Deeper Commentary
CHAPTER 12
12:1 Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant concerning spiritual
gifts- Chapter 1 has explained that they had been given the Spirit,
but they were not spiritual (3:1), and were refusing the leading of the
Spirit. Paul wanted them to be aware of the working of the Spirit and how
they were to walk in step with that Spirit. The Greek means literally
'spirituals'; it is the general working of the Spirit that is in view
here, not specifically the miraculous gifts. By saying "I do not want you
to be ignorant", the emphasis might be placed upon the word "not". Maybe
they were justifying their lack of spirituality by claiming that Paul had
kept them in the dark about the Spirit's working.
12:2 You know that when you were Gentiles you were led away to those
dumb idols, in whichever way you might have been led- Paul places
their idol worship in the past tense, but it is clear from several
places that many of them were still involved in idol worship and even
drunk the cups of the idols (10:21). This is another example of where Paul
assumes his readership are saved and counts them as obedient when he knows
that in practice they are not. Ellicott suggests the imperfect tense
should be translated "As from time to time ye might be led". This would
mean that they occasionally went off to the idol temples and then at times
to the Christian church meetings. It is this kind of fickleness which is
typical of so many converts to Christ. "When you were Gentiles" implies
they were no longer Gentiles; they had a new identity as God's people,
spiritual Israel. "Led away" is a strange term to use as it is often used
with the sense of 'led away to death'. The idea would be that idol worship
leads to death, and therefore there can be no compromise between idol
worship and Christianity. They lead to death and life respectively, and
nobody can be on both paths. The dumbness of the idols (alluding to Ps.
115:5,7 and Hab. 2:18,19- these were the types of idols which apostate
Israel worshipped) is contrasted with the activity and sensitivity of the
Lord the Spirit, who causes His people to speak forth the fact He is Lord
(:3). The dumb idols claimed to speak through their priests and prostitute
priestesses, who supposedly spoke forth the words of the gods at places
like Delphi or other shrine. But by contrast, the Lord Jesus speaks in the
hearts and minds of His people wherever they are (:3).
12:3 Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says Jesus is accursed. And no one can say Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit- The speaking of the Spirit is very different to the speaking of the gods represented by the idols- see on :2. It deeply costs us to accept Jesus as Lord. Yet for so many moments of each day, we deny Him His Lordship in practice. In the first century, accepting Jesus as Lord was a life and death issue. Pliny wrote to Trajan how accused Christians had to both say "The emperor is Lord" and also curse Christ. Polycarp was urged by a Roman official to submit: "What harm is there in saying "Caesar is Lord?"", and yet because he refused, Polycarp was killed (Martyrdom of Polycarp 8.2). Paul had likewise forced Christians to blaspheme, probably by saying this curse upon Jesus (Acts 26:11). It would seem that there were some Christians who gave in- and even justified it by saying that the Spirit had told them to do this. For 1 Cor. 12:3 warns that "no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is cursed!", and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit". My suggestion is that this is a reference to Mt. 10:17, which comforts believers that when we are delivered up, "what you are to say will be given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you". It would appear that some of the Christians who gave in were claiming that in accordance with this verse, it was the Spirit of God which had made them say "Jesus is cursed!" and deny that "Jesus is Lord". Paul is pointing out that this simply doesn't happen. In fact, the opposite. The Spirit of God will strengthen us not to give in and curse Jesus. The way of escape which we will be given (1 Cor. 10:13) is of the Spirit. And those who did resist the pressure to curse Christ, did so by the gift of the Spirit.
In our context, the
point simply is that to constantly affirm "Jesus is Lord" demands an awful
lot from us, and as in the first century, so in the twenty first... we
will be sorely tempted to think that just a few moments of denial when in
a tough situation is quite OK. But in this there is the true test as to
whether really we are under His Lordship or not. We have no court to face,
no lions to fear. Instead, we have the court of human opinion, the lions
of social mockery, financial loss, the human negatives that arise from the
unselfish living which Christ's Lordship demands of us. Paul had forced
Christians to blaspheme under torture- to say things like "Jesus is
accursed". He knew from experience that those who truly had the Spirit
somehow had the strength not to say those words. And through that same
Spirit had had the power to answer Saul: "No, Jesus is Lord", as he
tortured them to say "Jesus is anathema / accursed". It could also be that
there were false teachers at Corinth claiming to be inspired by God, who
were claiming that Jesus is accursed.
