Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(3) Full Identification in Mission

Outline: 017-E3.3-Full Identification
Passage: 1 Corinthians 9:19-27
Discussion Audio (1h05m)

Flexibility requires enormous effort and discipline

In my experience, the passage for today – 1 Corinthians 9:19-27 – is frequently treated as two separate topics: 1) vv.19-22 dealing with how Christians need to adapt their behaviors and message to their audience; and 2) vv.23-27 dealing with how Christians need to discipline themselves so that they will receive the “prize” and not be “disqualified.”

The problem with looking at this passage as two separate topics is that v.23 begins, “I [Paul] do it all for the gospel…” Paul refers to his words regarding adaptation as the goal of his discipline. When seen this way, the commonly given interpretation of “prize” as heaven/eternal life/salvation no longer makes much sense.

Christians often have trouble with the first part as well. Paul seems a bit wishy-wash, an accommodationist. “Why can’t he be consistent in his behaviors?” we might ask. Or, “Why can’t he stick to his principles?” – if he really believes the Torah has no bearing on salvation and righteousness, why does he admit to kowtowing to the Jews?

The range of interpretations that has been suggested by commentators is remarkable, moving from an understanding of Paul as being totally selfless—perhaps in a psychologically unhealthy manner indicative of a loss of identity—to the contention that Paul was an opportunist in his dealings with potential converts. Careful reading of the text, however, indicates that such extreme interpretations are stereotyped, falling short of full comprehension of the subtlety of Paul's methods of mission and ministry.^[1]

To put it in more contemporary terms, when he was among Jews he was kosher; when he was among Gentiles he was non-kosher—precisely because, as with circumcision, neither mattered to God (cf. 7:19; 8:8). But such conduct tends to matter a great deal to the religious—on either side!—so that inconsistency in such matters ranks among the greatest of evils… The difference, therefore, between his own behavior and that of his social companions is not in the behavior itself, which will be identical to the observer, but in the reasons for it. The latter abstain because they are “under the law”; it is a matter of religious obligation. Paul abstains because he loves those under the law and wants to win them to Christ. Despite appearances, the differences are as night and day.^[2]

The first part of today’s passage is Paul’s defense of his approach to mission. He will go as far as he must to become “weak,” to participate in the incarnational mission pattern of Jesus, to be among the people, to identify with them. Paul will not serve from a position power.

D. T. Niles of Sri Lanka wrote, “To serve from a position of power is not true service but beneficence… We run schools, hospitals, orphanages, agricultural farms, etc. But what we do not adequately realize is that these institutions are not only avenues of Christian service but are also sources of secular strength. Because of them, we can offer patronage, control employment, and sometimes make money. The result is that the rest of the community learn to look on the Church with jealousy, sometimes with fear, and sometimes even with suspicion.^[3]

The second part of today’s passage is actually Paul’s description of how he is able to work cross-culturally. It has nothing to do with personal salvation or his own eternal life. The “prize” is the progress of the gospel. Paul writes here of acquiring and maintaining skills and abilities that will allow him to become a part of each people group that he goes to. Paul writes of the tremendous effort, energy, and discipline that is required to work cross-culturally.

“Disqualification” is not a loss of salvation, eternal life, or heaven. It is about not being fit enough to participate in mission work that Paul was commissioned to do.

With the Isthmian Games sponsored by the city of Corinth, the citizens of that city could not help being fully aware of the time commitments and energy required to complete in those games. Paul builds on that awareness and tells his readers that the same level of discipline is required to cross cultural lines in the name of Christ…

Paul is not talking about ascetic disciplines, he is discussing the high commitment required if one is to successfully cross cultural barriers in the name of Christ. He is discussing mission…

He warns his readers that the task of “all things to all people” takes enormous energy He is discussing the cost of crosscultural, incarnational mission…

Language, culture, history, art, literature, politics, worldview, music, civil unrest and war—all must be experienced, comprehended and embraced if one is to effectively enter into another culture.^[4]

According to this passage, the purpose of spiritual disciplines is not for yourself.

