Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1Cor 6:18-20)Concluding this section dedicated to sexual immorality, Paul says flee from it. That means run. Run for your life. Run faster than you run from every other sin, because this one defiles you in a way that no other sin has the power to do.
If you’re like me, you’re tempted to say “Wait a minute. There are other sins that affects your body. How about drug abuse? Or suicide? That has to affect the body more than fornication”
If you still think of your body as merely a biological entity, you’d be correct in stating those objections, but Paul argues that since the Holy Spirit lives in you, your body is a temple. And the worst sin you can commit against a temple is not tearing it down. It is defiling it. Bringing that which is unclean into it.
The Lord never let fire rain down on the Roman army that destroyed the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. But when Nadab and Abihu approached God’s altar with a fire that wasn’t from God, he torched them alive (Lev 10:1-2)
Your body is a temple. It is holy, set apart for God. It doesn’t belong to you. It is his. He bought it at the price of his son’s blood. Therefore glorify God in it.
Posts
This isn't exactly to do with this post, but do you have any thought on Bible versions? All of your reflections on Christian issues are so well written and well thought out, I would be really interested to read what you might have to say on the Bible version debate.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the question, anonymous. I'm assuming you're referring to the debate of whether the KJV is the only valid translation of the Bible. I'll say this about those who hold this position, that I appreciate their jealousy for the word of God, and their desire to keep it pure.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I haven't heard any compelling evidence that the KJV is any more pure than a good modern translation. To the contrary, it seems that the more manuscripts are discovered, the more it becomes clear that there are a few minor mistakes in the manuscripts that the translators of the KJV had access to back in the early 1600's.
Remember when we affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, we're referring to its original manuscripts. Lots of copies were made, and some of them have small errors like typos or left out words, or little side notes that have made it into the text of the next copy or so on. The more copied manuscripts are discovered, the clearer it becomes what the originals have said, and at this time I'm aware of no more than a handful passages that are subject to any dispute at all. And none of them are "essential" in the sense that leaving them in or taking them out would change any doctrines.
In addition, the English language has changed considerably in the last 400 years. Rhinos are for example no longer called unicorns, as they are in the KJV (much to the amusement of some atheists). However I'll grant that some nuances are lost in modern language translations. For example ye and thou will both be translated "you" in modern English, and you no longer know whether it is a singular or plural "you" unless you can see it from the context.
Third point I'd like to make is that the KJV debate seems to be a bit Anglo-centric. So being born and raised in Norway, I see this with a bit of a different perspective. If I should believe that the KJV is the only "pure" translation of the Bible, that would mean there are no pure translations in Norwegian (although we have our own crew of NB 1930-only people). Absurdly a few years ago a Norwegian branch of a KJV only group actually went as far as to translate the KJV into Norwegian from English.
In stead I like to consult a number of different translations when I study the Word. I like the NASB for a good literal word-for-word translation. Another good one that I've become more acquainted with recently is the ESV. It often reads a little easier. And don't tell anyone, but when I read out loud to my wife and daughter at night I actually prefer the NLT. It is certainly not word-for-word, but it reads very easily and naturally. I wouldn't use it for in-depth study of any passage, but I haven't caught any big ugly errors in it either. The correct meaning of a verse usually comes out very well, and you don't have to work as hard to understand it as with a word-for-word translation.
Wow. I rambled on and on. Hope this all was remotely related to your question. Blessings.
That was wonderful Ruben!
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for taking the time to "ramble" in answering my question. I have been looking into the different versions a lot myself in recent months and I have been thinking the same thing that you have said (although you put it into words much better than I ever could!), but every so often someone who is adament the KJV is the only version worth reading says something that makes me wonder afresh.
I tend to be a ESV person, my fiance likes the NIV, and we both keep a KJV to consult on finer points of doctrine. But reading what you have to say always helps bring together the many strands of thought I have on a topic, and your answer was VERY helpful :).
I really appreciate the way you and your wife use the internet to encourage others in their walk with Christ.
-Gwen