Perhaps you’ve been told that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). And perhaps this declaration came in the wake of an argument against drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, piercing a part of your body, or getting a tattoo. This go-to verse has kept countless multitudes in reverent submission to a variety of cultural expectations. At least until many of those submissive masses come of age. When many inevitably rebel against the behavioral expectations set for them, are they rebelling against the word of God?
Context matters. If we learn to read the Bible for what it is—and not as a collection of independently assembled proverbial sayings—we’ll discover that some of our most familiar passages don’t actually mean what we’ve always assumed.
Heart2 (2011), Creative Commons
The Verse
It appears rather straightforward. I’ll even go as far as to quote two verses:
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:19-20)
Easy, right? If you profess to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, your body has become a temple for his Spirit. Therefore, it is not appropriate for you to put harmful substances (alcohol, tobacco) into it, or to mutilate your body with excessive piercings. Glorifying God in your body requires you to abstain from such harmful behaviors.
Consistency
Let’s just make sure to follow that line of thinking all the way into the station. If this verse prohibits alcohol, tobacco, or piercings, then how much more does it also prohibit caffeine, chocolate cake, bacon grease, late nights, failure to bathe, steel factory employment, vasectomies, and drivers’ licenses? Each of these things either 1) introduces harmful substances to the body, 2) puts the body at significant risk of harm, or 3) makes permanent bodily changes for reasons other than preserving health.
Charles Spurgeon understood the absurdity of this logic. The story is told1 of the time he met Dwight L. Moody. Upon being greeted by the Prince of Preachers chomping on a flaming stogie, Moody exclaims, “How could you, a man of God, smoke that cigar?” Spurgeon advances on Moody with pointing finger aimed at the latter’s seriously overweight gut: “The same way that you, a man of God, can be that fat.”
The Context
But we need not rely on witticisms or sophistry to make the point. The context is more than adequate to the task.
The main idea of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is that the church of God, set apart in Christ Jesus, must live in harmony and not with factional infighting (1 Cor 1:2, 10-11). He first addresses how factional thinking betrays the world’s wisdom and is contrary to Christ’s wisdom (1 Cor 1-4). Then he turns to matters of sexual conduct.
In 1 Cor 5, Paul addresses a serious matter with serious words. The Corinthians must not tolerate sexual sin, especially not sin that even pagans would refuse to tolerate (1 Cor 5:1). This leads Paul to clarify what sort of people they ought to dissociate from: not all sinners, but those who walk proudly in sin while bearing the name of Christ (1 Cor 5:9-11). The church has a responsibility to judge those inside her community (1 Cor 5:12-13).
This topic of sitting in judgment on offenders leads Paul into a tangential discussion of lawsuits (1 Cor 6:1). His point is that we should be able to trust the church to be competent in rendering justice, as we will one day judge the world (1 Cor 6:2). The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom (the authority to judge the world), but the righteous will (1 Cor 6:9-10). Some of you were in the former group, but now you are in the latter (1 Cor 6:11).
In 1 Cor 6:12, Paul is back on his main topic of sexual misconduct. He deals with what must have been a common saying among Corinthian Christians: “All things are lawful for me” (1 Cor 6:12). But he clarifies that things are lawful only insofar as they are helpful and not enslaving. He questions another saying they have about food (1 Cor 6:13) before homing in on his main point in this part of the argument: “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (1 Cor 6:13).
At this point, he moves into his metaphor of the body as a “member” of Christ (a part of Christ’s own body). He applies this to the sin of prostitution (1 Cor 6:15). One who joins with a prostitute becomes one flesh with the prostitute (1 Cor 6:16), when that person ought to be one spirit with the Lord (1 Cor 6:17).
His application? “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Cor 6:18). To support this application, he uses the metaphor of temple to describe the body. Your body is the Holy Spirit’s temple; therefore, do not offer that temple in union with an illicit sexual partner (something well-accepted in Corinthian culture at the local pagan temple, considered an act of worship).