1. Discipleship and spiritual disciplines aren’t about me. It’s not spiritual self-improvement to express gratitude, to keep in Jesus’ good graces, to prove that I really belong, or even to be a better evangelist and witness (at least not in the usual way of thinking about it).
2. Spiritual disciplines are about learning and finding ways to partner with God’s Spirit in the work of the gospel that is already happening.
3. Spiritual disciplines are less about an individual’s personal spiritual condition and more about how to benefit others.
4. You don’t have to participate – you can be a spectator. Your salvation isn’t the issue. But you might lose out on the greater joy and satisfaction of going beyond the minimum call.
5. Spiritual disciplines include more than just the usual prayer, Bible study, and church attendance. It can and should include learning about anthropology, psychology, sociology, history, literature, music, arts, language, mythology, sciences, pop culture, etc. Anything that will help you integrate better with the people you have been sent to.

Paul does not argue that he “must become all things to all people” so that the gospel can receive a hearing and be accepted. For him, God, through the gospel, was already at work across cultural lines and he wanted to become its partner. The gospel train was moving and he could jump on or get left behind.^[5]

---

^[1] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, entry in section 25 (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

^[2] NICNT, 1 Cor. 9:20.

^[3] Bailey, location 2995.

^[4] Bailey, locations 3043, 3048, 3065, 3069.

^[5] Bailey, location 3031.

Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(2) Paul’s Freedom and Responsibility

Outline: 016-E3.2-Paul and Freedom
Passage: 1 Corinthians 9:1-18
Discussion Audio (1h19m)

The Gospel is offensive because it is free, not transactional.

The Corinthian Christians looked upon Paul with askance, harboring doubts regarding his status as an apostle, because he refused to accept their support (patronage) and instead labored to support himself. In their cultural beliefs and traditions, teachers needed to free themselves from labor so they could have time to cultivate their minds. Teachers were expected to be clients of wealthy patrons. “You give us teaching; we support you.” That was the expected transactional relationship.

… There was no doubt friction between Paul and the Corinthians because he worked with his hands. For most Jewish believers this would not have been a problem… The rabbis supported themselves financially, often through some trade or skill. Indeed they were required to do so… On the other hand, for Christians with a Greek background things were different. Intellectuals were expected to be financially independent. Only with the leisure that comes from such independence was it possible to cultivate the mind. How could Greeks accept the intellectual and spiritual leadership of a tentmaker? ^[1]

But Paul refused patronage. Why?

First Corinthians 9:1-18 can be seen in two parts. In the first part Paul vigorously defends his status as an apostle and defends rights to which he is entitles as an apostle. Paul must first establish that he knows full well that he is entitled to the support of the Corinthian Christians. In the second part Paul vigorously defends his reasons for refusing patronage.

Paul's response to this is not first of all to defend his renunciation of his rights, but to establish that he has such rights. This must be done because they have questioned his authority altogether. From their point of view his activity would not have been the renunciation of assumed rights; rather, he must have worked with his hands because he lacked such rights. Since, therefore, he did not do as the others—accept patronage—he must not be a genuine apostle. ^[2]

One of the foundational problems Paul saw in the Corinthian church was that of freedom and rights. The Corinthians had a distorted view of Christian freedom. Not only did they appear to believe that this freedom meant they could do anything, they were flaunting it and imposing it on those who did not believe this way or were uncomfortable with this particular expression. In other words, some in the Corinthian church were (ironically) becoming enslaved to freedom. This is the point at which 1 Cor. 9:1-18 ties into the issue of food offered to idols that Paul had touched on in chapter 8.

Some of the Corinthian Christians had come to believe that accepting the gospel and its freedoms meant they were obligated to perform and behave in ways that would highlight their freedom and rights. They were still thinking in transactional terms.

By refusing patronage, Paul holds himself up as an example of genuine Christian freedom. He illustrates the transaction-free nature of the gospel through his actions.

Like the Corinthian Christians, we usually don’t have too much problem understanding and accepting that there is nothing we can do to merit God’s grace to us. But we often have a real problem in accepting that there is nothing God demands from us in return. (This is different from God desiring much from us.) There is nothing we can “do for God” for us to keep his grace.

This is why the gospel is so offensive. It is not so much the content of the gospel as it is its very nature. In the honor-shame culture in which this was written, to accept a gift without strings attached, without demand or expectation of reciprocation, was to suffer shame. The gospel is a stumbling block, it is shameful, because its recipients must acknowledge their shamefulness. There is no personal honor in accepting the gospel.

The parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) brings home this point. In this parable Jesus says that the tax collector is the one who was justified. The tax collector receives God’s grace. He, unlike the Pharisee, offers no good deeds as an offering. The tax collector offers no promises of sacrifice, offerings, or to even change his ways. He only acknowledges the reality of his condition. That is all grace requires.

The Corinthians wanted to bring transaction back into the gospel so that it could be used as a means of gaining personal honor.

Paul would have none of that. He would not place himself back into the slavery of the honor-shame system. And he warned the Corinthians of the path they were on. Genuine Christian freedom is found in rejecting the relational systems of this world and allowing only Christ to have a claim on one’s life.

In one sense his "pay" is in fact to receive "no pay"! But in the present argument this nonpayment "payment" also gives him his apostolic "freedom" from all, so that he might the more freely make himself a slave to everyone (v. 19). Thus in terms of his own ministry, his "pay" turns out to be his total freedom from all merely human impositions on his ministry. ^[3]

Freedom found in giving up one’s personal rights.

---

^[1] Bailey, location 2874.

^[2] NICNT, introductory text for 1 Cor. 9:3-14.

^[3] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 9:18.

Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(1) Food Offered to Idols

Outline: 015-E3.1-Food Offered to Idols
Passage: 1 Corinthians 8:1-13
Discussion Audio (1h22m)

Love over knowledge – not love of knowledge

Paul continues to work through issues that were posed to him by the Corinthians. They want to know how to handle food that was offered to idols. This could be either 1) private sacrifices where part of the offered meat is eaten in the god’s temple, or 2) public sacrifices whose excess meat is sold in the public marketplace. Paul’s response covers 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1. As with issues Paul addressed earlier in this letter, his primary concern is not about food but deeper issues where one of the symptoms happens to be conflict about appropriateness of eating food offered to idols.

True gnosis consists not in the accumulation of so much data,
nor even in the correctness of one's theology,
but in the fact that one has learned to live in love toward all.¹

The reader of this passage may find curious Paul’s initial digression away from the topic of food. It is this digression that gets at the heart of what Paul identifies as the root issue: the arrogance of possessing “knowledge” and the insistence on its free use at the expense of all other brothers and sisters. Not only were some in the Corinthian church insisting on their own personal freedoms, but, as in earlier issues in the letter, they were likely insisting that to be a “true Christian” everyone had to behave in a singular manner – in the present case, to eat food offered to idols, because the idols are not real.

Real freedom is being freed from the necessity to assert only,
or primarily, one's own rights.²

Paul’s response is instructive for those of us in the modern West who place high value on knowledge and objective realities. Paul acknowledges the existence of objective realities, but he also writes that subjective realities are also very real, perhaps even more real, to people. Thus he writes in 8:5b, “as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords.’” When a Christian interacts with another brother or sister, s/he must take into account the subjective realities of the other party and adjust words and actions accordingly so as to not be the cause of someone turning away from God.

According to Paul, Christian ethics cannot be codified beyond “love one another.” And for Paul, “love” is the giving up of one’s own rights for the sake of others. Personal freedoms are subservient to “building up” the community of believers. For Christians, the priority is not “my rights” but “your well-being.” Paul brings his readers back to the cross of Christ as the prime example of Christian freedom in action.

The problem in the Corinthian church was not really about food offered to idols. It was placing knowledge above love, i.e., a love of knowledge rather than loving in order to know one another.

The real concern of the passage needs a regular hearing in the church. Personal behavior is dictated not by knowledge, freedom, or law, but by love for those within the community of faith. Everything one does that affects relationships within the body of Christ should have care for brothers and sisters as its primary motivation.³

---

¹ Reading the New Testament Series, entry for 1 Cor. 8:1-13.

² Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, introductory paragraph for section 1 Cor. 8:7-13.

³ New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, concluding paragraph for section 1 Cor. 8:1-13.

Essay 2—Men and Women in the Human Family—(4c) In Harmony With the Gospel

Outline: 014-E2.4c-In Harmony with the Gospel
Passage: 1 Corinthians 7:25ff
Discussion Audio (1h16m)

Don’t base doctrine on unclear text.

