate experience was an overwhelming sense of self-consciousness: I was extremely self-conscious by nature and I was quite averse to standing up in from of all those people. However, within a split second, I was transformed by another quite surprising-to-me experience, which is difficult to describe; in fact, I do not think I could have described it to anyone at the time, because I lacked the spiritual vocabulary to do so. Anyhow, it was like every fiber of my being was not only immersed in but saturated with a sense of love, joy, peace, confidence, calmness, and spiritual awareness. It was as though I almost involuntarily stood up with zero self-consciousness and walked forward.

At the front of the room I found a line of people waiting to shake the hands of those who had come forth, and as I shook hands with those in that line, I had a very distinct impression with regard to each person. With some, I felt a sense that what had entered me was also in them so strongly that it was as though I could sense the reality thereof flowing through my hand and the hand of the person I was shaking hands with. On the other hand, there were some who when I shook their hands, I had a very distinct sense that what was in me was not in them, and that there was no flow thereof from person to person as I shook hands with them. With regard to the latter, when I looked into their eyes, I saw fear. Memorably, one such was the dean of the college.

From that day forward, I have had a sense of being led by God and of having my life ordered purposefully by God. And of God being with me and in me, even throughout life-wrecking tragedy, loss, and a long series of failures on my part.

I didn't mean to tell my life story, I just wanted to second tabibito's account of an individualistic reception of the Holy Spirit. No one on the occasion that I just related said anything about the Holy Spirit, no one prayed for me, no one talked to me or counseled me, no scripture was read to me, no one knew what had happened to me, and I did not mention it to anyone for years thereafter. And not until a year or two later, when I was at a different college, was I able to relate the reality of that experience with what the Scriptures say about the Holy Spirit, because I did not begin reading the Bible ― for the first time in my life ― until after I had transferred to the second college.

tabibito
07-20-2014, 01:56 PM
I thank you John Reece - that gives me a better appreciation of what is meant by the gift of the Holy Spirit to discern spirits.

robrecht
07-20-2014, 02:05 PM
I have posted a series of ETA's throughout this thread.

In addition to afterthoughts since I withdrew from the discussion herein, I have taken further note of tabibito's contributions in post #10 and post 23, to the latter of which the following is robrecht's response.

Although, by means of a thorough reading of all of Paul's comments about the Church as the Body of Christ and the Temple of God, I have a very solid conception and appreciation of those spiritual realities, and although personal experience is purely anecdotal and not likely to be typical, my case is more in line with tabibito's comments.

Given that my whole life has been radically atypical in almost every way, it's not out of character for me that my initial reception of the Holy Spirit was quite individualistic.

I had never heard of the Holy Spirit ― at least, not in any way that registered a trace in my memory ― when I was in the second year of a Baptist junior college, and happened to attend a weekday evening meeting in the college auditorium during which a freshman student told the assembled large group of students and a few faculty members his story of having been saved by God when he was in the Navy. Nothing about his story impressed me; however, when he had finished speaking, he asked every who felt called into "full time Christian service" to raise their hands. No such thought had ever entered my mind, so I did not respond to that. Then he said, something like, "If you really want to dedicate your life to God, please raise your hand." I raised my hand. Then he said (something like), "All who raised their hands please come forward."

My immediate experience was an overwhelming sense of self-consciousness: I was extremely self-conscious by nature and I was quite averse to standing up in from of all those people. However, within a split second, I was transformed by another quite surprising-to-me experience, which is difficult to describe; in fact, I do not think I could have described it to anyone at the time, because I lacked the spiritual vocabulary to do so. Anyhow, it was like every fiber of my being was not only immersed in but saturated with a sense of love, joy, peace, confidence, calmness, and spiritual awareness. It was as though I almost involuntarily stood up with zero self-consciousness and walked forward.

