Sexual Immorality in 1 Corinthians 6

[Sudsy]

This is a great thread and covers a passage I’ve never fully understood. I’m enjoying the focus on the specific passage.

What exactly is meant by “all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful?” Is the “all things are lawful” a saying or proverb?

It would seem that some Bible versions have added quotes around this as if it were a saying of some sort. I lean toward the view that Paul was referring to the laws of the worldly government we live under. Just because something is lawful does not make it right for a believer to participate in it. There are further spiritual considerations to be considered beyond what the laws of the land allow. A present day example could be the right to have an abortion. Is there a higher law that indicates this is wrong ? Is 'thou shalt not kill' the higher law ?

Some consider total abstaining from alcohol is a right application as it is not only something that can get control on us and/or may be a downfall to a weaker brother to indulge. Paul elsewhere in his writings says we are to look out for one a other in areas that could lead them into sin. Another scripture says that we are free from the control of sin and at the same time slaves to righteousness.

We are not to allow anything to control us, except the Holy Spirit. Seems the Corinthian church was having trouble understanding what freedoms in Christ was about and Paul had to feed them as baby Christians.

[Bootstrap]

This is a great thread and covers a passage I’ve never fully understood. I’m enjoying the focus on the specific passage.

What exactly is meant by “all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful?” Is the “all things are lawful” a saying or proverb?

It would seem that some Bible versions have added quotes around this as if it were a saying of some sort.

Yes, I think so. The UBS Translator's Notes say this:

Commentators agree that the clause All things are lawful to me was a slogan used in Corinth at that time. It is repeated in 10.23, where the Greek is the same except that the phrase for me is omitted. TEV adds the phrases “Someone will say” and “I could say” to show that these clauses in quotes are familiar to the Christians in Corinth. Translators in other languages may find it helpful to add these phrases too.

Are lawful for me: the Greek verb means “it is allowed” and therefore does not raise the question of who gives the permission. Clearly Paul is not thinking of the Old Testament Law. Probably the people who misused this saying thought that because the body did not matter, they could do anything they liked with it. All things are lawful for me may also be expressed as “It is permissible for me to do anything” or “There is no law against anything that I want to do.”

Exegetical Summaries addresses this quotation as follows - the format is "first possible interpretation [ commentaries that interpret it that way] second possible interpretation [ commentaries that interpret it that way]". Note that the quotation structure depends on how it is interpreted :

QUESTION—Is this another quotation that Paul is citing?
1. This is a quotation used by some of the Corinthians [EBC, He, HNTC, Ho, NIC2, Rb, TG, TH, TNTC; NAB, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV, TNT]: It is said, ‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food’. Apparently some were using the reasoning that since such physical activities as eating and digestion had nothing to do with Christian morals, so the physical activity of sex, whether moral or immoral, did not either [EBC, Ho, NIC2, Rb, TG].
1.1 The quotation stops before the words ‘and God will destroy’ [EBC, Ho, TH, TNTC; NAB, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV, TNT]. It is best to follow the pattern of 6:12 where the quotation is given first and Paul’s comment on the quote follows the words ‘but’ or ‘and’ [TH].
1.2 The quotation continues through the words ‘God will destroy both one and the other’ [He, HNTC, NIC2]: it is said, ‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food and God will destroy both one and the other’. The chiastic structure of the first half of the verse parallels that of the second better if the words ‘and God will destroy both one and the other’ are included as part of the quotation [NIC2].
2. This is simply another statement [ICC, Lns; KJV, NASB, NJB]: Food for the stomach and the stomach for food.
QUESTION—In what way will God destroy both the stomach and food?
This will occur after the Second Coming of Christ [EBC, Lns], and refers to the new status of the resurrection body where there will be no need for food or digestive processes [EBC, Lns]. The time of the end is intended [TG]. This will happen when earthly life ceases [HNTC, ICC] because food is broken down in the stomach and at death the stomach will be dissolved into its constituents [HNTC].

Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 1–9 (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 238.

So there's more than one way to interpret this, including where to add quotation marks.

I lean toward the view that Paul was referring to the laws of the worldly government we live under. Just because something is lawful does not make it right for a believer to participate in it. There are further spiritual considerations to be considered beyond what the laws of the land allow. A present day example could be the right to have an abortion. Is there a higher law that indicates this is wrong ? Is 'thou shalt not kill' the higher law ?