This final part of 1 Corinthians 7 is considered notoriously difficult to interpret and understand just what Paul had in mind.^[1] Particularly in regards to verses 36-38, here are a few choice descriptions from a couple of commentaries:

These verses are remarkably obscure…^[2]

“The literature is voluminous and unrewarding.”^[3]

Generally this section is interpreted in two, broad ways: 1) It has general application to the broader Christian community; and 2) what is written is specific to the Corinthian situation and whatever principles we try to glean should be held tentatively. The weight of scholarship prefers the latter and that is the path I have chosen to take for our discussions.

This passage has been used to support the dichotomous positions of both the priority of marriage and the priority of celibacy in Christian life. On the one hand Paul appears to command singleness and celibacy as the “true spiritual way” while on the other hand Paul strongly affirms marriage.

This passage in particular, instead of being viewed as to our advantage, has often been burdensome for the young. But that is probably less Paul’s fault than or own… The irony of our present situation is that Paul insisted that his own preference, including his reasons for it, were not to be taken as a noose around anyone’s neck. Yet we have often allowed that very thing to happen. Roman Catholicism has insisted on celibacy for its clergy even though not all are gifted to be so; on the other hand, many Protestant groups will not ordain the single because marriage is the norm, and the single are not quite trusted.^[4]

The specifics of why Paul wrote what he did is lost to us. Therefore we ought not be making definitive statements about what Paul intended. Throughout chapter seven, Paul himself is very tentative, making very few definitive statements. For most of what he writes, he wants his audience to understand that he is giving his opinion, not commands. He is not writing Scripture:

Does not Scripture say in fact that singleness is better than marriage? To which the answer is No. First of all, this reflects Paul’s own opinion (vv. 25 and 40), and he is concerned throughout that it not be taken as “Scripture,” that is, as some form of commandment or principle. It is an ad hoc answer in light of some “present distress.” But more importantly, vv. 36-38 are not a judgment on marriage or singleness per se at all, but on whether or not engaged couples in that setting should get married. Paul thinks it better for them if they do not; but he also makes it clear that marriage is a perfectly valid option. It has nothing to do with good and evil, or even with better or worse, but with good and better in the light of that situation. It is perhaps noteworthy that the entire discussion is carried on quite apart from one of the major considerations in our culture—love for one another. One can only guess what Paul might have said in a different setting.^[5]

We have to read this last part of chapter seven in light of the entirety of Essay Two. The main issue Paul is writing against is the issue of spiritual arrogance – not sex, marriage, or immorality. Paul is writing against those who would contend that their way to spirituality is the only valid way. In particular he is writing against Platonic body-spirit (or soul) dualism. He is writing against the view that the body is evil, the spirit is good, and what one does in the body doesn’t matter because it will be destroyed. He is writing against the abuses that occur as a result of spiritual arrogance. He is writing against the culturally informed hierarchicalism and power structures that are infiltrating the Christian community. He writes against imposing one’s own preferences about spirituality upon another.

What Paul affirms is the spiritual gifting of every believer. He affirms that God does not consider gender, religion, ethnicity, or socio-economic status in calling his people to assignments and gifting them with all that is necessary to follow their calling and to fulfill their assignments. He affirms the equal spiritual value of both marrieds and singles. He affirms that each person ought to mind their own spiritual business and live the life they were gifted to live.

---

[1] See comments in New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, under “3. About the ‘Virgins’ (7:25-40)”

[2] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, 1 Cor. 7:36-38

[3] Bailey, applying to 1 Cor. 7:36-38 a quote by T. W. Manson; at location 2621

[4] NICNT, 1 Cor. 7:35

[5] NICNT, 1 Cor. 7:40

Essay 2—Men and Women in the Human Family—(4b) In Harmony With the Gospel

Outline: 013-E2.4b-In Harmony with the Gospel
Passage: 1 Corinthians 7:10-24
Discussion Audio (1h08m)

Relationship status, ethnicity, religious status, and socio-economic status
are neither barrier nor excuse for carrying out
God's assignment for each believer.