12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit-
Verses 4-6 connect gifts with the Spirit; service with the Lord Jesus
(:5); and activities with the God who empowers them (:6). This is an
example of where Paul often brings together the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. Trinitarian doctrine in its standard form is wrong in the
relationships it presupposes between these three entities. But as the
baptismal formula of Matthew 28 makes clear, the believer is associated
with Father, Son and Holy Spirit by baptism. Baptism is the point at which
the Spirit gifts were given, and baptism associates with Father, Son and
Spirit. This I suggest is the reason for the allusion to all three
entities here in the context of the gifts of the Spirit.
There is major emphasis within this section upon there being only one and
the same Spirit; all the blessing and gifts were all manifestations of the
same one Spirit. We wonder why there is such repeated emphasis. I suggest
the answer is in appreciating the degree to which the Corinthian church
was operating its services in a way similar to the rituals of the idol
temples, which had been their previous religious experience. And this is
true to observation with modern converts to true Christianity- they will
have a tendency to bring with them the practices of religion which they
were previously exposed to, despite the apparent change in understanding
concerning Jesus as Lord and focus. These cults, especially in Corinth,
also featured the idea of spirit possession and speaking in tongues, in
the sense of glossolalia / ecstatic utterance. The idea was that a
worshipper of the idol slept with the cult prostitutes and in turn, were
possessed by the spirit of the god who was represented by the idol. This
possession was thought to be expressed in terms of ecstatic utterances and
moaning / groaning, and could also produce supposed words of wisdom and
knowledge. It was typical for people to have relationships with multiple
gods and to claim possession by the spirits of the various gods. I suggest
that this was what was going on amongst some in the Corinthian church. But
they were claiming that all this was in fact part of their possession by
the spirit of the Lord Jesus. To understand the Corinthian correspondence
correctly, we need to appreciate this. Hence so much about speaking in
tongues in chapter 14 (Corinth was near to the oracle at Delfi where this
was common). And it's why there is so much emphasis upon the Spirit of God
being one, and responsible for all things. It was not that He, or His Son,
were one source of spirit amongst many others. The unity of God and the
unity of the Spirit are therefore connected- "one God... one Spirit... one
Jesus" (Eph. 4:4-6). If there was only one true God, then there could only
be one Spirit. If there were many gods / idols, there would be many
spirits, each responsible for a different aspect of spiritual life.
12:5 And there are diversities of service, but the same Lord- The
gifts of the Spirit are given to enable us to serve the Lord. Never are
they for our personal, secular benefit. They are for the service of
others, through serving the Lord Jesus. The emphasis upon diversity would
be appropriate to a community who favoured the more public, visible forms
of service. See on :4.
12:6 And there are diversities of activities, but the same God who
empowers them all in everyone- "Everyone" means that it can never be
the case that only the church leadership are empowered. All are empowered-
if they are open to it. "Activities" and "empowers" translate the same
Greek term; literally, 'energy'. There is a power of energy within- "in
everyone"- from God through the Spirit. Such internal empowering is
within the human mind. The reference is not simply to the more visible
miraculous powers; for as later explained in this chapter, those were not
possessed by "everyone". See on :4.
12:7- see on Mt. 25:15.
But to each individual is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the
common good-
Again the stress is upon
the way in which "each individual" has been given the Spirit; see on
"everyone" in :6. Paul's theme in this letter so far is that the welfare
of others must be paramount in our thinking. The Spirit is given "for the
common good". All spiritual gifts and empowerments are not for ourselves;
even the energy given within us (see on :6) is ultimately to be used for
the good of others.
Although NEV offers "each individual", the Greek literally means ‘to each
one’, and it could refer to how each house church was given a specific
gift; although note :11 "each man". I say that because there is New
Testament evidence that suggests that not every single individual believer
in the first century had miraculous Holy Spirit gifts. That is hard to
square with 1 Cor. 12 teaching that ‘each one’ had such gifts. But
remember the context. Paul has been arguing that there is one body of
Christ in Corinth, and each house church contributes towards that. The
house churches were divided against each other and some groups shunned
others. Paul is saying that each of those house groups played a vital
role. We can take a lesson from this. Each ecclesia even today has a
somewhat different emphasis, and all too easily, ecclesias can divide from
each other. And yet this would be a denial of the one body of Christ; we
not only need each other individually, each ecclesia needs each other
ecclesia in their area, if they are to fully function as the one body. The
warning against “schism in the body” (1 Cor. 12:25) applied in the context
to there being schism between local house churches, rather than between
individuals.