Part of what makes this confusing is that we aren't familiar with them. It's like listening to Roger Rabbit if you don't know the voices of Saturday morning cartoon characters, you just don't get it. ( I had this experience when I first saw the movie, in Germany, where the actors have completely different voices than they do here, where I grew up. )

I think there are sayings like these in our own country. Imagine sayings along these lines.

"It's a free country" - but we are enslaved to Jesus Christ.
"I can do whatever I want" - but some of the things I might want can destroy me.

Some consider total abstaining from alcohol is a right application as it is not only something that can get control on us and/or may be a downfall to a weaker brother to indulge. Paul elsewhere in his writings says we are to look out for one a other in areas that could lead them into sin. Another scripture says that we are free from the control of sin and at the same time slaves to righteousness.

We are not to allow anything to control us, except the Holy Spirit. Seems the Corinthian church was having trouble understanding what freedoms in Christ was about and Paul had to feed them as baby Christians.

Very true.

And his solution was to start teaching them once again who they are in Christ and how to apply that to life.

To me, that rhymes with Hebrews 5:14:

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

But Paul is saying these Corinthians are more in the other camp:

You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.

So let's become skilled in the word of righteousness, learning how to look deeply into it and apply it to our own lives.

Hot tip: Temple prostitutes? Nope.

Paul is trying to start them down the path with the very basics.

[silentreader]

This is a great thread and covers a passage I’ve never fully understood. I’m enjoying the focus on the specific passage.

What exactly is meant by “all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful?” Is the “all things are lawful” a saying or proverb?

It would seem that some Bible versions have added quotes around this as if it were a saying of some sort.

Yes, I think so. The UBS Translator's Notes say this:

Commentators agree that the clause All things are lawful to me was a slogan used in Corinth at that time. It is repeated in 10.23, where the Greek is the same except that the phrase for me is omitted. TEV adds the phrases “Someone will say” and “I could say” to show that these clauses in quotes are familiar to the Christians in Corinth. Translators in other languages may find it helpful to add these phrases too.

Are lawful for me: the Greek verb means “it is allowed” and therefore does not raise the question of who gives the permission. Clearly Paul is not thinking of the Old Testament Law. Probably the people who misused this saying thought that because the body did not matter, they could do anything they liked with it. All things are lawful for me may also be expressed as “It is permissible for me to do anything” or “There is no law against anything that I want to do.”

Exegetical Summaries addresses this quotation as follows - the format is "first possible interpretation [ commentaries that interpret it that way] second possible interpretation [ commentaries that interpret it that way]". Note that the quotation structure depends on how it is interpreted :

QUESTION—Is this another quotation that Paul is citing?
1. This is a quotation used by some of the Corinthians [EBC, He, HNTC, Ho, NIC2, Rb, TG, TH, TNTC; NAB, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV, TNT]: It is said, ‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food’. Apparently some were using the reasoning that since such physical activities as eating and digestion had nothing to do with Christian morals, so the physical activity of sex, whether moral or immoral, did not either [EBC, Ho, NIC2, Rb, TG].
1.1 The quotation stops before the words ‘and God will destroy’ [EBC, Ho, TH, TNTC; NAB, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV, TNT]. It is best to follow the pattern of 6:12 where the quotation is given first and Paul’s comment on the quote follows the words ‘but’ or ‘and’ [TH].
1.2 The quotation continues through the words ‘God will destroy both one and the other’ [He, HNTC, NIC2]: it is said, ‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food and God will destroy both one and the other’. The chiastic structure of the first half of the verse parallels that of the second better if the words ‘and God will destroy both one and the other’ are included as part of the quotation [NIC2].
2. This is simply another statement [ICC, Lns; KJV, NASB, NJB]: Food for the stomach and the stomach for food.
QUESTION—In what way will God destroy both the stomach and food?
This will occur after the Second Coming of Christ [EBC, Lns], and refers to the new status of the resurrection body where there will be no need for food or digestive processes [EBC, Lns]. The time of the end is intended [TG]. This will happen when earthly life ceases [HNTC, ICC] because food is broken down in the stomach and at death the stomach will be dissolved into its constituents [HNTC].

Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 1–9 (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 238.

So there's more than one way to interpret this, including where to add quotation marks.

I lean toward the view that Paul was referring to the laws of the worldly government we live under. Just because something is lawful does not make it right for a believer to participate in it. There are further spiritual considerations to be considered beyond what the laws of the land allow. A present day example could be the right to have an abortion. Is there a higher law that indicates this is wrong ? Is 'thou shalt not kill' the higher law ?