“If only I…”

Apparently some Corinthians were saying this, or at least thinking it, when looking at their spiritual condition. There was an influential group within the Corinthian Christian community that was advocating asceticism as the only means to achieve genuine spirituality. As a result they were advocating divorce of marrieds (particularly if they could not practice celibacy), or that widows and widowers ought not remarry.

“If only I were single,
I could be more spiritual and serve God more appropriately.”

Paul wrote against this aberrant thinking and theology in the first nine verses of chapter 7. Within this same context he writes the next fifteen verses, 7:10-24. He discusses two pairs of two related topics.

1. Marriage and divorce
   1. Married believers
   2. Marriages where one partner is a believer, the other is not
2. Religious and socio-economic status
   1. Jew vs. Greek
   2. Slave vs. Free

In the first pair of topics, Paul sets the ideal: marriage is for life and believers ought not divorce. But it is vital to note that Paul does not forbid it. More importantly he recognizes the reality that divorces do happen. The crux to understanding this passage is to keep in mind the overall context of asceticism where one partner was advocating celibacy without the agreement of the other. It is not about the general issues of divorce and remarriage.

Our situation is usually made more complex because our concerns are often the precise opposite of theirs, which caused this to be written in the first place. They wanted to dissolve marriages; we want to know whether remarriage is permitted… Paul does not speak to the question of remarriage.^[1]

“If only I had a believing partner,
I could devote more of my energies toward God…”

In the second half the the first pair Paul moves on to discuss the case of mixed-faith marriages where one partner is a believer and the other is pagan. The crux of interpreting this passage is the Jewish purity laws. The Corinthians believed that sexual relations with a pagan partner would turn the entire marriage unclean (defiled, unholy, in effect committing sexual immorality). As a result the same group advocating asceticism saw this as defiling the church and were likely encouraging divorces among such marriages. Paul saw things differently. He affirmed that in mixed-faith marriages, Christ’s holiness could not be overcome by paganism and that such marriages conferred holiness upon the entire family.

Through the believing partner, the marriage between a pagan and a Christian is withdrawn from the control of the powers of the world. In living together with the world, the “saints” are the stronger party. The decisive idea lies not in an ontological definition of the state of the non-Christian members of the family, but in the assertion that no alien power plays any part in the Christian’s dealing with them.^[2]

An important principle Paul adds in this discussion is that Christian ideals are binding only to Christians. In this specific example, Paul places relational peace above the ideal of remaining married. Paul instructs believers that unbelievers are not bound by Christian ideals and standards. Paul tells believers that nonbelievers have a right to choose how they want to live. Christians do not have a right to force their ideals onto nonbelievers.

“If only our religious differences could be eliminated,
I could do so much more for God…”

The second section under discussion here introduces a puzzle. Why does Paul suddenly introduce the topics of religion and slavery in the middle of a large sequence dealing with marriage and sex? Scholars typically point to Galatians 3:28 in which Paul discusses the elimination of human-generated classifications of male/female, Greek/Jew, free/slave. Scholars believe Paul discusses religion and slavery here in 1 Corinthians for completeness and to broaden the discussion about the irrelevancy of human ideas of status when it comes to following God’s assignment and calling.

Paul first tackles the issue of religious differences. He uses circumcision as the ultimate illustration of religious distinctiveness that is utterly irrelevant to the Christian. What is critical to understand here is that Paul writes that it’s okay to follow Jewish traditions just as it is equally okay to not follow them (i.e., remain Greek). Religious differences do not prevent God from assigning (merizo – distributing) spiritual gifts to empower Christians to each follow their calling.

“If only I was more privileged, I could do so much more for God…”

Paul tackles slavery in the last part of today’s passage. Scholars are about equally divided when it comes to whether Paul was against slavery or not. There is good and reasonable evidence on both sides. Slavery is not the primary point of this passage. Rather it is about whether or not one can be a Christian, live spiritually, and carry out God’s assignment when a person is not free. Paul’s response is that indeed, even a slave with sometimes very limited freedom and means, can receive God’s assignment and has the power to carry it out. Having or not having privilege, means, or liberty has no bearing on whether or not a person can be fully spiritual and carry out God’s assignment for them.

