Sinning against One's Own Body: Paul's Understanding of the Sexual Relationship in 1 Corinthians 6:18

BRENDAN BYRNE, S.J. Jesuit Theological College United Faculty of Theology Parkville, Melbourne 3052 Australia

THE TWENTIETH-CENTURY DEBATE about the meaning of "body" (soma) in Paul was largely set in motion by the suggestion of Johannes Weiss in 1910 that the term can refer to the whole person under some aspect, rather than being confined simply to the physical body or form.1 This "holistic" view of soma was developed by R. Bultmann and obtained in due course widespread currency in Pauline scholarship.2 Weiss proposed his interpretation in a commentary on 1 Cor 6:12-20, and this passage has remained crucial in the discussion ever since, receiving notable attention from R. H. Gundry who in his recent work argues for a return to a wholly physical understanding of soma in Paul. 3 Within the wider ambit of Paul's warning against fornication in 1 Cor 6:12-20 the most perplexing and controversial statement has been that occurring in v. 18bc: "Every sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the man committing fornication sins against his own body." Taking up a

Der erste Korintherbrief (MeyerK 5; 1st [9th] ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 161. 2 R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; London: SCM, 1952-55), 1. 194-96; J. A. T. Robinson, The Body (SBT 5; London: SCM, 1952) 28; W. D. Stacey, The Pauline View of Man (London: Macmillan, 1956) 190; cf. also E. Schweizer, TDNT,1 1060-66. For a thorough survey of the history of research with respect to soma, see R. Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms (AGJU 10; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 200-50. 3 SOMA in Biblical Theology (SNTSMS 29; Cambridge: University Press, 1976) 51-80.

608

SINNING AGAINST ONE'S OWN BODY 609 suggestion made somewhat diffidently by several earlier scholars, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor has argued in a recent article that the first part of this statement (v. 18b) is best understood as a slogan of the Corinthians, with a 4 Pauline "correction" coming in the final element (v. 18c). Gundry in his treatment of v. 18 had already considered the proposition that it contains a Corinthian slogan. In rejection of this hypothesis he has argued that the Corinthians would "rather have put sin on the side of the physical body and disassociated the true (consisting of the spirit) from the body with its sin." So that a slogan from them would more naturally have read, "Every sin . . . 5 is outside the spirit." Murphy-O'Connor accepts Gundry's restriction of the meaning of soma to the physical body but remains unimpressed by the rejection of the "slogan" proposal. He argues that the statement in v. 18b, taken at its face value, is most naturally understood as an assertion that the body has nothing to do with sina view of the body as unimportant and morally irrelevant that is completely in agreement with the attitude of the 6 Corinthians deducible from the slogans already quoted by Paul in vv. 12-13. For a reason which I shall outline shortly it seems to me that MurphyO'Connor's view that v. 18b represents a slogan does not help solve the problems of v. 18. On the contrary, I should like to propose that, on a particular understanding of soma, v. 18 as a whole remains fully intelligible as a statement of Paul's own position and that, far from constituting an impossible crux, it can be shown to imply a theology of sexuality surprising in its richness and sophistication. The understanding of soma I have in mind is largely indebted to E. Ksemann's view of Paul's use of "body" as "possibility of communication. "This I should like to test within v. 18, with a glance in conclusion at the wider context of the passage, in the hope of finding the most coherent overall interpretation. The outstanding difficulty with the theory that v. 18b contains a Corinthian slogan remains, in my opinion, its failure to account sufficiently for Paul's "reply" in v. 18c: "But the man committing fornication sins against his own body." This is hardly an adequate response to v. 18b understood as a statement of the Corinthian position. Since the body is morally irrelevant for the Corinthians, the whole force of Paul's refutation must, on this hypothesis, rest upon the "his own" element in his replythe fact that fornication affects one's own body in some peculiarly intense way. But the person holding the position expressed in the slogan might just as well retort: "Whether it is my body or not does not alter the case. Sin has nothing to do with the

4 5 6

"Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20," CBQ40 (1978) 391-96. SOMA in Biblical Theology, 73-74. "Corinthian Slogans," 393.

