Paul's "Warfare" with Christian Young Men (1 Cor. 6:9-20)
Chapter 6: Paul's Paradigm for Preachers
Bruce Winter
This essay contends that preaching that "simply exegetes" the biblical text is not sufficient to secure God's intention of personal transformation through the Word of God. Evangelists, pastors, and teachers need to be able to understand how the secular culture has already programmed, and will continue to program, the mind-set of non-Christians as well as that of Christians on individual issues.
To use contemporary terminology, a mental software package called "the spirit of this age" and another called "the will of God" or "the knowledge of God" cannot operate in the same mind (Rom. 12:2). Paul sees these two programs as incompatible and therefore unable to be stored in the same databank. Our situation is no less comparable to that of the Corinthians. There were, and still are, powerful, culturally shaped citadels that have become entrenched in the mind. The secular world's programming not only hinders the entrance of the gospel for the unbeliever, but it also presents a difficulty for Christians, because conversion to Christ does not automatically deprogram the ways of thinking and acting that have been driven by "the spirit of this age." If the argument and human arrogance mounted by the secular world, which are contrary to the will of God, are not exposed for what they are and subsequently demolished, then transformation by the renewing of the Christian mind will not occur.
Paul's Strategy for Spiritual Warfare (2 Cor. 10:3-5)
Paul's detractors had maliciously put it around the Corinthian church that he had been acting in a worldly fashion (2 Cor. 10:2), by which they meant that his actions were shaped not by the mind of Christ as he had claimed (1 Cor. 2:16) but by contemporary norms. This allegation was made in much the same manner that (sadly) some members of our congregations rumor today about their pastors and teachers. In 2 Corinthians 10-13, Paul demonstrates to the church that this allegation against him was patently untrue, and he contends that any charge made would have to be substantiated upon his return on the same basis as it was done in the Old Testament. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses can charges be sustained (2 Cor. 13:1).
In the meantime, Paul discloses to the Corinthians how he responds to the charge that he is driven by culture instead of by Christ, and he engages in what the church there might wrongly interpret as his "defense." What Paul has done was done to "build up" the church in Corinth, as he later discloses (2 Cor. 12:19). However, to "build up" means that there has to first be demolition - in this case, the programming of the present age that has been the grid through which some of the Corinthian Christians have evaluated Paul and his motives, they themselves having been shaped on this issue by the world and not by the Word.
To understand this issue in the last four chapters in Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, we need to cast our minds back to a critical discussion in 1 Corinthians 1-4, where Christians themselves had wheeled into the midst of their church in Corinth a Trojan horse that was the cult of secular leadership. There Paul traced its destructive effects of strife, jealousy, and divisions that were manifested at every point of the church's corporate life, namely, the division of the body of Christ into competing parties (1 Cor. 1-4; 11:18; 12:25). Whenever they met together, they engaged in what were culturally acceptable ways of behaving, replicating in the gathering of God (1 Cor. 1:2) the way members operated in the secular, official "gathering of Corinth" in this Roman colony to undertake official business. It is what some today might comfortably call ecclesiastical "politics," as one example of secular programming.
Paul's opponents had not surrendered after his first assault on their entrenched secular thinking (1 Corinthians 1-4). So in 2 Corinthians 10-13, Paul was compelled to deal further with the effects on the ministry of a new movement that trained young people to speak in secular gatherings using all tricks of the grand style of oratory learned in the Corinthian academy (1 Cor. 2:1). Paul was forced to resume addressing this culturally engrained and seemingly intractable problem. As he does so, he discloses a very important paradigm that he developed to counter not only this but any other cultural programming both outside and inside the church. The secular programming of the Corinthian Christians was powerful, and unless Paul could deconstruct it, then culture, and not Christ, would win the battle going on in their minds.
Paul approaches this issue (1) by using an important analogy to describe his approach to disarm the ideas and behavior patterns that are contrary to obedience to Christ; (2) by employing it in his evangelistic speech in the presence of members of the Council of the Areopagus in Athens, which had been programmed to see the world through two major philosophical schools of their day; and (3) by demolishing the secular arguments adopted by some young Christian men to defend conduct that was clearly contrary to God's will for them.
