The Law of Profit and Mastery

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.  Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. (1 Corinthians 6:12-13 NASB)

 It seems odd to say that all things are 'lawful'.  It just does.  It doesn't sound right.  How can all things be lawful?  Paul refers to the Jewish law and justification before God, but that's only possible to understand for us through other writings of his (Galatians and Romans for instance).  Even so, how can all things suddenly become lawful?  Paul can eat a ham sandwich because Jesus died on a cross and rose again?  It doesn't seem to fit.

The church in Corinth is made up of both Jewish and Gentile believers.  They keep the Passover together.  Their Scriptures are the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Greek, but still the Hebrew Scriptures.  They are mixed, very likely with a majority of Gentile believers, but there is still an inescapable Jewish context for the early church.  The teachings of Paul seem to have included resistance toward becoming Jewish either to be saved, or as a mark of salvation.

On the other hand, Paul has clearly said that no one who is characterized by any of several sins he lists, twice, will inherit the Kingdom of God; therefore behavior is a mark of salvation.  That in itself can be difficult, and has confused various church denominations causing strife between some.  What is the relationship between being justified solely by faith yet that justification being evident in activities?  Again, how can all things be lawful, yet following the rules is evidence of salvation?

Not all things are profitable, nor will Paul permit himself to be mastered by anything.  For Paul it seems that behavior, and therefore the evidence of salvation, is not a matter of rules and law, but of profit and mastery.  It almost sounds like a 'situational ethical' criteria.  But he goes on to explain in a specific instance, getting there from the oblique reference to food, but centering around a different appetite.

Food and sex are probably the most clearly difficult addictions to overcome.  After all, both are naturally occurring physiological drives of all humans.  One we can't live without.  Both have very pronounced affects on our emotions and brain physiology.  These chemicals released into our brains can become very pleasant, and our drive can easily tend toward such things rather than the behavior, which becomes a vehicle.  This is why it's also easy to jump from one to the other addiction, or between addictions in general (smokers who quit becoming over weight for instance).

So what?  Paul drives at the heart of this right here.  He is obviously familiar with these two appetites, what human isn't.  And he has probably seen more than most how destructive they can become when lives become obsessed with them.  He brings this home to this congregation in Ancient Corinth because it clearly has become an issue there, or at least an obsession with sex has.

Paul addresses this problem not from the standpoint of 'law', but rather from the standpoint of profit and mastery.  These people are proud of their 'mastery' over whatever, philosophy, intellect, debate, each other, and so on.  Paul points out that they have been 'mastered' by something else.  Ironically, salvation is made up of submission to God, so we are to be mastered, but by God, not our own appetites.

What Paul is doing can be guessed at by his method.  It makes sense if the ancient congregation has a prevailing thought that, since they are not under the Jewish law, giving in to their appetites is acceptable.  So while Paul concedes that they are not under law, he argues against giving in to being mastered by their appetites.  Since the basis for his argument can't be 'law', he instead bases it on profitability in their relationship with their Savior.

In essence, Paul is stating that when the believers practiced sexually immoral behavior, they brought the Spirit of God into the practice with them.  The Holy Spirit was 'joined' (in a sense) with an unholy act.  When put that way, it actually explains why behavior should mark salvation really well.  How could we join the holiness of our Immanent Savior with acts of unholiness, and then somehow believe it's all okay?  We can't!  It doesn't fit.  What didn't make sense before (all things are lawful) now is eclipsed by the sheer senselessness of joining the holy and profane.

So while it's not about some 'legal code' for me, it is about holiness.  And this holiness, like my faith, my righteousness, and justification is 'imputed' rather than earned.  In other words, just like I didn't earn faith but it is a gift, like I didn't earn my relationship with Jesus it was given to me, and like I didn't earn my 'not-guilty' declaration by God but received it from Jesus' payment on my behalf; so also holiness has been given to me.  Therefore it's now a matter of what I do with this holiness rather than about being under a set of rules.

My desire to please my Master means that I 'steward' this imputed holiness.  I keep myself a clean temple in which He has condescended to live.  I will not be mastered by anything, but I will be mastered by Someone.  That's the difference.  I am holy as He is holy, for much the same reason as the Hebrews in the desert.  For as God was among His people, so He is within me, within the wasteland of my soul.  And He still brings streams in the desert, and flowers in the wastes.