Anthropic
Temple and Nuptial Symbolism in First Corinthians
André Villeneuve
Saint
John Vianney Seminary, Denver, CO
1. Introduction
The
writers of the New Testament commonly disclose the identity of Christ by means
of a broad array of typological images and motifs that are often
interconnected. Two of these types are temple and nuptial symbolism. The Gospel
of John, for example, presents Jesus as both Bridegroom-Messiah (John 3:29) and
new Temple (2:21) or dwelling place of the divine presence (1:14)—later known
in rabbinical literature as the Shekhinah. Through his rich mystical
sacramental theology, John subtly extends these metaphors beyond the person of
Jesus to the community of believers: and so the disciples in the Fourth Gospel
take on the role of bride of Christ1
and dwelling place of the Father’s presence.2 While
John’s nuptial and Temple typology remains primarily Christological, other New
Testament authors take a different approach. Commenting on John’s account of
the cleansing of the Temple, Raymond Brown distinguishes three different
strains of early Christian thought in the NT on the spiritual temple:3
(a)
the Christian Temple, or house of God, is the Church (Eph.2:19–21, 1 Pet. 2:5,
4:17)
(b)
the Temple is the individual Christian (1 Cor. 3:16, 6:19)
(c)
the Temple is in heaven (Heb. 9:11–12, Rev. 11:19, 2 Bar. 4:5)
St.
Paul is the champion of the first two dimensions, while the third is especially
manifested in the Apocalypse. Paul extends nuptial and temple typology to the
Church, represented as bride, temple, and body of Christ, and also to the
individual Christian; this Christian embodies a “temple of the Holy Spirit” in
whom dwells the divinity. Therefore, Paul tends to develop the temple and
nuptial motifs beyond their Christological dimensions into the ecclesiological
and mystical realms.
Three
Pauline epistles in particular treat of the themes of spiritual temple and
nuptiality: First and Second Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Ephesians.4 These writings reveal a clear confluence of
the nuptial and temple motifs, with the mystical marriage between Christ and
the Church taking place in the Temple of the Holy Spirit—the believer. The
present article aims at examining the interconnection of these two themes in
First Corinthians—that is, how nuptial symbolism is related to temple
symbolism, and how both metaphors are applied ecclesiologically to the Church
and mystically to the Christian. In other words: how does the new temple serve as
the locus of the union between Christ and His bride, and how is the mystical
marriage portrayed as communion within the divine sanctuary, the Church (or
soul of the Christian)?
2. First Corinthians: General
Considerations
Paul
has much to say in First Corinthians about earthly marriage and sexuality (1
Cor. 5–7), the Church and believer as Temple of the Holy Spirit (3:16–17;
6:19–20),5 and the Church as Body of
Christ (6:15–17; 10:17; 11:29; 12:12–26). Some scholars, however, criticize
this epistle as “poor in doctrinal content” and as “that unit among the major
Pauline letters which yields the very least for our understanding of the
Pauline faith.”6 A superficial
scanning of the epistle's content may initially seem to confirm the impression
that Paul writes “an occasional, ad hoc, response to the situation that had
developed in the Corinthian church”7
to address some of their particular problems and questions, such as disunity
and strife (1:10–17, 3:1–4, 6:1–11, 11:18–19), doubts concerning Paul’s
authority (4:1–21, 9:1–27), sexual immorality (5:1–13, 6:12–20), marriage and
consecrated virginity (7:1–40), food sacrificed to idols and idolatry (8:1–13,
10:14– 33), customs and conduct in Christian worship, particularly at the
Lord’s Supper (11:1–34), and spiritual gifts (12:1–31; 14:1–40). This primary
concern for ethics is apparently interspersed with some doctrinal,
philosophical, or theological remarks for the sake of strengthening the moral
exhortations. Such remarks include an excursus on wisdom (1:18–2:16),
agricultural and architectural metaphors for the Church (3:5–17), the necessity
and importance of love (13:1–13) and the resurrection of believers (15:1–58).
A
closer examination of the text, however, reveals that Paul in fact uses
sustained temple imagery and typology throughout in addressing the various
issues of the Corinthian community. When viewed in light of temple typology
applied to the believer (or mystagogy),8 Paul’s
practical directives to the Corinthians turn out to be much more than mere
casuistic and occasional moral exhortations. Rather, they actually describe the
sanctified life of love that ought to flow from the believer’s consecrated
nature as Temple of the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians is rich in a temple
mystagogy that describes the intimate indwelling of the deity within the
Corinthian believers, and is often associated with nuptial/sexual themes:
through baptism, the body is consecrated as Temple of the Holy Spirit, and it
becomes the locus of communion with God, as the physical Temple in Jerusalem
was the place of encounter with the divine Presence for the Jewish people.9
However,
this anthropic temple can become desecrated through sexual immorality, and Paul
quotes the “one-flesh” union of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24 to make his point
(1 Cor. 6:16). He also argues that the man-woman hierarchy derives from the
created order (Gen. 1–2; 1 Cor. 11:3–16), recalling the ancient tradition of
the first androgynous man out of whom God created the female by taking a rib
from his body. For Paul, not only the Eucharist (11:23–32) but also the
community of disciples is the Body of Christ who is “joined” to him (12:12–31).
Moreover, Christ’s identity as the New Adam (15:22, 45–49)—and the derivative
idea of the Church as the New Eve—reveals an additional link between temple and
nuptial symbolism.