After prohibiting ungodly sexual ethics in 1 Cor 5-6, Paul moves on in chapter 7 to promote a godly sexual ethic. This rounds out the discussion of sexual ethics, and connects it back to the main theme of living in harmony for the good of the community.
The Linchpin
Tucked right between the application (1 Cor 6:18a) and the temple metaphor (1 Cor 6:19) is a crucial clarifying statement: “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (1 Cor 6:18b). Paul explicitly excludes every other sin from his temple metaphor. Therefore, we are not authorized by the Lord—in fact, we abuse his word—if we use it to address any other sin besides sexual immorality.
Conclusion
Please note: In this post, I am not arguing for drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, getting a tattoo, or piercing your body. Those topics are complex and require more discussion than I’ve offered here. I am simply throwing 1 Cor 6:19 out of the discussion. When discussing anything besides sexual immorality, “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit” is out of bounds. Part of your training for making wise ethical judgments is coming to understand this fact (1 Cor 6:2).
Context matters.
1I say “the story is told” because I have not been able to track down an original source for this story, so it may be spurious.
Thanks to Matthew Bair for the idea for this post. Click to see more examples of why context matters.
Related Posts
Thank you. Your section on consistency hits on notion that I see time and time again in our churches. It’s almost post-modernist thinking in a churchy vernacular. We dress up our traditions to burden members in some areas, thinking it sounds wise, using reasoning that if applied consistently would easily illustrate its lunacy.
Yes, it only applies to prostitutes, not your girlfriends. “He applies this to the sin of prostitution (1 Cor 6:15). One who joins with a prostitute becomes one flesh with the prostitute (1 Cor 6:16). (1 Cor 6:18b). Paul explicitly excludes every other sin from his temple metaphor. ” There is a strict legal definition of a prostitute.” Girlfriends are not prostitutes. Porneia is a Greek word that essentially means “illicit sexual activity.” Now what is illicit? An unmarried person can not be an adulterer(breaking the commandment). In fact many marriages have resulted from carnal relations with a girlfriend. Now isn’t that good?
In the Bible, these specific acts are prohibited:
Carnal relations with close relatives or in-laws (Leviticus 18:6-18)
Adultery (Leviticus 18:20, Mark 10:17-19)
Same gender intercourse (Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
Carnal relations with an animal (Leviticus 18:23)
Your article caused me to go back and study the passage in question. Having done so, I agree that the logic of this verse should not be used to support standards that are solely cultural, as you indicate in the introduction It seems to me that this is the way this passage is abused most often.
I respectfully suggest, however, that limiting this verse only to sexual immorality goes beyond what the passage actually says. It appears to me that the last two statements Paul is making in this chapter are general principles being applied to the sin in question but are not exclusive nor limited only to sexual immorality. While they support the specific prohibition against sexual immorality, they are not limited to that alone.
The passage uses the principle that one’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit as support for not engaging in sexual immorality. The argument is that, since your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, you should not use it to sin, specifically, sexual sin which is not only against God but against your body. However, that does not exclude use of this principle to exhort us to abstain from any other sin as defined by God (again, versus cultural preferences) — it simply shows that it supports Pauls’ specific argument here.
Similarly, the following verse (“glorify God in your body”) is also a principle that supports the argument in question but is not limited to sexual purity only. Certainly we would not argue that the only way we glorify God in our bodies is through sexual purity. Citing it in support of his overall admonition on sexual immorality doesn’t mean it fails to apply elsewhere.
In context, I would suggest that the argument that sexual immorality is a sin against one’s body is more related to its antecedent command to flee sexual immorality. That is, he’s saying one reason to flee this specific sin is that it involves one’s body in addition to sinning against God. The citation of the body being the temple of the Holy Spirit appears to be directed toward demonstrating that this sin, against our body, is all the worse because our bodies are special as the temple of the Holy Spirit. In other words, it’s arguing for that our bodies matter to God, and it’s cited because they seem to have forgotten (“do you not know…”) this truth and its implications.
