Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 65:4 (Dec 2022)
Article: One Spirit, One Body, One Temple: Paul’s Corporate Temple Language in 1 Corinthians 6
Author: Nicholas G. Piotrowski

JETS 65:3 (September 2022) p. 733

One Spirit, One Body, One Temple: Paul’s Corporate Temple Language in 1 Corinthians 6

Nicholas G. Piotrowski

with Ryan Johnson*

^* Nicholas G. Piotrowski is Associate Professor of New Testament Theology at Indianapolis Theological Seminary, 8601 Hague Road, Indianapolis, IN 46256. He may be contacted at [email protected]. Ryan Johnson is an independent researcher residing at 3727 Carrollton Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46205. He may be contacted at [email protected].

“one temple for the one God”

—Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.193

Abstract: A small number of contemporary scholars have suggested that in 1 Corinthians 6:19 Paul speaks of the body of Christ as the one temple of the Holy Spirit, not the individual bodies of every Christian. This study contends that such a reading is historically likely, literarily plausible, and redemptive-historically coherent. It is also helpful in clarifying both the rest of the pericope and the entire letter. Historically, three considerations point in this direction: (1) The rest of the Pauline corpus speaks of the corporate church as the singular temple of God. (2) Other early Christian authors (especially Peter and even the Gospels) describe the corporate church as the singular temple of God. (3) Greek, not Jewish, sources describe human bodies as temples, and that of multiple gods. Literarily, two lines of argument are presented: (1) careful attention to the nouns and pronouns in the immediate context, and (2) the discourse through chapters 3–6, as well as the retrospectively illuminating chapters 12–14. Redemptive-historically, it is significant that the true God has always had one dwelling place in the creation.

Key words: 1 Corinthians, temple, body of Christ, Greco-Roman context, biblical theology

All good interpretations depend on literary and historical plausibility. Short of direct access to an author’s mind, we have the text and the range of possible interpretations within the author’s conceptual environment. The more we understand of an author’s cognitive milieu the better suited we are to discern a text’s meaning written in such a setting, and equally how it was feasibly received by its first audience(s). When interpreting biblical writings, we also have the advantage of the full corpus of inspired texts and the redemptive-historical trajectories of particular biblical themes through the canon.

Paul of Tarsus wrote within a variegated conceptual environment that encompassed Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds. W...