3. Wisdom and Temple Building (1 Cor.
1:10–3:23)
Paul
begins by expressing his concern about schisms in the Corinthian church that
contradict the unity signified by the common baptism of all believers
(1:10–17). This point is interrupted by a long excursus on the wisdom and folly
of God and of men in 1:18–2:16, until the theme of unity is resumed in 3:1–4.
In order to drive home the importance of unity, Paul uses two metaphors to
describe the Corinthian church: it is “God’s field” in which different workers
plant and water, but where God alone gives the increase, and “God’s building”
in the process of being constructed (3:9).10
The foundation of this building is Jesus Christ, even though Paul “as a wise
master builder” (sophos architekton) has laid its foundation (3:10–11). Given
the preceding excursus on wisdom and the temple metaphor that immediately
follows in 3:16–17, this mention of the sophos architekton may quite possibly
serve as an allusion to Solomon, the builder of the Temple who was so reputed
for his wisdom. Paul goes on to describe the building materials of this
spiritual structure: gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and straw
(3:12). Fee notes how the first three are frequently mentioned in the Old
Testament as the building materials of the Temple.11
Perhaps the immediate context of burning (where each one’s work “will be
revealed by fire,” 3:13) implies that the latter three (wood, hay, and straw)
refer to the materials formerly used to feed the fire on the altar of
sacrifices. In verse 16, Paul makes explicit what he has been implicitly saying
until now; namely that the spiritual building being erected, the community of
believers, is indeed God’s Temple: “Do you not know that you are the temple of
God (naos theou) and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?”12 Paul uses temple mystagogy to describe the
intimate indwelling of the deity within the Corinthian church. Through baptism
(1:14–17; 6:11), believers have received the Spirit of divine wisdom to build a
holy temple—themselves: “For the temple of God (naos tou theou) is holy
(hagios), which temple you are (humeis este)” (3:17). The use of the plural
indicates that the temple of God here is the community, and through the
community, the Spirit is communicated to individuals.13 Within the Church, therefore, the Corinthians
can experience a personal union with God comparable to the union that took
place between God and His people in the sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple. As
God is holy (hagios), so is His Temple—His people—also hagios, consecrated and
set apart for Him and for His purposes. The Corinthians are in a sense already
sanctified “in Christ;” yet in another sense they are still called to be and
become saints (hagioi) in practice (1:2). However, through their factions they
defile their own Temple, undermining their own identity in Christ and
corrupting the very mystery they are celebrating. The dire consequences of such
behavior are evident: if someone defiles or corrupts (phtheirei) the Temple and
dwelling of God, God will also destroy (phtheirei) that person (3:17). In other
words, the punishment will fit the crime: “To engage in making divisions is to
destroy the divine society and thus to invite God to destroy the sinner.”14
4. Porneia as Defilement of the Anthropic
Temple (1 Cor. 5–9)
In
chapter 5, Paul condemns the sexual misconduct plaguing the church in Corinth
(here, specifically, a case of incest) with a brief mystagogical allusion to
Passover and to the cleansing of leaven, which is equated with sin (5:6–8).15 Just as the Jews must cleanse their homes of
all leaven before celebrating the feast of Passover, so the Corinthian
Christian community must cleanse itself of sin in order to celebrate the
festival of Christ, the Paschal Lamb—perhaps an allusion to the Eucharistic
celebration of the Corinthian community. The severity of the punishment
prescribed in the book of Exodus for eating leavened bread during the
feast—being cut off from Israel (see Exod. 12:15, 19)—helps explain the harsh
penalty of excommunication that Paul imposes upon the culprit (asking the
community to “deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” 5:5).
After
expressing his shock at a case of litigation in the Church (6:1–8), Paul
returns to his concern for bodily purity and explains more thoroughly the
gravity of sexual immorality and the reasons why it defiles the Temple of the
Holy Spirit. With the words “but you were washed
(apelousasthe), but
you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by
the Spirit of our God” (v. 11), he reminds the Corinthians that the washing of
their common baptism is the foundation of their unity, sanctification, and
consecration to God in the Church.16
In
asserting that “the body is not for porneia but for the Lord, and the Lord for
the body” (v. 13), he comes close to saying that the Church is married to
Christ. The body of the baptized believer—consecrated, sanctified and set apart
for God—can no longer be joined in passing and illicit “one-flesh” unions with
women, since this body is now consecrated for a holy union with the deity. It
is “for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” A positive description of the
love between Christ and the Church as model and blueprint of the ideal
“one-flesh” union between husband and wife is formulated more positively in
Ephesians 5. But here in 1 Corinthians 6, Paul feels compelled to deal with the
opposite, negative example. He must forcibly tell the Corinthians what not to
do. Fornication is not only a sexual sin, but also a desecration of their own
bodily temple and an act liable to damage and even destroy their union with
Christ, of which they are the members:
Do
you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the
members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know
that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it
is written, “The two shall become one.” But he who is united to the Lord
becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man
commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do
you not know that your body is a temple (naos) of the Holy Spirit within you,
which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So
glorify God in your body. (1 Cor. 6:15–20)
Although
this passage is closely related to 3:16–17, it brings in some new ideas. Paul
specifies that not only does the community stand as a Temple of the Holy
Spirit, but the believer’s body does so as well.17
Because of the body’s sanctity, Paul takes pains to explain the serious
implications of sexual immorality. The problem of porneia was widespread in
first-century Corinth, a city renowned for its sexual vice and for the cultic
prostitution that took place in its pagan temples.18
The passage highlights how the “one flesh” union affects the bodily Temple of
the Holy Spirit, which is also a member of Christ. In an interesting twist,
Paul quotes the one-flesh union of Genesis 2:24 not as a metaphor for Christ
and the Church (as in Ephesians 5:31), but to describe the contemptible union
of a Christian with a prostitute. This sin is graver than all others because it
constitutes an offense against one’s own body, the Temple of the Holy Spirit,
and against the members of Christ that are “joined to the Lord” and “one spirit
with him” in a covenantal relation of love and loyalty that was sealed at
baptism.19 For this reason, Paul is
much harsher against those believers who engage in porneia than those “of this
world” who are not of the household of faith and whose bodies are not Temples
of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 5:9–13).