At the front of the room I found a line of people waiting to shake the hands of those who had come forth, and as I shook hands with those in that line, I had a very distinct impression with regard to each person. With some, I felt a sense that what had entered me was also in them so strongly that it was as though I could sense the reality thereof flowing through my hand and the hand of the person I was shaking hands with. On the other hand, there were some who when I shook their hands, I had a very distinct sense that what was in me was not in them, and that there was no flow thereof from person to person as I shook hands with them. With regard to the latter, when I looked into their eyes, I saw fear. Memorably, one such was the dean of the college.

From that day forward, I have had a sense of being led by God and of having my life ordered purposefully by God. And of God being with me and in me, even throughout life-wrecking tragedy, loss, and a long series of failures on my part.

I didn't mean to tell my life story, I just wanted to second tabibito's account of an individualistic reception of the Holy Spirit. No one on the occasion that I just related said anything about the Holy Spirit, no one prayed for me, no one talked to me or counseled me, no scripture was read to me, no one knew what had happened to me, and I did not mention it to anyone for years thereafter. And not until a year or two later, when I was at a different college, was I able to relate the reality of that experience with what the Scriptures say about the Holy Spirit, because I did not begin reading the Bible ― for the first time in my life ― until after I had transferred to the second college.This is the second time I have been privileged to hear your story, John. Thank you. Don't you think some of the other people in that auditorium were praying for you and witnessing to you? Certainly you had already been reading the scriptures, which were written by others.

John Reece
07-21-2014, 05:10 AM
This is the second time I have been privileged to hear your story, John. Thank you. Don't you think some of the other people in that auditorium were praying for you and witnessing to you? Certainly you had already been reading the scriptures, which were written by others.

Apparently, although you note that this is the second time you have read my testimony, you did not read very carefully this time, or you simply do not remember what you read: I had never ever read scripture ― indeed, had never owned a Bible ― until a year or two after the occasion and experience that I told about in my post, to which you are now responding.

As regards "some of the other people in that auditorium were praying for you and witnessing to you", I had slipped into that auditorium that night quite alone and late for the meeting. I sat down unobtrusively on the back row after the college freshman/ex navy man had already begun his testimony. He never spoke directly to me; no one had even noticed me so as to make me an object of prayer, so far as I could tell. No one ― not a single soul ― ever said a single word to me that evening. After it was over, I slipped out alone, just as I had entered, with nary a murmur spoken to me personally by anyone. I did not see a friend or acquaintance while I was there, except for the athletic coach for whom I worked as a custodian in his gym. If he was a Christian given to prayer, it was a well-kept secret never divulged to me. I recognized the dean of the college because he was the dean of the college; however, if you re-read my testimony, it will be clear to you that he could not have been one who was praying for me; and as I have said repeatedly, no one witnessed to me personally. I was just a stranger in a crowd, with no one exchanging a personal word with me. The only witness to me that night ― however not personally ― was the ex navy guy/freshman who was the speaker for the evening, who did not know me, nor I him, and who never spoke to me before, during, or after that meeting.

I am not glorying in such isolation, nor am I proud of it: it is just exactly what happened.

Knowing what I have learned and experienced since that time, with regard to the power of intercessory prayer and public witness as channels of the power of the Holy Spirit, I do not doubt that there was a lot of prayer devoted to and supporting the speaker and praying for an effect on the audience; perhaps, someone may have noticed me and prayed for me on that occasion ― without my being aware of it; I cannot deny the possibility, or the probability; however, no evidence thereof was made known to me on that occasion.

Bottom line: I was not influenced by either scripture or personal testimony regarding the Holy Spirit, which/who was not mentioned by the public speaker or anyone else on the evening about which I have testified.

robrecht
07-21-2014, 05:25 AM
Apparently, although you note that this is the second time you have read my testimony, you did not read very carefully this time, or you simply do not remember what you read: I had never ever read scripture ― indeed, had never owned a Bible ― until a year or two after the occasion and experience that I told about in my post, to which you are now responding.