12:8 For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom and to
another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit- Chapter 1
began by stating that the Corinthians as a church were enriched with all
wisdom and knowledge. This was true insofar as these gifts had potentially
been given to some within the community. But the church was divided, and
the individuals it seems refused to recognize their gifts. And so the
situation became analogous to that which we meet today- that many read the
promises of Spirit empowerment and simply find them so untrue to observed
experience. But that is our fault, both on an individual and collective
level. See on :10.
12:9 To another faith through the same Spirit, and to another gifts of
healings through the same one Spirit- "Faith" may mean just that- the
Spirit gives internal spiritual power to believe, once we have taken the
step of faith and baptism. But pistos can also reasonably be
translated 'conviction'; perhaps the reference is to the Spirit power to
convict others of sin, as Peter displayed with Ananias and Sapphira, and
which may have been used to smite some with illness as mentioned in James
5. Paul likewise appears to have used it in Acts 13:10. The plural
"healings" suggests there were different gifts to heal different
illnesses. See on :10.
12:10 And to another workings of miracles, and to another prophecy and
to another discerning of spirits; to another various kinds of tongues, and
to another the interpretation of tongues- The question that arises of
course is whether the Corinthians, who were for the most part not
spiritual (3:1) and deeply astray in understanding and practice, actually
had these gifts. When we read "to one is given... and to another... to
another...", is this Paul describing how things are at Corinth? Or is he
saying that these were the potentials? They had been given the gifts of
wisdom, according to chapter 1; and yet Paul laments there was not a wise
man amongst them (1 Cor. 6:5). They were struck down with sicknesses
because of their abuse of the memorial meetings (1 Cor. 11:30); so why
were they not healed, if the gifts of miracles, healings etc. were present
amongst them? If indeed they had the gifts of speaking in and interpreting
foreign languages ["tongues"], then why in chapter 14 will we read that
they were talking in unintelligible language without an interpreter? I am
therefore driven to the conclusion that these gifts had been given in
potential to the community, every single member had some gift
["everyone... to each", :6,7]. But they were not using them, they were
focused upon themselves rather than realizing that these gifts were given
"for the common good" (:7).
12:11 - see on Mt. 25:15.
All these gifts are energized by one and the same Spirit, apportioned to
each man according as he is willing to receive it-
I have commented earlier on the emphasis upon the
"same Spirit" being at work (see on :4), and upon the way that "each man"
had been given a gift (:10). So much spiritual energy and potential lay
wasted and idle in Corinth. But the key was the fact that they were given
to each man "as he is willing to receive it". They were unwilling; because
they were self centered and did not perceive that the gifts were given for
the good of others (:7). If they had had a true passion to serve others,
then they would have been willing to receive the gifts. The situation
recalls the parable where the poor man is brave enough to knock on the
door of his rich neighbour at midnight because he needs bread to give to
another- an unexpected visitor. And the rich man will give him whatever he
needs- in order to give to others (Lk. 11:8).
12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, and all the members
of the body, though being many, are one body; so also is Christ-
Paul may be specifically alluding to the breaking of bread. For
this is the language of 1 Cor. 10:17: "Seeing that we, who are many, are
one loaf, one body; for we are all partaking of the one loaf". Many being
one is definitely the idea of Paul in Rom. 5:15,16,19; many sinners, and
many sins, are all dealt with by the one, the Lord Jesus. They become one
in Him. This is how we are saved- by being brethren "in Christ".
The term "Christ" is even used of the believers, such is His unity with us (1 Cor. 12:12). See on Jn. 3:11. The ideas go back to how Paul began 1 Corinthians. We are to have "the same mind", not uniformity of thought and position, but rather all striving to have the mind of Christ, as he also reasons in Phil. 2. We are Him, collectively. Although the context here is of ministry and each having different roles, in the wider sense, between us all there should be the complete expression of Christ to the world. One has more love, another has more justice, another focuses better on His gentleness. And thus the overall person of the Lord Jesus is expressed to the world. We are His body, the evidence of His resurrection. And He lives in us through the Spirit in order to achieve this.