But
what precisely is wrong with union with a prostitute? The sexual act per se
obviously does not defile the spiritual Temple or harm the union with Christ,
since this union is permitted and even encouraged between husband and wife in
the very next chapter (and exalted in Ephesians 5 as a sign of the union
between Christ and the Church). In sexual intercourse, two bodies become one.
Being joined to a prostitute, therefore, means to become a “member” of her body
(6:15)— that is, one becomes a “member” of the body of a person who is not a
member of Christ and therefore not destined for resurrection (6:14). The
Christian is holy (kadosh/hagios), meaning sanctified and set apart for God’s
service. The harlot, on the other hand, is a kedeshah;20 not consecrated to God, but rather, set apart
or “consecrated” to her sinful trade that is in open contradiction with the
divine purpose of sexuality. Paul’s discussion here assumes Jesus’ teachings on
the permanence of marriage, and the passage becomes clearer within the context
of the wider NT tradition on this topic. Both Jesus in the synoptics and Paul
in Ephesians refer to Genesis 2:24 and to Adam and Eve’s nuptial union as the
standard and prototype of the “one flesh” union between man and woman, as it
was “in the beginning.” In Matthew 19:4–5, Jesus refers to the ancient
tradition that God originally made Adam an androgynous being, “male and female”
(see Gen. 1:27; 5:2).21 By taking Eve
out of Adam, God created two complementary persons and left in them the
insatiable desire to return to their primeval unity and wholeness and again be
joined together as “one flesh.”
This
original unity, separation, and longing to return to one-flesh unity forms the
ground for Jesus’ radically new teaching on marriage: “So then,” He
declares—since God made them “male and female,” since woman was originally
“taken out of man” and is “bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh,” and since
a man “shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife”—on this basis,
when they return together to their primal unity, “they are no longer two but
one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt.
19:6). In this light, the problem of the union with a prostitute becomes
obvious: the one-flesh union no longer expresses the sacred, permanent bond of
body and soul that sexual union is meant to represent. This union consequently
becomes degraded to that of a contract of convenience where the body is used as
an object of consummation, temporarily “purchased” for the man’s pleasure, and
“disposed of” after use. In Ephesians 5, Paul emphasizes the sanctity and
permanence of human marriage even more strongly because it is modeled on and
derived from the covenantal, faithful, and enduring marriage between God and
His people. In this indomitable union, the bridegroom bestows holiness
(kedushah) upon the bride and consecrates her to himself in a permanent bond of
love.22 Thus, the innate
contradiction of becoming “one flesh” with a prostitute, without becoming “one
spirit” with her by an enduring covenantal bond, precisely constitutes the
offense against the Temple of the Holy Spirit. This incongruence undermines and
contradicts the very nature of the one-flesh union as a witness to God’s
faithful love.
Returning
to our passage in First Corinthians, Paul concludes his argument against
porneia by going back to the analogy of the body as Temple of the Holy Spirit
that he introduced in chapter 3. Illicit sexual union defiles the holy Temple
consecrated to God, which was “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:20; see Eph. 5:2,
25) by Christ’s death and should signify and represent the “sacred space” where
God meets man and enters into communion with him.23
Paul, here, probably evokes the concept of tum’at mikdash (defilement of the
sanctuary) whereby the Temple becomes defiled because of Israel’s sins.24 The Temple, as God’s house, is the place in
which the covenant between God and His people is enacted, maintained, and
perpetuated. Any breach in the covenant, therefore, has negative ramifications
for the Temple. Berman comments, “When sin taints the covenant, its symbol in
the realm of space, the Temple, becomes tainted as well.”25 Likewise, the sins of Christians violate the
covenant with Christ and taint the bodily Temple of the Holy Spirit. The
passage fittingly concludes with the exhortation to the Corinthians to “glorify
God” in body and spirit through sanctified behavior congruent with their new
identity as consecrated sanctuaries of God’s presence, since their body and
spirit now entirely belong to Him (6:20).
The
concerns about the effects of porneia on the Temple of the Holy Spirit make way
for a more systematic and positive exposition of the principles of marriage in
chapter seven. In chapter seven St. Paul extols the advantages of the celibate
state over married life because the one who remains unmarried is more available
to serve the Lord. Worthy of note here are the apostle’s instructions regarding
marriages between a believer and an unbeliever (7:12–16). Paul encourages the
Christian spouse to remain with the non-Christian, “for the unbelieving husband
is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy”
(7:14). He is teaching here the remarkable idea that the faith of the believing
party confers sanctity upon the other and upon their children through the union
of marriage. This perhaps relates to the ancient Jewish concept of sancta
contagio, whereby the Temple is believed to act as a source of divine power,
transmitting holiness to the beholder of its sacred objects.26
Another
example of temple mystagogy is found in chapter 9. There, the apostle defends
his right to eat and drink and earn his living from his ministry using temple
imagery, comparing himself to the priests and workers in the Temple who offer
sacrifices and “partake of the offerings of the altar” as a sign of the Lord's
approval that “those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel”
(9:13–14). Preaching the gospel is thus equated with the priestly sacrificial
ministry in the Temple.27
5. Of Sinai, Sacrifice and Sacraments (1
Cor. 10)
Chapter
10 is probably the richest chapter of our epistle in its use of OT mystagogy.
