I was born this way (1Cor 6:11)

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1Cor 6:11)

We all have issues with the way we were born. That’s why Jesus said that unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3)

“Such were some of you”. Yet something happened to you, so that you’re not defined by your past sins and inclinations any more.

You were washed. You’re not dirty anymore. Your past sins no longer defile you. There is no need for you to feel dirty, because God has washed your old dirt away.

You are sanctified. That means you are in a process of becoming more and more holy. Gradually those sins become less appealing to you. And in place of the inclination to sin you’ll find an increasingly strong inclination toward serving and obeying God.

You were justified. That is a legal term, which means you are declared not guilty. Yes, you have sinned, but Jesus took on himself the guilt for your sin. He took the punishment that belonged to you. Jesus was punished to the full extent of your guilt. Now you’re free to go. No punishment, no grudges. Your guilt is erased, and your record is clean. It is just as if you had never committed those sins in the first place.

I know many of us have things in our pasts that we are deeply ashamed of. But if you have been born again, let these truths penetrate the way you think about those sins. There’s no need to feel dirty. There’s no need to hide your guilt, or to explain yourself, or justify yourself. Doing that only serves to hold on to what you were, and hinder you in what you now are.

Let it go!

180 movie / Join the abolition movement

It is easy to admire people who in the past have risen up against great evils. Brave men like William Wilberforce who put an end to the slave trade, Dietrich Bonhoeffer known for his bold stand against Nazism, or the reformers who sacrificed their lives to free the people of God from the bondage of the Catholic Church.


But have you ever wondered where you would be if you lived in those times? Whether you would have stood your ground next to them or run for cover? Perhaps you have secretly wished yourself back to a time when there were great cultural evils to fight against, as a hero looking for a cause.


Well no time travel is needed. Ray Comfort has done an excellent job in revealing the greatest evil of our day. The worldwide legalized massacre of unborn children. There is a movement on the rise for the abolition of abortion. Do you want to stand with us? Help spread this movie to your friends. You just might save the life of one of their future children.

You'll probably read this, cause it is about sex... (1Cor 6:9-10)

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Cor 6:9-10)

One of the great blessings of studying the Bible verse by verse as we have done, is that our understanding of each verse becomes so much richer. So in these verses we find more than a list of sins that bring on the judgment of God.

We already saw in chapter 5 the connection between Gods condemnation and Church discipline. If God has rejected someone the church should not accept them. That is connected in here.

Another thing that is connected is our discussion last time about law suits. “Do not be deceived” takes on two different meanings here: Do not be deceived into thinking that if some brother has sinned against you, justice won’t be done unless an earthly court rules in your favor. God will certainly bring them to justice.

And do not be deceived into thinking you can get away with anything either. If you are taking your brother to court with the intention to defraud him, God knows your heart.

And on top of all that, these verses also transition us into a longer discussion on sexual immorality. We have here roughly the same list of sins that we found in chapter five, when we talked about church discipline. Except this time Paul is a bit more specific about some sexual sins that apparently must have been prevalent in Corinth.

First in the list is Fornicators, or “pornos” in Greek, that we discussed briefly back in chapter 5. The word means someone who commits any kind of sexual immorality.



What's in a word?


A question that has been much debated over the last few decades is what is actually immoral and what is not. For the first 1900 years or so after these words were written, “pornos” was more or less universally understood to mean any sex outside of marriage. Over the last 50 to 100 years, our culture has gone through a massive paradigm shift when it comes to sexual morality. And we seem to be almost at the point where it is considered immoral to even suggest that sex is limited only to marriage. But at the same time we know that God is unchanging, and what he considered immoral 2000 years ago, he still considers immoral today. So someone must be wrong here. It’s either us or everyone who lived before us.

So given our cultural context, I find myself being forced to look for a Bible verse that explicitly states that sex is immoral outside of marriage, without understanding the word “pornos” to mean what it has meant for nearly two millennia. It is a bit of a challenge, but even if we reduce the semantic range of the word to mean only marital unfaithfulness as many have suggested, we still have a rich supply of arguments and implications that support the traditional view of sex.


The true meaning of marriage

First we can look to God’s original design for marriage. The first marriage took place as early as Genesis 2:21-25:

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

When God instituted marriage he did it for a very specific reason. He didn’t let us know what that reason was right away, but in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians he makes it very clear:

Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body.

FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband. (Eph 5:22-33)

What I want to impress on your minds is how highly God esteems marriage, and how profound that union really is. It is more than a couple of signatures on a document. Yet in our culture that is what it has been reduced to, and thus it’s easy to argue that those signatures make no significant difference. If you love one-another and are committed to one-another, what is really the difference morally if you sign a contract that you can get out of anyway if you want to?

That’s not what God designed marriage to be though. It is an unbreakable, life-long covenant between a man and a woman, where they play out a small-scale version of the unbreakable life-long covenant between Christ and the Church.