610 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 45, 1983 body, mine or anyone else's." Thus, it seems to me, Murphy-O'Connor's proposal that v. 18b represents a Corinthian slogan is fatally weakened by its failure to take cognizance of what on this hypothesis must constitute a very inadequate "reply" on Paul's part. The "slogan" theory, however valuable it be for understanding earlier parts of this passage, does not help in the case of v. 18. The double statement contained here must be regarded as wholly representative of Paul's own view and soma understood from within this perspective. The Meaning of Soma As stated above, the particular understanding of soma I should like to bring to the elucidation of this verse is basically that of E. Ksemann. His understanding in its developed form finds perhaps its best expression in the following extract from his essay, "The Pauline Doctrine of the Last Supper": . . . we should do well not to accept so uncritically as is often the case today the translation of soma by "person" as being self-evidently correct. We may grant that the individual concepts of Pauline anthropology are not intended to designate different parts of men, but the whole man with his various possibilities and relationships; thus these concepts are frequently interchangeable with "I." But . . . in so far as the Apostle employs this concept (soma) in any special sense, he uses it to denote the corporeality of human life, organic to the creation, claimed by God as his own right, yet threatened by the cosmic powers.7 Later: For Paul, . . . it [the body] is the possibility of communication. As body, man exists in relationship to others, in subjection because of the world, in the jurisdiction of the Creator, in the hope of resurrection, in the possibility of concrete obedience and self-surrender.8 The distinctive features of this understanding of soma consist in the emphasis upon physicality, on the one hand, and communication, on the other. Soma for Ksemann is the physical body with the particular emphasis upon it as the instrument whereby the self is in relationship to or in touch with the outside world of persons, powers, and events; it is where that world

7 8

Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964) 108-35; esp. p. 129. Ibid., 133.

SINNING AGAINST ONE'S OWN BODY 611 and the self impinge upon each other both to give and receive influences and impressions.9 With respect to this understanding of soma we might ask about the precise relationship between the two aspects I have noted: that of physicality and that of communication. In Ksemann's view the one, the physical body, appears to be the vehicle or instrument of the other: i.e., the physical body is the vehicle of communication. One might propose, however, that, while this is in fact the case in the present (pre-resurrection) existence, soma is not in essence tied to physicality understood solely in terms of present (mortal) physical existence. The essence of soma for Paul lies in being the vehicle of communication, so that Paul can conceive of a mode of communicationof presenting oneself and being acted upon in turnthat is very different from present physical existence but which remains, nonetheless, somatic existence. It is precisely this wide possibility of somatic existence that he appears to be insisting upon in 1 Cor 15:35-49, where alongside the present form o soma in the shape of the physical mortal body (soma psychikon), he asks his readers to have the imagination to conceive of a somatic existence that is wholly under the influence of the Spirit (soma pneumatikon, v. 44).10 In this sense the essence of soma would lie in being the possibility or vehicle of relationship, with the mortal physical body being the way in which that possibility is realized here and now.11 What emerges from 1 Cor 6:12-20 as the nub of the dispute between Paul and the Corinthians concerns the value to be placed upon present bodily existence. For the Corinthians the fact that the body is soon to be