Paul focuses here on the Exodus and the Sinai covenant—understood in Jewish
tradition, as we will see below, as the setting of the betrothal between God
and Israel:
All our fathers were under the cloud,
all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in
the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual
drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock
was Christ. (1 Cor. 10:1–4)
The
apostle uses the example of Israel in the desert as a warning to the
Corinthians, recalling that the Israelites experienced a situation similar to
theirs in the well-known events of the Exodus narrative: the pillar of cloud
that led the people along the way (Exod. 13:21), the sea whose waters were
divided by the hand of Moses (Exod. 14:21–29), the manna that sustained the
Israelites on their journey (Exod. 16:4, 14–18), the spring flowing from the
rock (Exod. 17:6; Num. 20:7–13), and the golden calf apostasy (1 Cor. 10:7;
Exod. 32). Some commentators see in the cloud “a veiled reference to the
presence of God in Israel’s midst, comparable to the Spirit for Christians” –
or the indwelling Shekhinah.28 But
what is remarkable here is how Paul daringly retrojects “proto-sacraments” of
baptism and Eucharist back into the history of Israel’s wanderings as
prefigurations of the sacraments of the New Covenant. The crossing of the sea
becomes the Israelites’ baptism (“into” Moses), while the manna and water from
the rock, as “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink,” are a sort of
proto-Eucharist. Paul goes as far as identifying the “spiritual rock” with
Christ, who accompanied the Israelites through the desert.29 Yet, despite the divine presence that dwelt
among the Israelites and the “sacraments” that accompanied them along the way,
“God was not well pleased” with them and most died in the wilderness (1 Cor.10:5).
These things, Paul writes, have become “examples for us” (tupoi hemon), written
“for our instruction” (10:6, 11) The Corinthians, therefore, should beware that
the same does not happen to them. Of particular relevance is the connection between
idolatry and sexual immorality in the recounting of the golden calf episode
(10:7; see Exod. 32) and the similar incident at Baal Peor (10:8; see Num.
25:1–9).
It
is significant that Jewish tradition sees the Exodus and the Sinai covenant as
nuptial events. Prophets such as Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel indicate that God
betrothed Israel in the desert during the Exodus.30
Despite Israel’s infidelities, commonly described as spiritual harlotry,31 the Exodus is the guarantee and model for the
future redemption, portrayed as a new betrothal and “new Exodus” to be
characterized by the joyful voice of the bridegroom and bride.32 Later, the rabbis view the Sinai theophany as
the particular moment of the betrothal between God and Israel,33 and they see the sin of the golden calf that
occurs almost concurrently as a transgression as heinous as a bride committing
harlotry while still under the bridal canopy.34
Furthermore,
the Israelite Tabernacle and Temple are imbued with nuptial meaning in
rabbinical literature as well. The Torah depicts the sanctuary as the
liturgical extension, actualization, and perpetuation of Israel’s original
union with God celebrated at Sinai, with both places acting as the meeting
point between God and Israel—or heaven and earth.35
Since Sinai is considered to be the moment of betrothal between God and Israel,
it was fitting that its liturgical extension in time, the Tabernacle and
Temple, would also take on a nuptial role in Jewish tradition. Thus the rabbis
eventually came to see the sanctuary as a nuptial chamber in which God consorts
with His bride, the community of Israel (represented by the High Priest).36
The
nuptial meaning of the Exodus, Sinai covenant, and Temple in Jewish tradition
sheds light on our passage in First Corinthians 10. For Paul, porneia is
tantamount to idolatry and to betraying Christ; idolatry is spiritual adultery.
Both, therefore, should be equally shunned (10:14). The invective against
idolatry here, connected with the celebration of the Eucharist, is a continuation
of the argument that Paul began in 8:1 concerning the eating of things offered
to idols.
Why
is the issue of food important? Because participation in cultic or sacred meals
is equivalent to a unique sharing and communion (koinonia) with the deity that
is worshiped—whether in the Jewish Temple (10:18), in the Christian Eucharist
(10:16–17), or in pagan cults (10:20). The word koinonia is significant because
of the close intimacy that it signifies (“fellowship,” “participation,” or “to
share with someone in something”).37
Just as sharing in the sacrifices of the Temple means to be a “partaker of the
altar” and to share in koinonia with YHWH, participating in pagan sacred meals,
likewise, involves koinonia with demons—a union incompatible with the koinonia
with Christ in the Eucharist. Partaking of the Lord’s body and blood (10:16) is
equivalent to intimately becoming one with him: it is a “one-flesh” union that
is just as real as the one described in the Fourth Gospel (see John 6:56).
Eating food sacrificed to idols, therefore, is a sort of “eucharist” with the
demons. It is spiritual adultery, a betrayal of Christ tantamount to Israel’s
worship of the golden calf and her subsequent betrayals of YHWH that the OT
prophets constantly lament.