So marriage is a relation unlike any other. This is so lost in our culture, that I dare to say that many who are married on paper are still committing fornication because they are not married according to God’s definition of what marriage is. And God’s definition is what goes, no matter what documents our government decides to issue.

In light of what marriage is then, God commands us to esteem it, and keep the physical relation that comes with it undefiled:

Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Heb 13:4)

Does all of this combined, even without the word “pornos” meaning what it actually means, add up to an explicit command not to have sex outside of marriage? I’d say we’re at least getting very, very close. And I chose to take you down this road because understanding the reason for a command is the best way to be convinced of it. It is a lot easier to obey commands when we understand why they exist.


What "pornos" means elsewhere...

But with this foundation being laid, I also want to take a few seconds to convince you that the Greek word “pornos” also includes sex out of marriage, and that Paul would uses that word to mean sex out of marriage just a few sentences away from where we’re at. We’ll jump a bit ahead of ourselves to chapter 7, verse 1 and 2:

Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

The word immoralities here is the “porneia” in Greek. It is a different form of the same word, both from the common root “porneo”. What Paul is saing here, is that there are some advantages to being unmarried (and we’ll learn more about that when we get here in our studies), but that because of the temptation to have sex outside of marriage, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. It can not mean anything else. Try substituting it for adultery, and the sentence doesn’t make sense.


Homosexuality and scripture twisting

Having laid a solid foundation with God’s original design for marriage and sex, we are now better suited to understand the reasoning behind the two other sins that we didn’t already go through in chapter 5. We see that included in the list of people who will not inherit the kingdom of God are effeminate and homosexuals.

Of course the meaning of these words have been subject to some controversy as well. They refer to the passive and the active partner in a homosexual relationship. In Ancient Greek culture homosexuality was very common, and young boys were even dragged into this and abused by older men. Knowing this, many have tried to argue that it is only this practice Paul was forbidding. Not relationships between consenting adults.

So if this verse only forbids older men (the active parner) from abusing young boys (the passive partner, or the effeminate), let’s try to insert that meaning into the text: “...nor children who are molested, nor the people who molest them … shall inherit the kingdom of God.” How’s that interpretation working out for you?


God's unpopular stance on homosexuality

It is not politically correct to say this, and it is not unlikely that it will soon become illegal to say this, but we need to say it anyways. The Bible is crystal clear that homosexuality is a sin. Our culture has trained us from childhood to be abhorred at such a suggestion, and to automatically ascribe a motive of hatred, prejudice and self-righteousness to whoever dares say it. It is a sin worse than not rinsing and folding your milk cartons before you put them in the recycling bin.

But the Bible is still insistent:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev 18:22)

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Rom 1:26-27)

These and several other passages are very clear in their condemnation of homosexuality. Not because God hates them, but because is is a sin which by nature obscures God’s original purpose for marriage. The picture of Christ and the church is obscured when marriage becomes anything else than a life-long covenant between a man and a woman.

That being said, it is a fact that many still find themselves primarily attracted to someone of the same sex. It is much debated whether they are born that way or become that way through cultural influence. The argument is that if they are born that way, then certainly God cannot blame them for being that way. So many feel like if we can prove that they weren’t born that way that would absolve God of responsibility in the matter.

On closer examination though, we realize that God holds us responsible for following all kinds of inclinations that we were born with. God commands us not to lie, yet we were all born with the inclination to lie. No one had to teach me how to do it. I figured it out all on my own the first time I found myself in a situation where the truth was to my disadvantage. My parents didn’t have to teach me how to do it, they had to teach me not to lie. Now just because I was not born with any inclination toward homosexuality, I discovered fairly early in my life that I had an inclination to be attracted to girls. I was born that way. But that doesn’t mean I’m not guilty for the sinful thoughts and actions that have resulted from that inclination.

Now I don’t mean to be insensitive to those who are experiencing same-sex attraction, because at the very least I had the hope of some day living out those inclinations that I had in a righteous and God-honoring way, even though I had to wait for a bit. They do not. Still the truth is we all at some level have to deny the inclinations we were born with to obey God. And the key to being able to do that comes to us in the next verse...

Stay tuned!

Why not rather be wronged? (1Cor 6:7-8)

Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. (1Cor 6:7-8)

Jesus said some very radical things about the attitude a believer should have toward being wronged. He said:

You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. (Matt 5:38-40)

So then it becomes obvious that going to court against anyone is already a defeat. By doing so we put on display a heart that seeks revenge, rather than reconciliation. We reveal that we are not like Jesus, who by his death opened up the door to heaven for his killers. In fact one of the Roman centurions who conducted his execution, when he saw the supernatural events that followed Jesus’ death, he said “Truly, this was the son of God”. I would not be shocked to one day see this roman centurion in heaven. That is the grace of Christ.

“Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” Those are indeed strange questions for those who do not have this mindset that our savior has, who died praying for the for forgiveness for those who killed him.

Having this mindset is a statement of trust in the supreme, eternal justice of God. It means setting aside your desire for immediate justice, knowing that God will not let any wrongdoing go unpunished:

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. (Rom 12:19)

Do you believe in the wrath of God? When someone does wrong to you, God is angry. And he will make sure justice is done in the end. Even if they live a long and happy life, and die in peacefully at old age without ever seeing any retribution, God will pour out his wrath on them in Hell.

Or even better, if they repent from their sins they will have part in the atoning death of Christ, when God poured out his wrath over their sin on his own son. And they will have part in the same undeserved salvation that we have.

Taking your own revenge is denying these realities. So in stead of trusting in God’s justice, you put yourself in his place, and execute your own judgment. You may get the immediate satisfaction you’re looking for, but God’s perfect will is always best, and sin always takes you out of God’s perfect will.

So in light of this, Paul offers another way of dealing with evil. Not combating it with further evil, but defeating it with good:

BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom 12:20-21)

So then going to court against a brother is an act of unwillingness to forgive and to show another the same kind of grace that God has shown us. And it is an act of deliberate injustice, by circumventing the church and seeking mediation from those who do not know God, hoping that they will rule unjustly in your favor, rather than the church ruling justly in favor of your opponent, or telling you to let it go. And finally it is an act of distrust in the supreme eternal justice of God. It is shoving God out of the courtroom to deal with things on our own, in ways that fall short of God’s perfect justice.

See you in court? (1Cor 6:1-6)

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? (1Cor 6:1-6)

Usually in literature chapters come at natural breaks in the text, and changes of topic. That’s true most of the time in the Bible as well, but we need to keep in mind that the division into chapters and verses were added to the text 1500 years later.

So then we need to ask ourselves, does this break considerably from what we were talking about in chapter five with church discipline, or is it just a natural extension of it?

Last time we were talking about how the church deals with a member who sins, and this time we’re talking about how the church deals with a member who sins. The difference is this time the sin has caused a deep disagreement between two members of the church, and it is not immediately clear which one of them actually is the sinner and which one is the victim.

So, being the Greeks they are, and being children of their time, the most natural thing for them to do is to take their brother to court to have the dispute settled. The courts of the time were called the dikastic courts, and were run by fairly simple principles. There was an assembly of 200 to 500 men, depending on the type of case. These men held the title of dikastai. They were appointed at the beginning of every year. To become a dikastai, you had to be a legal citizen over the age of 30, and you had to be willing to take a dikastic oath.

The accuser would make a speech before the court, and then the defendant would do the same. Then the dikastai, would vote in favor of one of them. If it was a crime that required punishment, they would have another round afterward, where the accuser and defendant both proposed what they saw as an appropriate punishment, and they would decide that as well by vote.

The democratic courts were the pride and joy if the Greek civilisation. The symbol of their civility and wisdom. In most other cultures at the time, you would take them before a regional leader appointed by the king, or even just someone who had great power because he was rich, and the verdict and punishment would be completely at this one mans discretion.

But the wisdom of the world is not like the wisdom of God. And what is right in the eyes of a democratic assembly is not necessarily what God wants.

God’s laws are written on every man’s heart, and this is reflected in every law text of every country in the world to some degree. But sin clouds our judgment and causes us to collectively make up provisions for it. And those compromises make it into law as well. So even though the laws and morals of unbelievers are influenced by God, they are not a perfect reflection of his righteousness.

So Paul poses the question, why would you not rather go to those who have the spiritual wisdom to judge? Why do you go to those who lack an intimate knowledge of the heart of God, and ask them to decide? The implication being, maybe the unregenerate are more likely to rule in your favor. Maybe they will not see your subtle “legalized” sin in all of this, but rather rule against the one you’re disagreeing with. While in God’s eyes you yourself are the offender. It is probably in this sense Paul say that you wrong and defraud your brethren, when you go to court against them in verse 8.

The saints will rule the earth with Christ in the millennial kingdom. And angels will be subject to us as well. So is the spiritual state in Corinth so poor that there isn’t even one in the church who has the wisdom to pass good judgments? Do they need to get an unbeliever to decide in even the most minor of disagreements?

Paul is not proposing here, that we should set up a Christian court system, like the Muslims do with their sharia courts. What would have been the right response is for the man who feels he has been defrauded, to go about the normal procedure for church discipline. After all this man would probably have committed a sin that would warrant church discipline. So first he would need to talk to the offender and see if he would repent. Then take with him one or two other brothers, and finally, if he refused to repent, take him before the whole church.

Now if this man was expelled from the church, I suppose by this text, it wouldn’t be unlawful to then open a court case against him, but as we will see soon that is not really the heart of a believer. Stay tuned for the next post!