The analogy to the human body means that
every part is critical for the function of the whole. This is why despite
the entire raft of problems at Corinth, Paul begins in chapter 1 by
addressing their lack of unity. And he uses the same metaphor in Rom.
12:4,5, arguing that all members do not have the same function, but we are
thereby "every one members one of another". This continual focus upon
"every one" is in the context of the way that religion generally gives
importance to the leadership, and the mass are expected to simply attend
and empower the leadership. But in the body of Christ, each member is
critical to the function of the whole. If any leave the body or
malfunction, then all suffer. This is why Paul is so concerned that
"members" of Christ's body should become one body with church prostitutes,
because "your bodies are the members of Christ" (6:15). Yet within the
same metaphor, we are "every one members one of another" (Rom. 12:5).
Undeniably, our membership within Christ is intimately connected to our
membership of one another. This is why the practices of disfellowship and
division, so common to many churches, are absolutely wrong. They deeply
damage the entire community, including those who are responsible for them.
12:13- see on Gal. 3:27.
For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or
Gentiles, whether slaves or free- The argument is that unity
arises from the receipt of the Spirit by every person baptized into the
body of Christ. Each one is given the Spirit, although the Spirit will
work in different ways. Jew, Gentile, slave and free are thereby united in
what is elsewhere called the fellowship of the Spirit, the fellowship
brought about by the Spirit; or as in 1 Cor. 1:9, the fellowship of /
brought about by Jesus.
Christ "shall baptize you" plural (Mt. 3:11) was deeply meditated
upon by Paul, until he came to see in the fact that we plural are
baptized. The strong implication is that therefore we should be one body,
without unnecessary divisions. For by one Spirit are we all
baptized into one body" of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). The Spirit seems to be
the baptizer. But how? The Lord Jesus baptizes by the Spirit (Jn. 1:33),
although He didn't personally hold the shoulders of those He baptized (Jn.
4:2- doubtless to show that who does this is irrelevant). We obeyed the
Truth (through baptism) "by the Spirit" (2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:22). This
doesn't necessarily mean that the Spirit made us obey the Truth. Rather is
the idea that as Christ died and was raised by the Spirit (1 Tim.
3:16; Rom. 1:4), so we go through the same process in baptism, being
likewise resurrected (in a figure) by the Spirit (1 Pet. 3:18-21). It is
therefore the Spirit which raises us up out of the water, as it raised
Christ; the man holding our shoulders is irrelevant. It is therefore
through / by the Spirit that we have our hope of salvation (Gal. 5:5).
There is only one resurrection, ultimately: that of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor.
6:14,15). By baptism into Him, we have a part in that. God in this sense
resurrected us with Christ (Eph. 2:5,6), we even ascended into heavenly
places in Him, as He rose up into the literal Heavens. And this whole
process was achieved by the Spirit. But what does the Spirit" mean
in this context? The Lord Jesus Himself is the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor.
15:45). The Spirit is what quickens us; but consider Jn. 6:63: “It is the
Spirit that quickeneth... the words that I speak unto you, they are
spirit, and they are (what gives) life”. The process of coming
alive with Christ by baptism, the raising out of the grave which the water
represents, is therefore due to the work of the Lord Jesus through His
Spirit and His word. He is "the Lord the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:18 RV). At
baptism we are born of (or by) water-and-spirit (Jn. 3:5; the Greek
implies one act, combining water and spirit). We were washed by baptism
"in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor.
6:11). “He that is joined to the Lord (Jesus) (by baptism) is one spirit
(with Him)" (1 Cor. 6:17). We are saved "by the washing (baptism) of
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; which he shed on us
abundantly by Jesus Christ" (Tit. 3:5,6). See on Jn. 3:5.
And were all made to drink of one Spirit-
At baptism, we drink of the Spirit. The Corinthians
had done so, but were unwilling generally to continue doing so. We were
"made" to do this. It is not all a mere question of freewill response. 1
Cor. 10:4 has drawn the parallel with Israel all drinking the same
spiritual drink, which was Christ. In Christ, we are "made" to drink of
Christ's Spirit. But this is not an overpowering influence- for the
Corinthians had drunk of it but had turned aside to idols, just as Israel
had done.