6. Woman as Temple? (1 Cor. 11:3–16)
In
chapter 11, Paul addresses the issue of head covering for women and men. At
first sight, this seems like a trivial, culturally-bound concern following the
greater issues of fornication and idolatry. Paul just finishes discussing how
worship in temples, be they Jewish, Christian, or pagan, is equivalent to
koinonia with the respective deity. Then, suddenly, he switches to talking
about the hierarchy of subordination between man and woman (a hierarchy that
is, in turn, subordinated to the hierarchy of God and Christ) and the need for
women to cover their heads with a veil (11:3–7). Paul explains that the
subordination of woman to man is in fact not an arbitrary, culturally-bound
custom. Instead, the practice metaphysically stems from their origins in
creation: “For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created
for the woman, but woman for the man” (11:8–9). Since woman is taken from man
and for man, man receives authority over her. The allusion to the origins of
woman recalls the tradition of the first androgynous man out of whom God
created the female by taking a rib (or “side”) from his body.38 Yet the
hierarchical relation between them is not one of qualitative superiority or of
domination. Man is the “image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man”
(11:7). The first part of this verse alludes to Genesis 1:26, where man is said
to have been created “in the image and likeness” of God. The glory of God is
thus equated with God’s likeness, and it is man
who reflects this
glory and likeness. Yet if what is last in creation was first in intent, then
woman is the ultimate achievement of God’s creation. If man embodies the crown
of creation, then woman represents the crown jewel. In Batey’s words: “Man who has
been created in the image of God reflects the divine nature of his creator.
Woman is a reflection of that reflection, for she has been taken from man.”39 1 Corinthians thus reveals an integral
relationship between the man-woman hierarchy and the Genesis creation narrative
(somewhat akin to the way that Eph. 5:31 quotes Gen. 2:24). But why the
diversion to the subject of veils? Perhaps because veils are found both on
women and in temples. Thus, a woman’s body is a sacred temple, consecrated to
her husband and reflecting his glory. The nature of the woman's body is
analogous to the sanctity of the Temple, a sacred space consecrated to God,
reflecting His glory and endowed with the holiness of a bride.40 Granted, this association is only indirectly
implied, but it does logically follow from the known metaphors of the Church as
Temple, Body, and Bride.
7. Unity of the Body (1 Cor. 11:17–12:31)
Paul
then returns to the subject of the Lord’s Supper (11:17–33), endowed with great
sanctity because it is the memorial of Jesus’ death, while simultaneously an
anticipation of his eschatological parousia (11:23–26). Divisions and factions
also exist in this setting; some approach the Supper out of carnal desires to
satisfy their hunger, while others are drunk (11:21). Paul admonishes and warns
those who approach the Lord’s Table in such an “unworthy manner” that they
thereby become “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (11:27). Such
behavior openly contradicts the very essence of the Lord’s Supper, for the partaking
of the Eucharist is the source and sign of the Church’s unity, and all members
of Christ are “one bread and one body” when partaking of the one Eucharistic
bread (10:17). Factions at the Lord’s Supper (11:17–22) therefore negate the
very mystery that is being celebrated. To be “guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord” and to “not discern his body” is to break the koinonia with the Lord
and with his body.
It
is another form of covenant violation, a desecration of the Temple of the Holy
Spirit and an act of bridal infidelity against the Lord.41
In
chapter 12, Paul continues to discourse on the subject of the unity of the
body, now addressing the diversity of gifts that exist within it. The body “is
one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are
one body, so also is Christ” (12:12). Paul again reminds the Corinthians that
they have become members of this spiritual body at baptism, when they were
“made to drink into the one Spirit” (12:13).42
The unity of this body is not one of bland uniformity. A rich diversity is
visible in its members, comparable to the members of the human body where each
one plays a different yet indispensable role (12:15–31).
What,
then, builds up God’s building, God’s Temple and Christ’s Body? Not worldly
wisdom nor knowledge, but agape: “Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (8:1).
According to Paul’s famous hymn of love in chapter 13, it is the patient,
generous and joyful gift of self, in imitation of Christ (11:1, see Eph. 5:1–2,
25). A deep love of truth accompanies this love, which “bears all things, believes
all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (13:7) and constitutes “the
more excellent way” by which members of the Church are to build up the Body of
Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Thus, once again, we see the connection
between temple and nuptial symbolism, liturgy, and love.
8. New Adam (and New Eve?) (1 Cor. 15)
In
chapter 15, Paul deals with eschatology and the resurrection of the dead. He
portrays Jesus as the last Adam who reverses the curse of death incurred by the
first Adam: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive”
(15:22).43 If the natural, earthly
body of the first Adam was sown in corruption, dishonor, and weakness, the
spiritual heavenly body of the last Adam is sown in incorruption, glory and
power (15:42–44). While the first Adam, from the earth, passively received
receives life as a “living being,” the last Adam, from heaven, gives life as a
“life-giving spirit” (15:45–47). Believers, already bearing the image of the
man of dust in their mortality, are also called to bear the image of the man of
heaven in putting on immortality (15:48–56). The hope for the final day of the
resurrection of the dead, “at the last trumpet” means in effect that the human
Temple of the Holy Spirit will reach its fullness of stature as it puts on
immortality.
