An Example of a Gnostic HierarchyIt is important when interpreting the Bible to look for patterns. One interesting pattern in 1 Corinthians may help us understand some very difficult verses that Paul wrote.

The first two examples of this pattern are in 1 Corinthians 6. I begin in the KJV:

¹²All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

¹³Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.

¹⁴And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.

¹⁵Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

¹⁶What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

¹⁷But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

First we need a little context. The Gnostics were a very odd group that existed in the Christian Church for many centuries. They were radical dualists. The general idea was that the body was bad and evil. This principle led to two false ethical patterns. The first is summarized in the idea "All things are lawful for me." The idea was that since the body was worthless, anything you did with the body was of no importance. If you are hungry you eat, if you are horny you ****. The main concern of theGnostics was that you did not really want to have children as the flesh is bad, so why trap more of God's spark into flesh? I do not want to go into much detail here, but imagine a philosophy that had no restrictions on sexual activity, yet did not want children. You fill in the blanks.

Can we take the phrase in verse 12 "all things are lawful for me" and apply this universally? I hope you agree with me that one should not do this. But this is exactly what the Gnostics at Corinth were saying. Paul is quoting them and then immediately disagreeing. "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats" is also what the gnostics were saying. As Paul makes clear they are saying this as an analogy for sexual activity. It’s natural. Just Do It. I do not think this is what Nike has in mind (or maybe they do not care what you do as long as you wear Nikes when you do it.). It is certainly not what Paul thinks is correct.

So what is the pattern? Paul says something that makes no sense when you consider everything that is said in the Bible and what Paul says elsewhere. This statement is immediately followed by another statement that contradicts it. It thus seems obvious that Paul is quoting the letter that the Corinthians wrote to him, and is correcting them.

This is actually not a novel idea I invented, but the standard interpretation of these verses. Here is the NIV translation of this same passage, to show this point:

^{Gnostic Scriptures Were Discovered At Nag Hammadi12} “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. ¹³ You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ¹⁴ By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. ¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶ Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” ¹⁷ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

It is a common, even expected, interpretation to look at 1 Corinthians this way. (Let me add here that I would put the quotation marks differently than the NIV did. “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both” should instead be, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food," and God will destroy them both. The latter part is Paul's disagreement with the Gnostics.)

Understanding that Koine Greek had no punctuation marks and the Greek Scriptures were written in all capital letters with no spaces between the words, you can see how this would be confusing to people later. The Corinthians would have known the questions they asked of Paul, and they would know their own situation. We often do not know either of these. One thing we are told in 1 Corinthians 1 was that Paul was in contact with some people in Corinth. “¹¹ My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.” Yes, Corinth was a mess.

The second version of Gnosticism was that since the body was bad, all sex, even between married couples, was forbidden—eating meat or drinking wine?—do not even think about it! This is what Paul is opposing when he wrote the book of Colossians, and he also addresses it in 2 Timothy.

In particular Paul was asked about this by the Corinthians. It is recorded in 1 Corinthians 7:

¹ Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

In this verse it is rather explicit that Paul is responding to the letter he had received from the household of Chloe. If the pattern I am suggesting repeats itself then following this quote will be Paul's disagreement with this.

² But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ³ The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

Note that the word for man and woman in verse 1 is the same word that is translated husband and wife in verse 2-4. So what the apostle Paul is being asked is this:

“It is good for a husband not to have sexual relations with his wife.”

Paul disagrees.

In fact Paul says it is wrong for a husband or a wife to deprive the other.

Two historical examples might help in our understanding.

Jerome, an early Church father who translated the Bible into Latin, would always ask married couples if they had had sex in the previous week. If they said yes, he would refuse them communion. Clement said that it was all right for a married couple to have sex, if they were trying to have children, but if they were not ... The impact of the Gnostics continued for centuries, changing the church into something entirely different than what it had been in the first century.

Paul was being used by some in the early church to make him out to be an advocate of things he disagreed with. Paul was not against married couples having sex. Paul is still misinterpreted today as we will see next time when I write about "Silent Woman Wearing Hats."