A critical issue concerns what, in practice, constitutes
a man’s ‘work’. Garland remarks in passing that a verbal link exists between 1
Corinthians 3 and 5, namely the presence of το εργον in 1 Cor. 5.2 where Paul describes the
errant Corinthian’s act of πορνεια as το εργον. In the light of 1 Corinthians 3, the Corinthians
πορνος (in ch. 5) had built a ‘work’ upon the
foundation that was destined to be ‘burned up’, even though he would be ‘saved’
(cf. 3.15 and 5.5). These words are reminiscent of 1 Cor. 5.5 in which the
errant Corinthian is ‘saved’ [σωζω] in
the day [η ημερα] of the Lord’, even though his σαρξ is to be destroyed (ολοθρος)—through exclusion, (and as we are
arguing) physical suffering, and possibly even death. As such, while salvation
is assured in 1 Corinthians 3, physical suffering as a result of the
destruction of the ‘work’ cannot be ruled out. This understanding would explain
Paul’s enigmatic phrase ουτος
δε ως δια πυρος.
Having discussed the fiery destruction of a builder’s
work’, Paul focuses upon the destruction (φθειρω) of God’s temple (vv. 16-17)—the Corinthians
as a corporate building:
Do you not know that you are God’s temple [ναος] and that God’s Spirit dwells in you [εν υμιν]? If any one destroys [φθειρω] God’s temple [ναος], God will destroy [φθειρω] him. For God’s temple [ναος] is holy, and that temple [ναος] you are [εστς υμεις] (vv. 16-17).
The holiness motif is inescapable here. To defile the
community in which God’s Spirit resides, is to invite destruction—for ‘God’s
temple is holy’ and it must not be defiled. Barrett relates toe ‘holiness motif’
to 1 Corinthians 5:’ “The sinner must be removed because holiness and unholiness
cannot coexist, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump”’ (1 Cor. 5.6).
However, it is Rosner who more fully argues for a connection
between 1 Corinthians 3 and 5. In particular, he suggests that the errant Corinthian
is to be excluded, ‘in order to restore the holiness of God’s temple, the
church.’ Holiness, he argues, ‘is associated with community exclusion in the Pentateuch
through two terms חרם and רחם , which arguably have links with 1 Cor. 5.5.’
Rosner’s assessment of חרם chimes with our own study of this term (in Part
3.4.2.3), where we concluded that this curse language denotes that which has
been ‘devoted to God for destruction’ and must therefore be excluded as that
which is accursed and awaiting devastation:
Contamination is also a common theme; whoever takes
possession of a devoted thing must himself be devoted, along with his house and
even town. Thus in the holiness motif, a person or thing must be removed
because of the holiness of God who has sanctified the community.
Whoever defiles God’s temple will be destroyed (φθειρω). Likewise, the Corinthian offenders is
to be destroyed (ολεθρος: v.
5). The difference in terminology here is inconsequential, for destruction is
denoted by both terms. Within Pauline thought, human sin can lead to physical
destruction. (David Raymond Smith, “Hand This Man Over to Satan”: Curse,
Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5 [Library of New Testament Studies
386; London: T & T Clark, 2008], 166-67)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
