Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 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. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NASB)Pulled out of the rest of the chapter, and left in English without explanation, these two verses can be thought to refer to individuals. This use of the reference to 'temple of God' sounds much like chapter 6 verse 19 in which the individual is in view. Here the church is in view.
Paul has been referring to the church as God's 'building' and now becomes more specific than 'building' calling them the temple. And it's not just a 'temple' including the precincts and auxiliary structures, this word refers to the inner sanctuary, the dwelling place of the god. As temples make up much of the structures in downtown Corinth, this would have been a ready reference for them to grasp. For Paul's Jewish background, this would have been the 'Holy-of-Holies' or inner sanctuary of which it was a part.
So what? It shouldn't surprise me that the Spirit of my Master dwells in my church, considering He dwells in the individuals in it. The key point that I believe Paul is making is the destruction of said 'temple'. In other words, the problems which have taken up his initial discussion in these first 3 chapters are destroying the church. So the 'leaders' participating in or inciting the polarizing factions are destroying the church with their worldly human wisdom both in patterns of behavior and teaching. They are the ones trying to build on Paul's foundation, possibly trying to replace his foundation, but building with hay stubble and straw.
While Paul makes allowance that those who build on (teach in) the church may survive the test of fire (v.15), here he says God will destroy the one destroying the church. There's no 'salvation' in that phrase, whatever allowance Paul makes in verse 15. Combining these two verses in the same context helps make my point that arguments over 'eternal security' versus 'apostasy of the saved' are difficult and amusing (for me anyway). So, I'm moving on from there.
What I see here is a serious warning which in my formative religious tradition was both ignored and experienced. In the denomination from which I come, 'church splits' were not only common, but disastrous. And each ensuing disaster became a lesson not learned. Small community churches of the same denomination on facing street corners contained people who would not even look across the street. Years later some knew of the division, but not why, yet still maintained the distance.
In the church I grew up in, we never had a split that formed another church, but I do remember 'groups' leaving the church to join another. I suppose a case can be made that there were some churches that started from one or more of those groups, but they never lasted. Even so, the division itself was seen as a viable option, regardless of these teachings of Paul.
These divisions were not due to 'sin', violation of clear core Scriptural teaching, or anything approaching that. They were over 'personality differences', they stemmed from selfish ambition, bitterness of heart, lack of forgiveness, and envy. Ironically, these are the same things that prompted so much of Paul's writing, and therefore lots of teaching available to those willing to read. And yet, knowing the words and allowing them to affect the heart wasn't happening.
So the lesson for me here is that I have to not only read these words, study their meaning and unpack their implications, but I have to permit my Master's Spirit to impress them into my heart, my soul, and my mind. They have to directly affect my decisions, my choices, and my thought processes. The warning here is that if I get 'off track' and begin teaching out of my own bitterness, selfishness, fear, and envy; I will be destroyed by my Master.
It sounds harsh but the church, the bride of Christ, is at stake. It is my Master defending His beloved, His betrothed, which is obviously not me, but His church; of which I'm supposed to be a part. So, perhaps teaching a belief that I can be His beloved apart from His 'bride' is actually a contradiction. Wouldn't removing such a contradiction strengthen the 'temple of God' rather than risk destroying it? Hmmm.
I like your thoughts on these verses. The context is definitely of the corporate church and how as individuals, we are either contributing good building materials or inferior building materials. When you also consider the context of 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, we can see that Paul uses the same illustration of being a "temple" for the individual as well. In light of this, it seems that what the individual does as and "individual temple" will also affect the corporate temple.
ReplyDeleteI think this is something we have really been missing in the American church; the idea that what we do as individuals affects the corporate. This is a first century mindset that is missing in 21st century western culture. We are too focused on individuality, which lends to the problem of church attendance - the "I can worship God anywhere" mentality.
I absolutely agree that being a part of a local congregation is essential for Christians. Is it a salvation issue? I don't think I would go that far. But I would go on to state that a lack of love for the bride of Christ shows a lack of love for Christ Himself. So I feel it is more of a fruit issue - by their fruit you will know...
Hebrews 10 is another reference for this issue.
In summation: I personally feel that as church leaders, we have an obligation to teach the importance of the corporate church. And I think we should address the individualistic nature of our culture and rebuke those who hold it as a standard above the Bible concerning this issue. However, I can't quite fall in line with this being a salvation issue. It is more of a fruit issue, in my opinion.
Great insight! I admit I'm not that comfortable with the idea of salvation being tied to church participation or 'membership' either. I'm not even clear to what extent the early church differentiated between participation and membership. They had the clear advantage of being the 'only game in town', so even a discussion about 'salvation apart from church' would have been much different then. It was debated though. The effect of 'excommunication' was not accepted consistently throughout east and west. I'll have to check, but I believe the apostolic fathers had more of a 'procedural' approach to the topic where the church fathers examined more the effects of such treatment (did it actually remove salvation for instance). And both these discussions are before true 'Roman Catholicism' regardless of what they claim. Thanks for your perspective. I am going to go and do some more research on what they thought back then about it from the 'excommunication' angle; thanks for pushing back on that!
Delete