Paul shows not only what has to be done, but also how it is to be done. This self-disclosure is extremely significant in our day and generation for evangelists, pastors, and teachers because it provides a pastoral paradigm for all three aspects of ministry. It is appropriate to explore this issue in a volume that honors a Christian preacher and friend who epitomized so effectively this Pauline paradigm in his long, distinguished, and productive ministry for the kingdom of God.
Roman Warfare and Pauline "Warfare"
Rome's naval strategies had been developed from the Greeks, but it had shaped its own mighty and highly trained military machine. It did so by using standing armies that moved around the vast Roman empire whenever trouble broke out. One of the Roman techniques was that of siege warfare, which was used to conquer a city.43 Seemingly impenetrable citadels had been built on hills or rocky outcrops overlooking cities in the classical Greek and Hellenistic eras before the Roman conquest of the East began. Thick walls surrounding these citadels were constructed of large stones that were the final defense for inhabitants as well as combatants facing adversaries in an armed invasion.
Once a city was surrounded, the Roman troops built towers as many as three stories high from which weapons such as arrows could be used to great effect against those holed up behind the fortification of the city. The Romans also developed the battering ram, which was highly effective through persistent use in ultimately loosening the large stones that constituted the wall of defense. The stronghold would collapse, and the troops inside were then forced to surrender and kneel before the conquering general as a sign of their defeat, or face being massacred.44
Corinthian Christians would have clearly understood Paul's uses of this imagery. Their walls had been destroyed in 146 B.C. when the Romans defeated and sacked the city. The Acrocorinth also overshadowed their city. The walls of that stronghold had been there for centuries. Today it is clear that the towering outer wall and two other interior walls on the Acrocorinth constituted lines of defense that still look impenetrable today, although they were breached in previous eras. The city and acropolis walls provide a poignant analogy for what needed to be done to bring down both the ideological and the cultural citadels of the Corinthians' mind-set.
Paul begins by indicating that he, too, has "weapons" to deal with this intransigent problem, but his were not of the worldly type. Paul was not borrowing rhetorical techniques and argumentation taught in the schools of oratory that thrived in the first century and that saw the rise of what is called "the Second Sophistic."45 Paul reported that there were some who suspect us of walking in a worldly fashion (2 Cor. 10:2). Elsewhere he used the same verb with a synonymous term, that of literally walking "according to man," i.e., in a secular fashion, and behaving just as other Corinthians did (1 Cor. 3:3-4). So the charge made against him seems to be that in spite of his response to those who examine him concerning his modus operandi of not exercising his rights as an apostle to carry about a wife nor being supported by the gospel (1 Cor. 9), the reality was altogether different.
Paul refutes such a suggestion in 2 Corinthians 10, explaining that "though we live in the world" - literally "in the flesh" - we do not engage in warfare "according to the flesh" (10:3). The reason Paul gives for not doing this is that the weapons he uses are not "worldly" ones (10:4a NIV). On the contrary, he asserts they are powerful weapons "for God to use" (10:4b).46 Presumably this weapon is God's Word, for Paul declares later in 2 Corinthians that "we have been speaking in Christ" (12:19; cf. 1 Cor. 2:16).
There are three aspects to his modus operandi. First, God's weapons are used to bring down entrenched strongholds that he refers to as "arguments." It is a battle for the citadel of the mind that has been programmed by that which is false, even though it has wide currency in the secular world and is regarded as ipso facto true. Paul sees it as his task to subject ideas and ideologies that have wide currency in "this age" to scrutiny and to examine the premise upon which they have been erected.
Second, Paul uses the analogy of the destruction of all "exalted obstacles" that rebels would erect as a defense. He explains that these are entrenched intellectual positions in contradistinction to the truth and that actually stand in the way of the knowledge of God. He has already stated in 2 Corinthians that it was God who "through us . . . spread the knowledge of him," i.e., God (2:14), and that the knowledge of the glory of God is to be seen in the person of Christ (4:6).47 The knowledge of God is given through his Word, for God, like humans, cannot be understood apart from a willingness to engage in self-disclosure.