I love your site and your book. I wholeheartedly agree with reading the Bible to see what it is saying to us rather than imposing our views on it, including taking every passage in context. However, since God chose to use human language, along with its various principles of logic, we need to be careful to follow the reasoning being employed by the author.
Citing a principle in support of a specific application does not limit that principle only to that one situation unless the text makes clear that it does. The witness of the rest of scripture is that that we should glorify God in our bodies and not use them for sin. For that reason, in addressing actual sin, I believe the passage in question is indeed a valid principle applicable to God’s children as to how we should conduct ourselves in these earthly bodies and should not be limited just to sexual immorality.
Thank you for your careful study and thoughtful comment, Randall. I would agree with you that the use of a general principle for a specific application does not necessarily limit the use of that principle to that one application.
However, you captured the point clearly: “Citing a principle in support of a specific application does not limit that principle only to that one situation unless the text makes clear that it does.” Does not Paul, in this text, state such a limitation quite clearly?
“Every other sin a person commits is outside the body…” (1 Cor 6:18).
I believe Randall Hartman is right. The first word in 1 Cor 6:18, “EVERY other sin a person commits is outside the body…,” need not be taken as absolute. Both in the New Testament (see Mark 1:5, for example) and in everyday language, every / all can mean “the great majority” or “lots and lots.” If I say, “Everyone in Green Bay loves the Packers football team,” we know that I might at the same time acknowledge that there are some people in Green Bay who are fans of other teams.
Hello Peter. It’s so refreshing to see people dive into His Word to make sure they rightly divide the Word of Truth. I know it’s been a while since you posted this article, nevertheless I enjoyed it and the follow up discussion. May I drop my belated 5 cents into the mix. In 1. Corinthians 3:16-17 Paul also mentions that we are his temple. Here he talks about the collective of believers and admonishes them to stop bickering. So in light of that I think that those that argue that you can use the temple of God metaphor for other things outside of sexual immortality are correct as Paul himself did it. But, of course, you have a very valid point as well as sexual sins weigh heavier than someone lighting up a cigarette or things of that nature.
If you have bad habits such as smoking any plant based product, indulging in the fruit of the vine, you will get to see Christ the Judge sooner. Ephesians 5:29 “for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,” Take care of the physical body.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 16 “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? ” 17 “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” Don’t be a glutton nor a drunkard.
So using heroine and dope on my body is committing a sin outside my body and therefore no relation to it as abusing the temple of the Holy Spirit. It’s against pure and simple logic.
Importantly, the word “other” is not in the original Greek but is added in most translations. It’s more likely that Paul is quoting another Corinthian slogan here (with the Corinthians arguing that all sins are outside the body), then immediately refuting it with the example of illicit sex. So I’m afraid your argument is based on a tenuous reading.
The story I heard about Spurgeon’s encounter with Moody had a different answer. Moody asks when Spurgeon is going to quit smoking and Spurgeon throws the cigar on the ground and says “Whenever you can bend over and pick it up.” Much funnier and more “Spurgeonlike” I think.
You are not keeping in context Spurgeon, for later in his life in context he was convicted of smoking the cigars and stopped completely. He saw it was not a good testimony at all as well as not good for health. So be totally complete and honest in your reporting of things. If anything at all is taught in the scriptures along these lines, it is that all Christians are to be careful to do the best they can in taking care of our bodies which God gave to us! We are not to go out and try and make them a spectacle showing off on the body things which seek to speak something to the ones who see our bodies as well as the clothing we put upon the body. Perhaps you should read James and get that lesson on the clothing and if that is right to teach it is not proper to dress certain ways, then it sure is much more important not to damage the cells of the body with mutilations and ink to get a message across to others. Not only is it not proper to mess around harming our bodies with cuttings, holes punched in it to do crazy things and look crazy but we must also remember the Holy Spirit lies in us and it is HIS temple and that also our health as well as our visual appearance speaks much about our mental attitudes and character. I know this for a fact having lived some 80 years now and been around and involved with it all. Let’s go back to seeking to get our attention off of our self and our bodies and our dressing up to attract attention to give many differing messages and begin to honor Christ and our fellow man also with a right message which going the way you suggest is fine will not prove to be o.k. nor very couth!