As regards "some of the other people in that auditorium were praying for you and witnessing to you", I had slipped into that auditorium that night quite alone and late for the meeting. I sat down unobtrusively on the back row after the college freshman/ex navy man had already begun his testimony. He never spoke directly to me; no one had even noticed me so as to make me an object of prayer, so far as I could tell. No one ― not a single soul ― ever said a single word to me that evening. After it was over, I slipped out alone, just as I had entered, with nary a murmur spoken to me personally by anyone. I did not see a friend or acquaintance while I was there, except for the athletic coach for whom I worked as a custodian in his gym. If he was a Christian given to prayer, it was a well-kept secret never divulged to me. I recognized the dean of the college because he was the dean of the college; however, if you re-read my testimony, it will be clear to you that he could not have been one who was praying for me; and as I have said repeatedly, no one witnessed to me personally. I was just a stranger in a crowd, with no one exchanging a personal word with me. The only witness to me that night ― however not personally ― was the ex navy guy/freshman who was the speaker for the evening, who did not know me, nor I him, and who never spoke to me before, during, or after that meeting.

I am not glorying in such isolation, nor am I proud of it: it is just exactly what happened.

Knowing what I have learned and experienced since that time, with regard to the power of intercessory prayer and public witness as channels of the power of the Holy Spirit, I do not doubt that there was a lot of prayer devoted to and supporting the speaker and praying for an effect on the audience; perhaps, someone may have noticed me and prayed for me on that occasion ― without my being aware of it; I cannot deny the possibility, or the probability; however, no evidence thereof was made known to me on that occasion.

Bottom line: I was not influenced by either scripture or personal testimony regarding the Holy Spirit, which/who was not mentioned by the public speaker or anyone else on the evening about which I have testified.Yes, I must have missed the part about your having never ever read (or heard?) the scriptures. Sorry. I was not speaking of individuals praying specifically for you or people speaking directly to you, other than your being a member of the larger group that was being addressed.

John Reece
07-21-2014, 08:16 AM
Yes, I must have missed the part about your having never ever read (or heard?) the scriptures. Sorry. I was not speaking of individuals praying specifically for you or people speaking directly to you, other than your being a member of the larger group that was being addressed.

Yes, I heard the scriptures read in chapel services, but I had zero memory of any reference to receiving the Holy Spirit in the scriptures that I had heard read in chapel or church services.

The larger group that was being addressed was not being addressed with regard to the Holy Spirit nor with regard to receiving the Holy Spirit.

The subject I was addressing, in response to tabibito's comments, was receiving the Holy Spirit, which I had never heard about in any way that had left any trace in my memory, and which I did not hear about during the evening meeting I have told about. In effect, the speaker of the evening simply told about being "saved" while he was in the Navy ― without any mention of an experience of the Holy Spirit. The invitation to which I responded was nothing like "If you wish to receive the Holy Spirit, raise your hand." Rather, the invitation was "If you wish to dedicate your life to God, raise your hand."

My receiving the Holy Spirit was an experience that I could only describe as a combination of both being immersed in and filled with the Holy Spirit; it was a phenomenon that to me theretofore was completely unheard of; at the time, I could not have understood or thought of the phenomenon in such terms as I now do, because I was totally ignorant of the biblical vocabulary and teaching with regard to the Holy Spirit; my mind was completely uninformed with regard to the subject.

I did not begin to learn anything about the Holy Spirit until I bought a copy of the RSV New Testament and began to read it a year or two later.

tabibito
07-21-2014, 08:51 AM
Bottom line: I was not influenced by either scripture or personal testimony regarding the Holy Spirit, which/who was not mentioned by the public speaker or anyone else on the evening about which I have testified.

the invitation was "If you wish to dedicate your life to God, raise your hand."

I was just a stranger in a crowd, with no one exchanging a personal word with me. The only witness to me that night ― however not personally ― was the ex navy guy/freshman who was the speaker for the evening, who did not know me, nor I him, and who never spoke to me before, during, or after that meeting.

It's good enough for me - neither by man nor through man - doesn't require no knowledge whatever of the gospel. Paul was present when Stephen was stoned, and he would have heard something of a witness from some of the people he was persecuting. In point of fact it would be difficult indeed for a person who knew absolutely nothing of the gospel to make a commitment to him whom they do not even know exists.