9 Besides the passages quoted above, see also E. Ksemann, "On Paul's Anthropology," Perspectives on Paul (London: SCM, 1971) 1-31, esp. pp. 17-23; "The Theological Problem Presented by the Motif of the Body of Christ," ibid., 102-21, esp. pp. 114-15; Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 176, 338. 10 I.e., understanding Paul's introduction of the "seed" image and the different kinds of "flesh" of men, beasts, birds, and fish and the pluriform "glory" of the heavenly bodies, as intended to demonstrate the rich variety of somatic existence open to the creative power of Godhence the possibility that God can clothe the human self with a soma pneumatikon in substitution for the present, mortal soma. For an interpretation along these lines, see C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (2d ed.; London: Black, 1971) 370-71. 11 E. Gttgemanns {Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr [FRLANT 90; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966] 206-10) reviews and to some degree accepts Ksemann's critique of Bultmann with respect to soma, embracing especially the aspect of "communication." Gttgemanns is, however, hesitant about Ksemann's emphasis upon the aspect of "corporeality," seeing this as threatening the ontologischen Strukturcharakter des soma (ibid., 239 . 100; see also p. 231 n. 40). The distinction made above between the essence of soma ("communication") and its factual realization in the present (mortal) physical body may alleviate to a large degree this hesitancy with respect to Ksemann's view of soma.

612 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 45, 1983 done away with renders bodily action here and now of no moral significance (cf. v. 13a).12 For Paul, on the other hand, the sphere or ambience of the risen Lord extends "back" into the present existenceso that "the body is . . . for the Lord and the Lord for the body." Destiny to bodily resurrection casts a backward significance upon present bodily life, giving it full theological meaning (cf. 2 Cor 5:10). To conclude, "body" for Paul refers essentially to that whereby the self stands in relationship, in communication. In the passage we are considering (1 Cor 6:12-20) soma is in this sense factually and concretely identifiable with the physical body.13 The latter, Paul insists, retains full theological and moral significance. Not only must it be preserved from misuse, as in fornication. It can and should be positively an instrument for the glorification of God (v. 20b). Sinning against One's Own Body: 1 Cor 6:18 That Paul's argument reaches a separate and third stage at v. 18 is suggested by the interposed exhortation: "Flee fornication." The verse stands apart from the rest of the passage and may be considered to some extent in isolation.14 What, then, is the sense of "every sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the man committing fornication sins against his own body"? In the first place we may note that the difficulty here is not at all eliminated by taking a holistic, non-physical view of soma. It is even more outrageous to state of all other sins that they do not touch the self than that they are somehow committed outside the (physical) body. Some sins can be purely spiritual, e.g., pride. But no sin can be purely "unspiritual" in the sense of not touching the personal core of one's being. Soma must preserve here its physical sense. But what then is the point of the distinction between

I.e., with R. H. Gundry {SOMA in Biblical Theology, 54-56) and J. Murphy-O'Connor ("Corinthian Slogans," 394) rejecting the view that sees a contrast being mounted between koilia and soma in vv. 13-14 and adopting the position that the Corinthian slogan quoted by Paul extends beyond the statement about foods and the stomach to include the reference to God's destroying both the one and the other (v. 13b). Murphy-O'Connor firmly establishes the latter point by setting out the Corinthians' slogans and Paul's responses in a way that shows a convincing parallelism. 13 Thus I would go along with Gundry's interpretation of soma in the physical sense throughout this passage, but understand this as a factual instance of soma in this sense, rather than as providing the essential definition restrictive to this sense. 14 H. Conzelmann {A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975] 112 n. 31) considers v. 18 to be an "intrusion: a rational argument inserted into the pneumatological argument of vv. 17 and 19."

