The temple metaphor is a frequent and significant one in the Corinthian correspondence. Within Temple Purity in 1–2 Corinthians, Liu examines how a Jewish and a Greek reader living within first-century Corinth would have considered this concept. He does so by considering archaeological, literary, and historical data.

Liu establishes from the opening pages the need for such a study. Temple ideas are found in passages like 1 Cor 3:16–17 when Paul writes, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple” (ESV). The metaphor continues within 1 Cor 5 when Paul uses temple language and speaks of excommunication. In 1 Cor 6:19 he writes, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?” Then in 2 Cor 6:16 he writes, “What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.’”

Liu is not the first person to write about the temple theme within the Corinthian letters. Other studies, however, have mainly focused upon temple language or the application of Jewish temple language. Occasionally, there have been some who have given a Greco-Roman perspective. Liu’s book, however, is the first full-length monograph that has treated the connection between temple and purity from a Jewish and Greco-Roman perspective within 1–2 Corinthians. This makes Liu’s study distinct.

Liu begins his study by distinguishing between the Jewish and Greco-Roman perspective. In his second chapter, he surveys the significance and character of the Jerusalem Temple, its history and significance. His chapter considers Palestinian Jewish texts (i.e., Tobit, Judith, 1 Enoch, Jubilees, 1–2 Maccabees, the Testaments of Levi and Benjamin, Prayer of Azariah, Sirach, 1 and 4 Ezra, Psalms of Solomon, and the Testament of Moses). It also considers Diaspora texts (Letter of Aristeas, Wisdom of Solomon, Sibylline Oracles 3–6, 3–4 Maccabees, and 2 Baruch). He provides other full-length sections that consider the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, and Josephus. It is an impressive survey of texts that cover the range of Jewish understanding.

Significantly, he points out that the Jewish sense of the temple and purity is more ontological, “a state of being compatible with the divine” (p. 12). Purity is a condition for contact with God. He finds the Jewish perspective on purity connected with priests, sacrifices, circumcision, vessels, the blood of animals, water, and morality. Ritual purity can be achieved by purification offerings, but moral purity emerges from a correct relationship with God. Sexual immorality, in particular, is defiling. When one becomes unclean, ceremonial purification is rather complex from the Jewish perspective. Purity is absolutely essential for national identity, embodies faithful worship, and witnesses of Yahweh’s holiness and glory to the nations.

In his third chapter, Liu demonstrates that Greco-Roman temples were also concerned with purity. Greco-Roman writers such as Porphyry of Tyre, Epictetus, and Plutarch point out purity requirements for worship within Greco-Roman temples. As the temple was residence for a deity, it was important to approach the god with purity. Liu notes several differences, however, in purity from the Greco-Roman perspective. While purity within Greco-Roman society concerns removal of sins and temple cleansing, the Greco-Roman sense of the word is more relational than ontological. Rather than using the blood of animals for purification, Greco-Roman deities used water. Piety, a pious mind, and a good moral life also produced purity.

Liu’s discussion of temple purity in the Greco-Roman world is detailed. He discusses temples in the Greco-Roman world, considering sources that span from 300 B.C. to A. D. 100. Rather than being a tangential point of Greco-Roman society, the temple exerted great influence on communal and individual life. In his survey, he notes that the Greco-Roman temple was a symbol for cohesion, commonwealth, and religious value of the nation. He also specifically considers the Temple of Apollo, the Temple of Isis, and the Temple of Asklepios with regards to their purity, all of which have counterparts in Corinth. Like his study on Judaism, this survey is also impressive, although it would improve with the examination of some other temples that are represented within Corinth.

While different in some ways, Liu highlights right from the beginning that the Jewish as well as the Greco-Roman perspective carried with it a sense of holiness. Both contain purity with God’s holiness and presence. Both contain purification rites. While different things lead to contamination, both worldviews contain the sense of mortal and immortal, earthly and heavenly. Temple dwelling is connected to divine dwelling, fellowship with the divine, and the people’s unity (p. 28).

Liu then takes the results of his survey of Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds and applies these to sections where the temple is explicitly discussed in 1 Cor 3:16–17; chs. 5–7; and 2 Cor 6:14–7:1. Liu states that these are not exegetical analyses, but there is certainly a great amount of detail in the examination of each passage in question.

Following the examination of each temple text in Corinthians, Liu then outlines his conclusions. According to Liu, Paul used the temple as a metaphoric device to address purity issues in the community. This redefined the boundary and vocation of the Corinthian temple-community. Paul urges the Corinthians through the temple metaphor not to be divided or be immoral as that affects the entire community. Instead, the Corinthian Christians should live based on the ethical requirements of the temple. Since the temple community is not yet fulfilled, Christians ought to also separate from profane groups and pursue sanctification (p. 238).

Liu provides a thorough and thought provoking study on perceptions of the temple in 1–2 Corinthians. It would improve if he could state more clearly his viewpoint on Paul’s use of the Jewish and Greco-Roman perspective of the temple metaphor. Throughout much of the study, Liu raises the importance of the Greco-Roman background and seems to place it on an equal standing with the Jewish background. While he has done well to raise the importance of the Greco-Roman background, there are several places that favor a more decided Jewish background. Furthermore, Liu’s conclusions could be stated more clearly at times.

This can be seen in the 1 Cor 3:16–17 passage. While holiness can be understood somewhat from the Greco-Roman perspective, Paul’s declaration that the Corinthians are the temple favors a Jewish ontological perspective that seems to surpass the Greco-Roman background. Liu spends much of his discussion of 1 Cor 3 making the Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds seem equal. Then, at the end, he appeals to a weak echo of Num 16 to make the most sense of the passage.

In the book’s conclusion, he states this better, emphasizing the Jewish slightly over the Greco-Roman. He does rightfully state, “Given the ideas of temple purity in the pagan world, the Corinthians at least should not have felt confused when hearing about Paul’s temple metaphor, being well-equipped with pre-knowledge to understand what Paul was trying to convey” (p. 236). Then, however, he indicates that Paul is appealing to his own Christian teaching that appears to be neither fully Greco-Roman nor Jewish. This is a bit surprising as Paul’s expression in 1 Cor 3:16–17 seems to favor Jewish thought more than Greco-Roman. Liu could thus be a bit clearer.

A second matter that would help Liu’s discussion is more interaction with OT texts that Paul cites with regard to the temple metaphor. In the 1 Cor 5 discussion, Liu does not refer at any great length to the citation from Deut 17:7 in 1 Cor 5:13. While he takes time to speak about exclusion from Greco-Roman temples and also from the Jerusalem temple and the Qumran temple community, he bypasses the most explicit reference and gives other ideas. In the discussion on immorality in 1 Cor 6, Liu spends some time with the Gen 2:24 reference, but there could be more attention paid as that reference extends its influence into other places. By citing Gen 2:24 in 1 Cor 6:16, Paul particularly highlights the Jewish ideas of unity found in the surrounding context of 1 Cor 6:15–17.

Liu has provided a thought provoking study. It is very detailed with much attention to contemporary Greco-Roman literature. Most pages throughout this book contain approximately six footnotes. Those who are interested in Corinthians studies and Paul will want access to this important study. Those who are interested in the interaction between Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds in Paul’s writing will also want to read Liu’s book.

---