Part of what makes this confusing is that we aren't familiar with them. It's like listening to Roger Rabbit if you don't know the voices of Saturday morning cartoon characters, you just don't get it. ( I had this experience when I first saw the movie, in Germany, where the actors have completely different voices than they do here, where I grew up. )

I think there are sayings like these in our own country. Imagine sayings along these lines.

"It's a free country" - but we are enslaved to Jesus Christ.
"I can do whatever I want" - but some of the things I might want can destroy me.

Some consider total abstaining from alcohol is a right application as it is not only something that can get control on us and/or may be a downfall to a weaker brother to indulge. Paul elsewhere in his writings says we are to look out for one a other in areas that could lead them into sin. Another scripture says that we are free from the control of sin and at the same time slaves to righteousness.

We are not to allow anything to control us, except the Holy Spirit. Seems the Corinthian church was having trouble understanding what freedoms in Christ was about and Paul had to feed them as baby Christians.

Very true.

And his solution was to start teaching them once again who they are in Christ and how to apply that to life.

To me, that rhymes with Hebrews 5:14:

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

But Paul is saying these Corinthians are more in the other camp:

You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.

So let's become skilled in the word of righteousness, learning how to look deeply into it and apply it to our own lives.

Hot tip: Temple prostitutes? Nope.

Paul is trying to start them down the path with the very basics.

I might read it like this...
"i can do anything I want to", but not everything I want to do is healthy.

[Bootstrap]

I might read it like this...
"i can do anything I want to", but not everything I want to do is healthy.

So here's something that I still find surprising about this passage. Paul is really much gentler with these people than I might expect. He does not call for all of them to be expelled from the church, like he did with the guy who bragged about having sex with his mother in 1 Corinthians 5.

I think context matters. In Corinth, I suspect that prostitutes were so widespread that it was a normal part of the atmosphere, kind of like modern day Amsterdam. In that setting, you really do have to start by explaining what exactly is wrong with prostitution, why it's not compatible with discipleship, and condemning people for their sin just doesn't cut it. Redemptive love is not insisting on rules "because I said it", people need to understand why, and the reasons should be grounded in a solid understanding of what Scripture teaches us about who we are in Christ, seeking first the Kingdom of God, love for God and love for neighbor, what Jesus said and did.

In Jerusalem, the woman caught in adultery knew she had done wrong. The Pharisees also know that. What Jesus really had to do was protect her, show her love and a path to redemption.

Which makes me wonder something about 1 Corinthians 5 ...

[silentreader]

I might read it like this...
"i can do anything I want to", but not everything I want to do is healthy.

So here's something that I still find surprising about this passage. Paul is really much gentler with these people than I might expect. He does not call for all of them to be expelled from the church, like he did with the guy who bragged about having sex with his mother in 1 Corinthians 5.

I think context matters. In Corinth, I suspect that prostitutes were so widespread that it was a normal part of the atmosphere, kind of like modern day Amsterdam. In that setting, you really do have to start by explaining what exactly is wrong with prostitution, why it's not compatible with discipleship, and condemning people for their sin just doesn't cut it. Redemptive love is not insisting on rules "because I said it", people need to understand why, and the reasons should be grounded in a solid understanding of what Scripture teaches us about who we are in Christ, seeking first the Kingdom of God, love for God and love for neighbor, what Jesus said and did.

In Jerusalem, the woman caught in adultery knew she had done wrong. The Pharisees also know that. What Jesus really had to do was protect her, show her love and a path to redemption.

Which makes me wonder something about 1 Corinthians 5 ...

I may be getting too far afield ...but...I think we see clearly the whole truth of John 3:16-21 in Jesus' dealings with people during His life on earth.

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

He came to offer healing, reconciliation and salvation, not condemnation. It is a wrong response to Him that brings condemnation, not only during that time, but in our time. And I think we see that also in Paul's writings, although he is perhaps more confrontational or something. But it was still the response to Jesus that decided if there was condemnation.

[Bootstrap]

I may be getting too far afield

Oh, it's time to be considering how we interpret and apply this now, I think. We have spent time looking carefully at the text, I think that's important, but related texts are welcome now, and so is application. I just thing starting out with focused attention to what the text says, in context, is important. Otherwise, we aren't actually applying Scripture to our lives, we aren't even paying close attention to what it says.

...but...I think we see clearly the whole truth of John 3:16-21 in Jesus' dealings with people during His life on earth.