What matters is faithfulness in remaining in God by being true to his call. God’s call is different for every Christian. One is not to burden another with a calling that is not for them. And one should not envy or seek a different calling than the one that was given. In other words, mind your own business and be true to who God called you to be.

---

^[1] New International Commentary: New Testament, The First Epistle, entry for 1 Cor. 7:16.

^[2] Understanding the Bible Commentary: First Corinthians, entry for 1 Cor. 7:14, quoting Conzelmann.

Essay 2—Men and Women in the Human Family—(4a) In Harmony With the Gospel

Outline: 012-E2.4a-In Harmony with the Gospel
Passage: 1 Corinthians 7:1-9
Discussion Audio (39m)

Neither singleness or marriage represents the ideal spiritual condition.

Chapter 7 of the First Epistle is one that has been misread, misinterpreted, and misused by Christians from almost the very beginning of its history. It has been used to justify both singleness/celibacy and marriage as the supreme spiritual state for Christians. It has been used to allow and disallow divorce and remarriage. It has been used to support patriarchy.

Ironically, Paul wrote the words in this chapter to combat nearly the very same aberrant teachings that the Corinthian believers held in regards to sexual relations and associated issues.

The overarching theme of this chapter is:

“Do not seek a change in status.”^[1]

Paul sees both singleness and marriage as charisma, spiritual gifts. Both are equally good. If a person is gifted with singleness, s/he should not envy marriage or feel guilty for not wanting marriage. If a person is gifted with marriage, s/he should not envy singleness or feel that somehow they would be “more spiritual” and be able to “devote more of their energies to God” if they were single. Churches and church members should not prioritize, idealize, or idolize either singleness or marriage as “more spiritual” than the other. Neither singleness or marriage should made to be a source of guilt and shame for any Christian. No Christian should stigmatize and shame another for their choice to either remain single or to become married.

In this passage, Paul affirms the goodness of marriage. Paul also affirms the goodness of remaining single. Paul affirms the equality of men and women. What Paul does is denounce asceticism. And Paul denounces relationships where authority between partners is unequal.

---

[1] New International Commentary: The First Epistle, entry for 1 Cor. 7:1-40.

Essay 2—Men and Women in the Human Family—(3) Joining the Body

Outline: 011-E2.3-Joining the Body
Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:13-20
Discussion Audio (1h19m)

Poor theology invites arrogance, irresponsibility, immorality, reducing people to mere objects whose existence is to satisfy one’s appetites and wants (use and abuse of others), and bringing shame upon the community.

In these verses (1 Cor. 6:13-20) Paul appears to be addressing the problem of sexual immorality – which he is in the most immediate sense, yet in a larger sense, he isn’t. Immorality is the most visible symptom of a larger issue Paul is trying to point the Corinthian Christian community towards:  multiple aspects of poor theology under which they are living.

Broadly speaking, these Corinthians believers have accepted the following errors.

1. Over-realized eschatology. They assume the kingdom of God has fully come because they have the Spirit. As a result, they are incapable of sinful behavior.
2. Greek dualistic philosophy. They have come to believe that the body is evil and only the spirit to be good. They have also accepted the immortality of the spirit/soul which comes directly from pagan roots. Because the body is evil and will be destroyed (and only the spirit survives), they are free to do anything with the body.
3. Misinterpretation of “freedom in Christ”. They have come to accept freedom in Christ as individual liberty to do as they please, to please themselves, regardless of how it will affect another person or the community to which they belong.

Paul writes to correct these errors.

1. The full manifestation of the kingdom is still in the future. Yes, Christians are saved (past) and have the Spirit and are united with God/Spirit/Christ (present), but sin and evil still affect the body. What one does in and with the body carries over into the resurrection (future).
2. The body is not merely a physical shell. Paul takes the Jewish view and considers the body to be the whole person – physical and spirit. There is no separate entity identified as the soul, and particularly not one that is inherently immortal. The body is not evil, but it is good as evidenced by Jesus’ resurrection in a body.
3. Freedom in Christ is not individual liberty to do as s/he pleases, but the freedom to live as responsible members of their community and to the greater society.

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.¹

---

¹Gordon Fee, New International Commentary, New Testament: The First Epistle, entry for 1 Cor. 6:19-20