However, barriers to the knowledge of God had been erected in the culture. For example, Rome had not only brought the benefits of technology to its great empire but had also promoted the concept of "the eternity" of Rome and its empire. This would come with the emperor as a "messianic" savior who had brought the pax romana to the inhabited world.48 Paul had to combat the effects not only of the skillful propaganda of the Romans when it stood in contradiction to the truth, but he also had to deal with the academy of his day and with its philosophical a priori assumptions that contradicted it. These had invaded the psyche of the inhabitants of this greatest empire on earth.
Third, Paul's aim was to capture their thoughts. A conquering army brought those in rebellion before their general once the enemy fortress had been sacked. The prisoners knelt before the general to acknowledge their defeat, as well as the general's superior power. The conquered soldiers were now subject to the general. So, too, Paul's strategy, as he indicates by way of this analogy, was to "take every thought captive to obey Christ" (10:5). It was a case of surrendering not only one's life but also one's way of looking at life and death and the ways of the world.
How Paul worked out this paradigm will now be examined in two case studies independent of 2 Corinthians 10-13. One is in evangelism and the other an issue that was widely endorsed in the culture but was unacceptable to Christ. It is important to note that Paul does not demolish people, but rather he addresses their arguments and thoughts that are contrary to the Word of God - a point that has not always been followed in some of the great debates over issues in the church both in past eras and also in our contemporary Christian scene.
Paul's "Warfare" with the Intelligentsia in Athens (Acts 17:16-34)
Much has been written on Paul's famous speech in Athens, the substance of which has been recorded by Luke. For our purposes it provides an excellent paradigm of Paul engaging the mind-set of an audience for an evangelistic outcome. It did result in the conversion of Dionysius, a member of this distinguished council, and also Damarus - both people of rank and status, along with "others with them," presumably their clients (Acts 17:34).49 What can be deduced from Acts 17 as to how Paul approached the mindset of his audience?
We must ask the important question of how the Athenians "read" Paul before we explore how Paul read the Athenians. Opinions were divided among those in the Greek agora where Paul was arguing with those present. Some dismissed him as having nothing to say because he was engaged in speaking "nonsense." Others thought that he appeared to be the herald of foreign daimonia (Acts 17:18). The Greek term was used of the gods or divine spirits in men, including the emperor, who was described in the East as "god, son of god."50 It was the role of the Council of the Areopagus, exercised for centuries, to admit foreign divinities into Athens, a right they continued to exercise under the Romans (they diplomatically admitted emperors and sometimes their family members as "gods").51
The task of the herald of a new god was to prove that his god or goddess existed. This was the first tenet in the traditional philosophical discussion of the "nature of the gods" (de natura deorum), i.e., proof that God or gods existed. Second, it was expected that if the gods were admitted to Athens when this first requirement had been satisfied, a temple would need to be erected by the herald because gods lived in temples. Provision also had to be made to meet the costs of an annual feast or feasts for the divinity. This was attended by the officials and the upper class in the city that was known to be "dear to the gods."52
It becomes clear that Paul first of all establishes contact with the audience by drawing attention to the altar on which was an inscription indicating that it was dedicated to "an unknown god." Paul addresses the council's expectations of him by stating that he would disclose the identity of this "unknown god" whom they acknowledged existed, for otherwise they would not have permitted this altar to be built in Athens. He did not have to begin by proving his existence. This was an appropriate opening that satisfied the first of their demands for any herald of foreign divinities.
Secondly, Paul goes on to correct any misconceptions on their part. If he had not done this it would be an obstacle to his ongoing engagement with the minds of his audience. He declared that this God who made the world and everything in it does not live in temples made with hands. This is because he is the Lord, not only of the heavens, but also of the whole earth (Acts 17:24). There will, then, be no need for Paul to erect a temple to him in Athens. He also clarifies that this God does not need a feast day on which food and sacrifices are offered to him, as it is he who gives life and breath and all things to all of his creation (Acts 17:25). God does not need the Athenians, but the Athenians are totally dependent on this God for their life and all sustenance.