12

SINNING AGAINST ONE'S OWN BODY 613 (other) sins somehow committed outside the physical body and fornication which represents a sin "against" one's own body? It appears necessary, along with most commentators, to accept that Paul is making some kind of comparative judgment here.15 With respect to "body" fornication stands in a category all by itself. Paul is not denying that other sins have reference to the body, even to one's own body, e.g., sins of gluttony, drunkenness, etc. But there is something about fornication that strikes at one's own "body" in some particularly direct way, in comparison with which other sins are somehow "outside" the body. It is at this point that the particular nuances attached to the view of soma outlined above become uniquely helpful. If soma is understood as the physical body particularly under the aspect of personal self-communication and if it carries with it from the argument built up in the preceding verses (15-16) the specific overtones of instrument of personal communication in the sexual act, then the character of fornication as peculiarly a sin "against one's own body" becomes clear. The immoral person perverts precisely that faculty within himself that is meant to be the instrument of the most intimate bodily communication between persons. He sins against his unique power of bodily communication and in this sense sins in a particular way "against his own body." No other sin engages one's power of bodily personal communication in precisely so intimate a way. All other sins are in this respect by comparison "outside" the body16with "body" having in this verse the strong sexual overtones that appear to cling to it throughout the passage as a whole.17 It should not be necessary to belabor the point that behind this view, if it is true to Paul's own thinking, lies a theology of sexuality that is remarkably
15 Cf. A. Robertson & A. Plummer, The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1911) 127-28; H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 112; C. K. Barrett, / Corinthians, 150-51; R. Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms, 261; R. H. Gundry, SOMA in Biblical Theology, 72-73 (but [with Alford and Grosheide] understanding the comparison as having to do with the origin and purpose of the sinful act, rather than its moral seriousness). 16 The understanding o soma argued for here reinforces the sense of comparison that has given rise to the common translation, "Every other sin . . ."(cf. RSV, NEB, NAB, JB) in v. 18, even though there is no word for "other" in the Greek. Cf. also R. H. Gundry: ". . . the adversative de can naturally signify an exceptive contrast and thus justify the interpolation of 'other' in the general statement" {SOMA in Biblical Theology, 73-74). 17 Cf. R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1. 194-95. He sees the sexual overtone waxing and waning in the course of the passage. The same sexual overtone adhering to soma can be seen again in Rom 1:24: ". . . God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves." Here, too, behind Paul's indictment of the vices of the Gentile world rings the strong sense of the body as medium of personal communication in the sexual act, as something so to be respected that its dishonoring is a matter of particular shame. Cf. also Rom 4:19.

614 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 45, 1983 positive and deeply personal. The sexual act has a high and noble purpose, expressive of profound communication between human beings. As an element of somatic life it shares in that ordination to the sphere and power of the risen Lord expressed so effectively and succinctly in v. 13: "The body is . . . for the Lord and the Lord for the body." The Wider Context: The Theology of Marriage Implied in 1 Corinthians 6-7 There are good grounds for believing that in the passage immediately following the one under discussion, 7:1-7, we have a continuation of Paul's thought along these lines. In v. 4, justifying the duty incumbent upon spouses to render marital rights, Paul remarks: "For the wife does not rule over (ouk exousiazei) her own body (tou idiou smatos), but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over (ouk exousiazei) his own body (tou idiou smatos), but the wife does." The parallels in phraseology with 6:12b (ouk eg exousiasthsoma) and 6:18 (to idion soma) are striking. The sexual relationship in marriage involves a real making over of one's body to be the possession of the partner. What Paul states in a general and introductory way in 6:12b, ouk eg exousiasthsoma hypo tinos, implies that in the relationship with the prostitute considered in vv. 15-16 the body really passes into her power, so that one is in this respect "mastered" or "dispossessed." Such a self-surrender stands totally at odds with the union already established with Christ (v. 15a, v. 17; cf. vv. 19b-20a: "You are not your own; for you have been bought with a price"). In the positive case of Christian marriage (7:1-7) that mutual self-giving is taken up, presumably, into the sphere of the lordship of Christ, in which all bodily activity on the part of the Christian takes place (1 Cor 6:13b; Rom 12:1-2) and in which the attitude of self-giving, patterned upon that of Christ, is basic (Rom 14:7-9; 15:1-3; 2 Cor 5:13-15; Phil 2:5-11). The connection between 6:12-20 and the first part of chap. 7, which has just been noted, suggests that the two passages as a whole are more closely related than is often recognized. In fact, there are good grounds for believing that 1 Cor 6:12-20 is not composed to deal with concrete cases of fornication in Corinth, news of which has come to Paul. Such an inference rests more upon the circumstantial evidence provided by the reputation of Corinth in the ancient world than upon anything directly derivable from the text.19 Paul
Cf. E. Gttgemanns, Der leidende Apostel, 233-34. The "sanctification" that takes place in the mixed marriage (7:14) is, presumably, operative a fortiori in the marriage between two Christians envisaged in 7:1-6. 19 See, e.g., A. Robertson & A. Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 121; J. Weiss, Der erste Korin18

