1 Corinthians 3:16-17

I've finally begun writing the second chapter of a book I'm working on. A lot of my book reviewing has been in preparation for writing. Usually I just write and modify as I go, but I've spent a lot more time preparing my mind this time.

This morning I was looking at 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, and with surprising results. This is the passage where Paul describes the Corinthian church as "temple of God."

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and the Spirit of God dwells in you? If someone harms the temple of God, God will harm this one. For the temple of God is holy--which you are.

Perhaps the most striking thing to me this morning is that Paul does not absolutely define the Corinthian assembly as the temple of God. He has just finished warning ministers of the gospel about how they "build" on the foundation of Jesus Christ. I think it more likely than not that Paul has a temple building in mind throughout.

But it is interesting when he gets to 3:16 that he does not use the definite article when he says "You are a temple of God." We can debate whether it is appropriate to use the word "a" or not, but clearly Paul's main point is the kind of building they are rather than to equate them with the temple in some absolute way.

It is then interesting in 3:17 that Paul does use the word the in relation to "the temple of God." It is interesting because we might easily hear him to be making statements about the Jerusalem temple in general--"If someone harms the temple of God, God will harm him. The temple of God is holy." Writing around 54, the image of Caligula trying to desecrate the temple some 15 years earlier would be a poignant example.

Then at the end of 3:17, Paul shifts back to the specific analogy to the Corinthian situation--"which you are." In other words, this is what God does to people who mess with his temple in general, and you are a temple too.

I intend to continue playing this hand out throughout Paul's writings. His rhetoric lines up very well with Hebrews on the issue of atonement. But are we reading Paul through the eyes of later Christian belief, especially when it seems clear that other Christians still had a place for the temple in their theology?

The real kicker is justification by faith to be sure. But the new perspective has also made it clear to me that the Reformation absolutized Paul's distinction between faith and works in ways Paul never intended.

We'll see if the thesis will hold up. It is at least interesting to me that my first stop not only did not soften my thesis, it strengthened it.