Third, Paul is able to converse with the theology of his hearers who held the Stoic and Epicurean views of the world. On the basis of these two ancient philosophical schools, the former of which had originated in Athens, the traditional approach had to be argued, i.e., that god or gods existed, that God made the world, and that he cares not only for the whole of the creation but also for individuals.53
Fourth, Paul examines their compromise with their own beliefs. The basis of their own poets is that "in him we live and move and have our being" and "for we are indeed his offspring" (Acts 17:28). Paul argues as a logical consequence of this that "being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone" carved by men (Acts 17:29). Some Athenians would have asserted "here dwells Athena," pointing to the statue, but Paul's implication is that metal or stone produces no human offspring. In the first century both philosophical schools had warned their adherents not to become "superstitious," even though previously they had been discouraged from entering temples.54 Given the coming of the Roman imperial cult, it would be neither diplomatic nor advisable to forbid their following to enter temples dedicated to the imperial gods. However, they reached a compromise so that when they did so on imperial and other high and holy days, they were not to take the activity seriously and thereby act superstitiously but to participate in the cult with tongue in cheek.
Fifth, given the compromises with their beliefs about a "living" God, Paul confronts them, calling on them to repent. It was on the grounds of general revelation that he based this call to them to admit the error of their ways. He announced that God has appointed a day of judgment as well as the standard by which they would be judged. God had given proof to the world that this is his clear intention. For the Athenian audience this represented a window of opportunity to repent now because they would be unable to pass the judgment, given the compromises with what they knew and taught. Here was a time of clemency in which they could repent (Acts 17:30).
The fact that some mocked when they heard of the resurrection of God's appointed judge is explicable. When the ancient Council of the Aeropagus had been established centuries before, it was founded on the premise that "when a man dies, the earth drinks up his blood. There is no resurrection."55 Their judicial role as a criminal court was no longer theirs. With the coming of the Romans, the exercise of this imperium was devolved by the emperor on the Roman governor, as was the case in all the Roman provinces. Furthermore, after Paul's speech, their role in standing in judgment on the official admission of Paul's God to Athens was no longer relevant. They were not making the judgment about God. They now stood under his judgment because of their failures, hence the need of immediate repentance.
Paul clearly engages both their minds and those of the Epicureans in his Athenian audience, demolishing their false understanding about the nature of God by those whose intellectual history and superiority remained legendary even in Roman times.
Paul connects with their world, corrects their misunderstanding as to what he is doing, converses with their world of beliefs that resonated with the Old Testament, convicts them of their compromises, and finally confronts the Athenians with the future reality, calling on them to respond to the generous clemency God was offering, giving clear proof of future judgment through the resurrection of Jesus.
Paul does not "pull down" his audience, engaging in some rhetorical argumentum ad hominem. He demolished the citadels that stood in the way of the gospel's gaining entry into their hearts and minds. His modus operandi achieved his purpose of bringing every thought captive in obedience to Christ for the first time in the lives of at least two leading Athenians along with their unnumbered retinues.
This program was not only for Paul, but also for those engaged in dealing with generally accepted views about the reality of our world, views that have to be examined and overthrown because they are false, in order to clear the decks so that hearers may hear and embrace the gospel.
Paul's "Warfare" with Christian Young Men (1 Cor. 6:9-20)
Young Christian men received the toga virilis as a sign of their entry into adulthood. After this rite into maturity, they often had sexual intercourse with high-class call girls brought in for their dinner parties. Ancient historians have dubbed this "the unholy trinity of eating, drinking, and sex." The last was euphemistically referred to as "after dinners," an activity graphically portrayed by first-century pictures still found on walls of some ancient houses. These young men justified doing "it" by citing a culturally endorsed aphorism that was widely used in the Paul's day: "Everything is permissible for me" (6:12 NIV).56
Cicero clearly agreed with the Christian young men of Corinth when he powerfully put the case in favor of what they were doing: If there is anyone who thinks that youth should be forbidden affairs with courtesans, he is doubtless eminently austere, but his view is contrary not only to the licence of this age, but also to the custom and concession of our ancestors. For when was this not a common practice? When was it blamed? When was it forbidden? When, in fact, was it that what is allowed not allowed? [quod licet, non liceret].57
Cicero's argument was based on the "the licence of this age," "the customs and concessions of our ancestors," and "common practice." Every young man in the past did it, they were still doing it, and when was this ever forbidden, for it never had been contrary to Roman conventions and therefore was not wrong.