Paul is saying this body we experience is NOT the body of Christ or the Temple of the Holy Spirit. God forbid that were so, and a person could join the body of Christ with a harlot, where the two become one flesh. Instead, believers have a new spiritual body that is “hidden with Christ IN God” that they will experience someday. (Colossians 3:3,4).
Is engaging in self harm (i.e. cutting/burning of the flesh) then a sin based on these verses? I know it’s not good for me, but I have been trying to use these verses as a catalyst to stop self harming. If I can think of every time I hurt myself as a way of hurting the temple of the Holy Spirit, maybe I can stop hurting myself. Maybe not, but it is worth a try. But if that is not what these verses are saying then maybe I need to rethink my position so I can better try to stop self harming.
Thanks for asking, Jen. I would urge you to talk to a Christian counselor for help with thinking this through. Someone who can get to know you in person will offer more helpful counsel than we can online.
Hi Jen. I just came across the article above and the follow up posts. It’s heartbreaking to see that you’ve been going through that. I hope you were able to talk to a good Christian counselor as Peter suggested and that you were able to work through the trauma that made you start cutting. I’m praying for you.
I count it a great privilege to stumble on this conversation as i research, joining this conversation, I just want to state that, this passage, whether we seek to limit it to the contextual issue or not, it is simply instructing us that we are not the owner of our physical bodies, just as we are not the owner of our spirits, we are stewards; therefore, we should be mindful of the way we use our God given bodies-it must not be abused either by harming it or using it using to harm others. Our “bodies are trusts” from the Creator, it must be used to honour God always. It must be noted that harming the physical bodies will automatically affect the content- the Spirit / Breath of God who is the Zeal and holy. Abuse and misuse of the body will projects an image to the physical world about the spiritual since both are connected- physical body houses the Spirit of God. We should note that everyone will give account of whatever he or she uses every part of the body to do, to the rightful Owner, who knitted him or her together in his or her mother’s wombs or even in the laboratory bottles. We are not the owner, we belong to GOD therefore, we must live right.
Where does Paul get the basic tenant that our bodies are temples? It is not in the Hebrew bible. Perhaps in Exodus? Is it part of Paul’s mystery? Is it simply that we should know, based on Paul’s epistles and gospel, that our body is the temple.
In brief, Paul appears to take all the Old Testament categories and symbols (such as temple, priest, sacrifice, etc.) and rework them around Jesus the Messiah. As they find their fulfillment in him, they then also get applied to the people who trust him and have become members of his body. Theological treatises have been written on this topic, so I am giving only a very brief summary.
I was a smoker for 40 years, and finally was able to quit with God”s help. As a temple of God (my Body) I felt this was what God would want me to do. To continue with this sinful addiction I felt it would be a failure to repent or turn from this substance which everyone knows is poison. This was a personal conviction I felt which came from The Holy Spirit. I drink occasionally and have never had the conviction that this is something that grieves The Holy Spirit. The first miracle Jesus performed was turning water to wine at a ceremony. If I use alcohol to excess, like Noah did, then I have crossed the line and need to repent.
Respectfully, I disagree. You are absolutely correct that the context of this passage is sexual immorality, and that this verse needs to be first understood in that context. But that does not mean that it cannot have other legitimate implications and applications.
For example when Paul says in Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”, the context here is salvation—that is to say, who can and cannot be “heirs according to the promise”. But that does not mean that being “one in Christ” does not have valid applications outside of the immediate (and glorious) reality of being included in Christ.