In
light of Paul’s multiple metaphors in First Corinthians we may infer the
following from this passage on the resurrection of the dead: Christ is the last
Adam and spiritual “man of heaven” raised in glory (doxa, 15:43) who will
communicate his glorious image to his community of disciples, the Church
(15:49). Given the fact that “woman came from man” (that is, Eve came from
Adam, 11:8), that man is the doxa of God and woman the doxa of man (11:7), and
that the Church is Christ’s body (10:17; 12:27) sustained by the Eucharistic
communion of His own body and blood (10:16), one comes very close to the
concept of the Church as “new Eve.” If Christ is the new Adam, then the Church,
the new Eve who is “taken out” of the new Adam, nourished by His body and
blood, and endowed with His very glory can be none other than Christ’s own
Bride.44
9. Conclusion
The
First Epistle to the Corinthians does not explicitly refer to the marriage
between Christ and the Church, except for perhaps a veiled reference in
6:15–20. But a close examination of Paul’s temple mystagogy, especially when
read in light of the Adam and Exodus/Sinai motifs, reveals many nuptial
allusions: if Christ is the new Adam (15:45), and the “body” of the new Adam is
the Church (12:27), called to share in intimate communion (koinonia) with Him
(1:9), then the Church must be Christ’s Bride and the new Eve. Believers are
baptized into this collective mystical Body by the Holy Spirit (12:13). This
sacrament makes the body of every individual believer a temple consecrated to
Christ, inhabited by the indwelling presence of the Spirit (6:19). The
Christian life is thus understood as temple worship, sacred service, and
nuptial mystery. As a living temple, the baptized believer participates in koinonia
with Christ, especially by sharing at His table and partaking of His body and
blood (10:16). This exchange, in itself, represents a kind of “one flesh”
nuptial union; yet it can be destroyed through sexual immorality, which is
tantamount to idolatry (6:18; 10:7–8). Baptism and the Eucharist, the
sacramental means of entering into and maintaining communion with Christ, are
depicted as the fulfillment of the Exodus and Sinai theophany (10:1–4). The
concrete expression of this communion is the call to the members of the
community to love each other with a generous and selfless agape, in imitation
of Christ and for the sake of building up the Body (8:1; 13:1–13).
Finally,
Paul’s temple and nuptial theology is directed toward a definitive
eschatological fulfillment on the day of the final resurrection of the dead,
when the Christian’s perishable and mortal anthropic temple will put on the
imperishable and immortal (15:51–54; see 2 Cor. 5:1–4), and the veiled nuptial
mystery will be revealed in all its glory (see Rev. 19:7–9; 21:2).
1. For example, Jesus’ encounter with the
woman at the well in chapter 4 is known to be modeled on “betrothal-type scenes”
of the OT (see Gen. 24:1–67; 29:1.20; Exod. 2:15–22). The woman acts as
representative of the Samaritan people and their faith in Jesus at the end of
the narrative parallels the betrothal and wedding that typically conclude the
OT scenes. Neyrey states: “Jesus replaces the former ‘husbands’ of the woman
with the true ba’al, viz., himself. Since the woman is portrayed as accepting
Jesus as Messiah (4:39), he effectively becomes her ba’al; and he replaces
Samaritan expectations when they too confess him as ‘Savior of the world’
(4:42). The Jacob matrimonial allusions then seem to lie in Jesus’ becoming the
husband/lord of these new converts…” Jerome H. Neyrey, “Jacob Traditions and
the Interpretation of John 4:10–26,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41, no. 3
(1979): 426.
2. See, for example, Jesus’ promise that
both He and the Father will make their home within those who love him (John
14:23).
3. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According
to John I–XII, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 124.
4. The identification of Jesus with the
Temple is further supported by other passages such as Col. 2:9, which describes
Christ as the place of the fullness of God’s dwelling. See also the Epistle to
the Hebrews and its related treatment of Christ as both high priest and
sacrifice of the heavenly liturgy (Heb. 2:17; 4:14–16; 5:1–11; 7:11–28; 8:1–6;
9:1–28; 10:1–22).
5. On the Church and believer as Temple in
Corinthians, see Raymond Corriveau, “Temple, Holiness, and the Liturgy of Life
in Corinthians,” Letter & Spirit–Temple and Contemplation: God’s Presence
in the Cosmos, Church, and Human Heart, no. 4 (2008): 145–166.
6. Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in
Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 219.; quoted in
Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).
7. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 1st edition, New International Commentary on the New Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 4.
8. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
defines mystagogy as “a liturgical catechesis which aims to initiate people into
the mystery of Christ” by proceeding “from the visible to the invisible, from
the sign to the thing signified, from the ‘sacraments’ to the ‘mysteries.’”
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States
Catholic Conference, 2000), 1075.
9. The Catechism makes the same point in
describing the graces of baptism: “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but
also makes the neophyte ‘a new creature,’ an adopted son of God, who has become
a ‘partaker of the divine nature,’ member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a
temple of the Holy Spirit.” Catechism, 1265. In its section on anthropology,
the Catechism specifies that the human body shares in the dignity of the image
of God precisely because it is “animated by a spiritual soul.” It is thus “the
whole human person” (not just the body as distinct from the soul) “that is
intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit.” Catechism,
364.
10. Conzelmann (1 Corinthians, 75) has
shown that the mixing of these two metaphors is traditional in the OT, in
Judaism, in Hellenism and in Gnosticism; see, for example, Jer. 1:10; Philo, De
Cher. 100–112.
11. Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 140–141. See Hag. 2:8; 1 Chron. 22:14, 16; 29:2; 2 Chron. 3:6.
12. It is significant that Paul used the
word naos, denoting the inner sanctuary and dwelling place of the divine presence,
and not hieron which describes the entire Temple structure. See Fee, The First
Epistle to the Corinthians, 146; Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction
and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 7 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1985), 71.