If the Corinthians had a culturally accepted aphorism to justify their conduct, Paul had a set of powerful, alternative arguments that would demolish this citadel. It was not the ineffectual one that has become popular in recent times in some Christian circles that "true love waits." That would never have been sufficient to dissuade young Christian men in Corinth from their activity. Paul's pastoral sensitivity in dealing with this issue provides us with a powerful paradigm, for he does not say that because they did not wait, they could never subsequently experience true love, as is implied by some contemporary Christians.
Paul draws attention to a momentous event that had occurred in the lives of these young Christian men that declared the status that they had achieved "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11). He then provides eight compelling reasons why only extremely foolish Christians would continue to fornicate, giving in the midst of these arguments three binding apostolic commands: "do not be deceived," "flee from sexual immorality," and "glorify God in your body" (1 Cor. 6:9, 18, 20).
Paul's response to this situation commences with a strong wakeup command to the young men: "You must not be deceived," even if everybody else is doing "it" as their "after dinners" activity. This is an activity that excludes from the kingdom of God. You cannot have both. Paul cites fornication as the first of ten activities that exclude one from the kingdom, regardless of popular aphorisms and arguments mounted to the contrary in Roman society.
In passing, we might note that it is something of an enigma that six of these activities tend to be ignored by contemporary preachers. At least one other finds little pulpit time - adultery, including its consequences that can end in divorce. Fornication seems also to have slipped off many preachers' programs. Homosexual activity has somehow become the intense focus, given much of the present-day discussion of this matter (6:9-10). But omission does not provide permission then or now.
The young men received a stark warning that they must not be deceived. At heaven's gates fornicators will not be provided with access. The message is clear. That is how it will be, as it will be for all the other activities cited (6:9-10). It will not be negotiable, and arguments coined by secular society, then and now, that abstinence was contrary to the "spirit of the age," will never change God's mind.
When Paul declared that "such were some of you," his immediate next step was to remind them of the great reversal in which three great things had occurred. Three times Paul used the stronger of the Greek adversatives, "but." He wrote, "But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified" (6:11 NKJV). The great cleansing from the filth of sin, the great transformation of their soiled lives, and the great acquittal had done this for each one of the young Christian men to whom he was writing. Second, he reminded them that two persons of the Trinity had done this in their lives - it had been achieved "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (6:11), thereby opening the kingdom to those who had rightly been excluded from it because of their previous willful conduct.
The young men of Corinth would have happily recalled the great event of becoming Christians and no doubt remembered this at the Lord's Supper. However, Paul's pastoral strategy does not leave it there. He cannot do so if he really cares for their spiritual well-being. He provides eight reasons in 6:12-20, adding two further commands based on these arguments.
Fornication is against their well-being (v. 12a). The young men said "everything is permitted." Paul strongly refutes this using the strong "but," declaring not everything is "helpful," i.e., for the well-being of the person. The portrayal of the male genitalia in Pompeii with the words underneath that "here resides happiness" (hic habitat felicitas) was and is simply not true. Like all sin, it never delivers long term on its promises.
Second, fornication is harmful because it becomes addictive (v. 12b). Whereas they said "everything is permitted," Paul confronts them with fornication as slavery. While perhaps during the first experience the young men felt they were in control, fornication went on to control them in their thoughts and actions, so that they could not do without it. It was not love but lust. Long-term joy did not dwell there. It is interesting to note that in Roman marriage men continued this addiction outside the marriage bed, and the Roman society that endorsed fornication had traditionally been indifferent to men's adultery provided it was with a social inferior.