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

He came to offer healing, reconciliation and salvation, not condemnation. It is a wrong response to Him that brings condemnation, not only during that time, but in our time. And I think we see that also in Paul's writings, although he is perhaps more confrontational or something.

I agree completely.

But it was still the response to Jesus that decided if there was condemnation.

In John 3:16, I assume? But by 1 Corinthians 6, saying that you are a Jesus fan isn't enough, even if you aren't condemning sinners. How does 1 Corinthians 6 color our response to John 3:16?

[silentreader]

I may be getting too far afield

Oh, it's time to be considering how we interpret and apply this now, I think. We have spent time looking carefully at the text, I think that's important, but related texts are welcome now, and so is application. I just thing starting out with focused attention to what the text says, in context, is important. Otherwise, we aren't actually applying Scripture to our lives, we aren't even paying close attention to what it says.

...but...I think we see clearly the whole truth of John 3:16-21 in Jesus' dealings with people during His life on earth.

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

He came to offer healing, reconciliation and salvation, not condemnation. It is a wrong response to Him that brings condemnation, not only during that time, but in our time. And I think we see that also in Paul's writings, although he is perhaps more confrontational or something.

I agree completely.

But it was still the response to Jesus that decided if there was condemnation.

In John 3:16, I assume? But by 1 Corinthians 6, saying that you are a Jesus fan isn't enough, even if you aren't condemning sinners. How does 1 Corinthians 6 color our response to John 3:16?

I guess in my mind, at least, John 8:11 might shed light on this, (if you include it as part of Scripture)

3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Jesus offered forgiveness of sin, without condemnation...I guess we have to decide how important the last part of his statement is... "and from now on sin no more". Was continuing non-condemnation dependent on that part of His statement? Or was that a passing addendum? Or is the passage doubtful enough that we should not be dependent on its perceived teaching?

[Bootstrap]

I guess in my mind, at least, John 8:11 might shed light on this, (if you include it as part of Scripture)

3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Jesus offered forgiveness of sin, without condemnation...I guess we have to decide how important the last part of his statement is... "and from now on sin no more". Was continuing non-condemnation dependent on that part of His statement? Or was that a passing addendum? Or is the passage doubtful enough that we should not be dependent on its perceived teaching?

I do include it as Scripture.

I have found very few churches that are equally good at both parts of that sentence. Some can say "neither do I condemn you". Others can say "go and sin no more". Very few are very good at saying both - especially when it takes people time to be reformed by God's power and made spiritually mature, or if they stumble a little ... walking with each other in redemptive love is hard.

[silentreader]

I guess in my mind, at least, John 8:11 might shed light on this, (if you include it as part of Scripture)

3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Jesus offered forgiveness of sin, without condemnation...I guess we have to decide how important the last part of his statement is... "and from now on sin no more". Was continuing non-condemnation dependent on that part of His statement? Or was that a passing addendum? Or is the passage doubtful enough that we should not be dependent on its perceived teaching?

I do include it as Scripture.

I have found very few churches that are equally good at both parts of that sentence. Some can say "neither do I condemn you". Others can say "go and sin no more". Very few are very good at saying both - especially when it takes people time to be reformed by God's power and made spiritually mature, or if they stumble a little ... walking with each other in redemptive love is hard.

So then when we apply that passage to ! Corinthians 6:12-20,

“All things are lawful for me,” "Neither do I condemn you" but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined[a] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. "go, and from now on sin no more" So glorify God in your body.

Or we could apply some of John 3:16-20

“All things are lawful for me,” “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

[Bootstrap]

So then when we apply that passage to ! Corinthians 6:12-20,

“All things are lawful for me,” "Neither do I condemn you" but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined[a] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. "go, and from now on sin no more" So glorify God in your body.

Or we could apply some of John 3:16-20

“All things are lawful for me,” “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

I like your "biblical mashup" approach. It's a very readable way of combining things to show the connections you propose, without burying the text in your own opinions and musings like many commentaries. Have you used this approach for a long time? Where did you get it from?

Are you familiar with Richard Hays or "Biblical Theology"? It's a close-to-the-text, bottom-up, inductive way of connecting the dots, and your approach would be useful for that. Of course, it relies on very careful reading of every text.

In this case, I'm not sure I find the first part of these mashups convincing though. Whether or not temple prostitution was lawful according to Roman law, it was not lawful according to the Jewish law or to the new law written on our hearts. So I don't think Paul believed these things were lawful, I think he was quoting something people might think or say, a common aphorism from that time.