13. See Corriveau, “Temple, Holiness, and
the Liturgy of Life in Corinthians,” 157–159. Gärtner has shown four points of
contact between this passage and the Temple symbolism of the Qumran community:
(a) identification of the Temple of God with the community; (b) the Spirit of
God ‘dwells’ in the congregation; (c) the Temple of God is holy; (d) this
requires the purity of the members. See Bertil Gärtner, The Temple and the
Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple
Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament, Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005),
56–60.
14. Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction
and Commentary, 71 (his emphasis).
15. For other NT references to leaven as
symbol of sin, see Matt. 16:11; Luke 12:1; Gal. 5:9.
16. For discussions on the attribution of apelousasthe
to baptism, see Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 246–247. ; William
F. Orr and James Arthur Walther, I Corinthians, The Anchor Bible 32 (Garden
City, N.Y.: Anchor Bible, 1976), 199.; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 107.
17. As Corriveau (“Temple, Holiness, and
the Liturgy of Life in Corinthians,” 162) notes: “What is important here is the
application of the identity of the Church as Temple to the body of the
individual member of the Church. The message is that we cannot separate the
community and its members.”
18. On the questionable reputation of
Corinth, see Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 2–3; Conzelmann, 1
Corinthians, 11–12.
19. The Catechism articulates this point in
its discussion of offenses against the Sixth Commandment: The one who engages
in prostitution “violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and
defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.” Catechism, 2355.
20. The Hebrew word for harlot, kedeshah,
is a derivative of the root kadosh (holy or set apart).
21. Philo believed that in the beginning,
before Eve was taken out of Adam, the original man was bisexual or androgynous,
with the two halves (male and female) perfectly united into one. It is the
subsequent separation out of this original unity that is at the root of the
sexual attraction of each side for the missing half. The first human was thus a
complete and harmonious person, free from inner distractions and tensions and
reflecting the Divine Nature in His perfectly united male and female identity.
See De op. mundi 1:134; 151-52; Legum allegoriae 2:13; Quis rer. div. heres
164; Quest. Gen. 1:25-26. This view was also adopted in rabbinic tradition. See
b. Berakhoth 61a; b. Ketuboth 8a; b. Yebamoth 63a; b. Erubin 18a; Genesis
Rabbah 8a, 17; Leviticus Rabbah 14 (114a); Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews,
I:64–71; V: 88–89. The original unity of man and woman is also reflected in
Gnostic writings (for example, Gospel of Philip 68 (76); 70 (86)). See Richard
A. Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 32–33; Carl H.
Kraeling, Anthropos and Son of Man: A Study in the Religious Syncretism of the
Hellenistic Orient (New York: AMS Press, 1966); Markus Barth, Ephesians, The
Anchor Bible (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), 725–726; A. T. Lincoln, “The
Use of the OT in Ephesians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 4, no.
14 (1982): 16–57.
22. Meeks proposes that “the unification of
opposites and especially the opposite sexes, served in early Christianity as a
prime symbol of salvation,” and that it was primarily in the baptismal ritual
that the “new genus of mankind” or “restored original mankind” comes into
being, where there is “neither male nor female” and all become one in Christ
(Wayne A. Meeks, “The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest
Christianity,” History of Religions 13, no. 3 (1974): 66, 180–181.). Meeks
notes that the “neither male nor female” of Gal. 3:28 is an allusion to Gen.
1:27, implying that the original separation of male and female at creation is
overcome in baptism through their reunification: “somehow the act of Christian
initiation reverses the fateful division of Genesis 2:21–22. Where the image of
God is restored, there, it seems, man is no longer divided–not even by the most
fundamental division of all, male and female. The baptismal reunification
formula thus belongs to the familiar Urzeit-Endeit pattern, and it presupposes
an interpretation of the creation story in which the divine image after which
Adam was modeled was masculofeminine” (ibid., p. 185). In my opinion, if
speaking of a “myth of reunification” is certainly true of the later Gnostic
texts (that is, the “mystery of the bridal chamber” in the Gospels of Thomas
and Philip; see Meeks, pp. 189– 196), to speak of such a myth in the Pauline
writings is perhaps an overstatement. While a “baptismal reunification of
opposites” is certainly visible in Eph.5:22–33, it “has not produced any
radical reassessment of the social roles of men and women in the congregation,”
who remain independent beings, albeit endowed with a new equal dignity in Christ,
yet still subject to the social norms, limitations and divisions of their times
– as Meeks acknowledges (pp. 205–206).
23. Morris proposes that the expression
“bought at a price” is possibly “an antithesis to the price paid to a
prostitute.” Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, 102.
24. Israel’s sins are often described as
defiling God’s sanctuary. When they offer their offspring to Molech they “defile
My sanctuary and profane My holy name” (Lev. 20:3); the sin offering is said to
“atone for the holy place because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel,
and because of their transgressions” (Lev. 15:15–16); and Jeremiah refers to
the evil deeds of Judah as setting “their abominations in the house which is
called by My name, to pollute it” (Jer. 7:30).
25. Joshua Berman, The Temple: Its
Symbolism and Meaning Then and Now (Northvale, N.J.: J. Aronson, 1995), 142.
26. On the idea of sancta contagio in
ancient Judaism, see Eugene Seaich, A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem
Temple: The Embracing Cherubim and At-One-Ment with the Divine, Deities and
Angels of the Ancient World 1 (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2008), 65–68,
176–77. Likewise, Montague, recalling that the altar of the tabernacle, once
consecrated, made holy whatever touched it (Exod. 29:37), suggests that the
marriage bond between believer and unbeliever, “far from causing defilement to
the believer, becomes a conduit in the other direction for the radiation of the
Christian’s holiness to the unbeliever.” See George T. Montague, First
Corinthians, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2011), 121.