SINNING AGAINST ONE'S OWN BODY 615 nowhere accuses the Corinthians of fornication, as he so clearly does lay the charge in the case of the abuse dealt with in chap. 5 (cf. v. 1). What Paul does in 6:12-20 is strongly and solemnly warn the Corinthians about the danger of fornication, indicating its total inappropriateness for the Christian and, on the positive side, instructing them on the duty and possibility of employing the body as an instrument for the glorification of God (v. 20b). Understood in this way, 1 Cor 6:12-20 is best associated with what follows rather than with what goes before20 and seen as providing the essential backdrop and foundation for Paul's response to the questions about the married and the unmarried in chap. 7.21 In the latter Paul, while basically sympathetic to the Corinthians' ascetical aspirations, in view of the felt imminence of the end, urges them for pastoral reasons to live out their marriages; they are not to break up existing marriages and not to be afraid to marry and let marry where individuals do not have the (desirable, but restricted) charism of celibacy.22 His basic motivation in this is expressed in v. 2: dia tasporneias (cf. the "temptation" of Satan in v. 5; also v. 9), i.e., the danger of cases of fornication occurring where impossible demands are made, either upon oneself or upon one's partner. This has long been criticized as a highly negative rationale for marriage.23 But it does not necessarily represent Paul's total theology of marriage. It represents a response to a particular situation faced by him,24 a response that becomes all the more telling when seen as resting upon the firm demonstration of the total unacceptability of

therbrief 156-57; more mildly, C. K. Barrett, I Corinthians, 155-56; cf. the criticism of this tendency by J. C. Hurd, Jr., The Origin of I Corinthians (New York: Seabury, 1965) 86. 20 Ibid., 89, 164. 21 The structure of the argument would then be similar to that deployed in chap. 15, where Paul first recalls in a general way the Corinthians' allegiance to the preaching of the gospel of the resurrection of Christ (vv. 1-11) and then makes this the basis upon which he treats of the specific problem first mentioned in v. 12, the denial on the part of some of them of the resurrection of the dead. 22 I.e., following the interpretation of 7:1-8 more generally accepted today, viz., (a) that "not to touch a woman" (v. 1) refers to sexual relations rather than to marriage itself; (b) that Paul is sympathetic to the ascetical aspirations of the Corinthians, but for the reason he gives he attempts to move them towards a less rigorous position; cf. J. C. Hurd, Origin of I Corinthians, 154-68; K. Niederwimmer, "Zur Analyse der asketischen Motivation in 1 Kor 7," TLZ 99 (1974) 241-48; For a contrary view, presenting Paul as much more favorable to marriage and in this respect standing more over against the Corinthians, see C. K. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 157-59. 23 Cf., e.g., H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 116; D. L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 85-86; against this view, cf. E. Gttgemanns, Der leidende Apostel, 233; M. L. Barr, "To Marry or to Burn: pyrousthai in 1 Cor 7:9," CBQ 36 (1974) 193-202. 24 Cf. the overall thesis concerning "Contingency" and "Coherence" in Paul's applied theology elaborated by J. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh: Clark, 1980) esp. pp. 33-35.

616 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 45, 1983 fornication and the essential ordering of the body to the Lord established in 6:12-20. In fact, if the theology of the body and sexuality that I have argued for in connection with 6:18 has any validity in Paul and if chap. 7 is meant to be read in close connection with what precedes, then running behind Paul's treatment of marriage in the latter is not only a negative warning against fornication, but also a positive statement of the possibility that the bodily life of marriage becomes an instrument for the glorification of God (6:20b).

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.