Third, fornication is against the Creator's intention (v. 13). The young men said that food is for the body and the body was designed to consume food. That was obvious. But Paul declares the Designer's intention was never that the body would be used for immoral purposes. The body was intended to achieve the Lord's purposes, and the Lord clearly has a purpose in giving us "the body."
Fourth, this sin contradicts the body's future (v. 14). The body is not "the prison house of the soul," to cite Plato's known and memorable analogy, which in the first century had become "the house of the soul" as a justification for self-indulgence among Epicureans and contemporary Platonists. The Christian's mortal body will be raised just as God raised the Lord at his resurrection.
Paul's next argument is that illicit sexual indulgence was totally inappropriate because a Christian is a member of Christ's body (v. 15a). In his opening greeting, Paul had described Christians as "sanctified in Christ Jesus" (1:2), which they are because they have been joined to Christ ontologically as members of his body. The participants in the immoral activities clearly had not registered the implications of this fact.
Paul goes on to declare that in spite of the popular belief, there is no such thing as casual sex (vv. 15b-17). Young men saw this as simply a fun evening with a casual partner. But even a one-night stand with a high-class prostitute created a "one flesh" relationship, another fact they had not taken into account. Paul's reason for stating this is Genesis 2:24. He affirms that the Christian is joined to the Lord and therefore is one spirit with him.
Contrary to the spirit of the age, Paul declares that fornication is a unique sin (6:18). All other sins are "outside" the body, but their sexual activity is the one sin that damages the intrinsic nature of who the person is. Harm is done to the person himself.
Finally, the Christian does not have ownership of his body because its title deeds have been transferred (v. 19). The young Christian men no longer owned their bodies to use them as their passions dictated and society endorsed. They were not only indwelt by the Holy Spirit whom they have from God by reason of the work of "the Spirit of our God," but Christ had purchased them body and soul at enormous cost to himself as the Lamb of God. He is the one who now has the title deeds of their bodies, so it is no longer theirs to do with it as they wished.
In the context of dealing with this issue, Paul has issued three non-negotiable, binding commands that will solve what might be seen as an impasse because they had "permanently damaged" their purity - true love had not waited. From now on these commands provided the way forward for them. "You must not be self-deceived" (v. 9). "Fornicators will not enter the kingdom," as this sin is contrary to the maker's manual and a rebellious act. You must flee immorality (v. 18). No longer are they to attend the "unholy trinity" evening with other young men, for they are to "glorify God in your body" (v. 20). Immorality is not the appropriate way of doing this.
Later Paul extends this discussion, using his own struggles as a paradigm for the young men of Corinth. He did not preach down to them from the high moral ground. He disclosed that he had to bring his own body under control after a Sunday in the pulpit (9:27); he had to die daily to sexual passion and fight against the metaphorical "beast" (15:31). He also addresses the issue further by commanding them again not to be deceived because "bad company corrupts good morals" and therefore they must wake out of drunkenness and stop sinning (15:33-34).
In conclusion, it is important to note there was a significant difference between Roman warfare and Pauline warfare. The former was used against people literally in battle and metaphorically in vexatious litigation. Paul battles against ideas or ideologies that were held by people. In our generation it is sometimes the case that Christians use argumentum ad hominem against their fellow Christians or others to the detriment of fellowship and the quality of our witness in our world. The modus operandi must be appropriate to, and enhance the message of, the Word of God.
The brother to whom I have dedicated this essay has not demolished people in his preaching or engaged in cheap polemics. He has been an astute observer of the cultural programming that has been a danger to the church and has therefore been a careful assessor of this present age. In his long ministry, Kent Hughes has addressed the "arguments" and removed the "obstacles" that would preclude the Word of God taking root in the lives of his hearers. He has also been a skilled expositor of the Word of God, as his commentaries clearly demonstrate. He has been scrupulous not to operate as the secular world has done, even if others have chosen so to do in the church and in their ministry. For this we thank God, that he, like Paul, has provided a paradigm for the rising generation of evangelists, pastors, and teachers he has influenced.