27. Compare with Rom. 15:15–16, where Paul
portrays his own ministry in terms of temple service and priestly sacrifice.
28. Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 445. See note 22 for a variety of interpretations on this theme.
29. According to some rabbinic traditions,
the rock that provided water for the Israelites physically moved and followed
them through the wilderness: “And so the well which was with the Israelites in
the wilderness was a rock, the size of a large round vessel, surging and
gurgling upward, as from the mouth of this little flask, rising with them up
onto the mountains, and going down with them into the valleys. Wherever the
Israelites would encamp, it made camp with them, on a high place, opposite the
entry of the Tent of Meeting (Tosefta Sukkah 3:11). Philo wrote that the rock
is “the wisdom of God… out of which he gave a drink to the souls who love God.”
(Legum Allegoriae 2:21). See Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 448;
Orr and Walther, I Corinthians, 245.
30. Hos. 2:3, 14–15; Jer. 2:2–6; 31:32;
Ezek. 16:7–9.
31. Hos. 2:4–5; 4:10–19; Jer. 2:20; 3:1–13;
Ezek. 16:15–52.
32. Hos. 2:18–22; Jer. 16:14–15; 31:6–9,
12–14; 33:11; Ezek. 16:59–63. Isaiah also envisions the last redemption as a
new Exodus and marriage (see Isa. 61–62).
33. For example, the Tannaitic Midrash
Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael depicts God’s appearance at Sinai and His encounter
with the people of Israel in Exod. 19:16–17 as a great nuptial moment between
them: “Judah used to expound: The Lord came from Sinai (Deut. 33:2). Do not
read it thus, but read: “The Lord came to Sinai” to give the Torah to Israel.
I, however, do not interpret it thus, but: The Lord came from Sinai to receive
Israel as a bridegroom comes forth to meet the bride.” Jacob Z. Lauterbach,
Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004),
II:306.
34. On the golden calf as spiritual
adultery, see b. Shabbat 88b; b. Gittin 36b.
35. On the connections between Sinai and
Sanctuary, see Berman, The Temple, 35–56; Jon D. Levenson, Sinai and Zion
(Cambridge: HarperOne, 1987), 75–92. Levenson discusses the nuptial dimension
of the Sinai covenant (75– 80), the need for it to be perpetually renewed
(80–86), and the transferral of the locus of revelation from Sinai to Zion,
which is a new “holy mountain” where the visionary experience of God is
perpetuated (95) and the covenant renewal is effected (91–92): “in short, the
renewal of the Sinaitic covenant has become the liturgy of the Temple in
Jerusalem… that shrine does not have a cult of its own, but has become a locus
for the continuing traditions of the old Israelite tribal league. The voice of
Sinai is heard on Zion” (207). Cassuto also explains the connections between
Sinai and the Tabernacle: “In order to understand the significance and purpose
of the Tabernacle, we must realize that the children of Israel, after they had
been privileged to witness the Revelation of God on Mount Sinai, were about to
journey from there and thus draw away from the site of the theophany. So long
as they were encamped in the place, they were conscious of God’s nearness; but
once they set out on their journey, it would seem to them as though the link
had been broken, unless there were in their midst a tangible symbol of God's
presence among them. It was the function of the Tabernacle [literally,
“dwelling”] to serve as such a symbol… The nexus between Israel and the Tabernacle
is a perpetual extension of the bond that was forged at Sinai between the
people and their God.” (Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus
(Skokie, IL: Varda Books, 2005), 319, cited in Berman, The Temple, 41).
36. On the Tabernacle and Temple as bridal
chamber in rabbinical literature, see Leviticus Rabbah 9:6; Song of Songs
Rabbah 5:1; Pesikta de-Rab Kahana 1:1.
37. See Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, 466, n. 18 for references on the meaning of koinonia in the NT.
38. See above, note 21.
39. Batey, New Testament Nuptial Imagery,
22–23.
40. Batey (New Testament Nuptial Imagery,
23, n. 4) explains the woman's obligation to wear a veil in a way that lends
credence to this idea: “In the first century the veil was not primarily a
symbol of modesty or dignity. The direct symbolism is that of being taken
possession of, and as a result taken out of circulation as a free woman. The
woman wearing the veil was to be unapproachable in a similar sense as a holy
object, because she had been set apart for her husband – sanctified for him
exclusively. For a wife to refuse to wear the veil was not just a breach of
modesty but the rejection of God's created order of authority.”
41. This is the basis for the Church’s
discipline on the Eucharist related to the unity of Christians, and the reason
why ecclesial communities that “have not preserved the proper reality of the
Eucharistic mystery in its fullness” cannot be admitted to Eucharistic
communion. See Catechism, 1400.
42. The Pauline connection between baptism
and “drinking” the Spirit seems related to the water symbolism of baptism and
the drinking of living water found in John 3–4.
43. On the relation between Adam, bringer
of death, and Christ, restorer of life, see Rom. 5:12–21. On the ideas of the Messianic
King as new Adam in prophetic and apocalyptic literature, of Christ as the new
Adam, and of the continuation in each Christian of this Christological
recapitulation of Adam, see Jean Daniélou, From Shadows to Reality: Studies in
the Biblical Typology of the Fathers (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1960),
11–21. Robin Scroggs (The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology
[Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966], 75–112) focuses on Christ as the
realization of true humanity.
44. This idea, only implicit here, becomes
explicit in 2 Corinthians and Ephesians.
No comments:
Post a Comment