12:14 For the body is not one member but many- Paul puts his finger
on the psychological problem- that human beings tend to subconsciously
assume that they are the only ones. That my immediate issues are
paramount. But if indeed we are Christ's, there must be an acceptance that
man is not alone. We do not live nor die to ourselves. Our baptism was not
only a statement of our relationship with the Lord Jesus; it is also a
sign of our entry into the body of the Lord Jesus, i.e. the community of
believers, the one ecclesia (Col. 1:24). Members are added to the church
through baptism (Acts 2:41,47; 5:14; 11:24); thus baptism enables entry
into the one body of Christ. Whoever is properly baptized is a member of
the one body, and is bound together with all other members of that body:
"As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that
one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one spirit
are we all baptized into one body... for the body is not one member, but
many" (1 Cor. 12:12-14). Paul, in his relentless manner, drives the point
home time and again. He goes on to reason that just because the hand says
it isn't of the body, and won't co-operate with the feet, this doesn't
mean that it therefore isn't of the body.
12:15 If the foot shall say: Because I am not the hand, I am not of the
body- that would not make it not a part of the body- When we are first
baptized, we can tend to view those who leave our community as simply hard
to understand, but we may easily shrug it off. Yet surely we need to do
more; to feel more for them. And to realize that we all leave,
in that we can be lost in sin for minutes or hours at a time, having
numbed our responsibilities to the Father and Son. And yet, we are in
covenant relationship with Him. This means that we do not slip in and out
of fellowship with Him according to our concentration upon Him or our
spirituality. We likewise shouldn’t call those who leave us Mr or Mrs.
They are always our brother or sister. We are in a family bond with them.
Even if the hand says "I am not of the body, it is not therefore not of
the body" (1 Cor. 12:15 RV). These words were written in the context of
some of the Corinthian brethren effectively resigning from the ecclesia
and joining the various temples of even synagogues in the town. But they
couldn’t really resign from a relationship with God; resign from the fact
that their Lord bled to death for them.
Having reminded us that "by one Spirit are we all baptize into the one
body" (1 Cor. 12:13), Paul makes the obvious point- that as members of
that body we cannot, we dare not, say to other members of the body
"I have no need [necessity] of you" (1 Cor. 12:21). To fellowship with the
others in the body of Christ is our "necessity"; this is why an open table
to all those who are in Christ isn't an option, but a necessity.
Otherwise, we are declaring ourselves not to be in the body. Indeed "those
members of the body which seem to be more feeble, are necessary" (1 Cor.
12:22). By rights, we ought to be condemned for such behaviour; for by
refusing our brethren we are refusing membership in Christ. And yet I
sense something of the grace of both God and Paul when he writes that if
someone says "Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it
therefore not of the body?" (1 Cor. 12:15). I take this to mean that even
if a member of the body acts like they aren't in the body, this doesn't
mean that ultimately they aren't counted as being in the body. But all the
same, we shouldn't stare condemnation in the face by rejecting ourselves
from the body of Christ by rejecting the members of His body at the Lord's
table. That's the whole point of Paul's argument. Naturally this raises
the question: "Well who is in the body?". Paul says that we are baptized
into the body (1 Cor. 10:17); and this throws the question a stage further
back: "So what, then, makes baptism valid?". Baptism is into the body of
Christ, into His person, His death and His resurrection; and not into any
human denomination or particular set of theology. If the illiterate can
understand the Gospel, if thousands could hear the Gospel for a few hours
and be baptized into Christ in response to it- it simply can't be that a
detailed theology is necessary to make baptism valid. For the essence of
Christ, His death and resurrection, is surely simple rather than
complicated. Those who believe it and are baptized into it are in His body
and are thus our brethren- whatever finer differences in understanding,
inherited tradition and style we may have.
12:16 And if the ear shall say: Because I am not the eye, I am not of
the body- that would not make it not a part of the body- Clearly there
was jockeying for position within the Corinthian church, and some were
professing that they had left the body. But declaration that we are not
part of the body doesn't make us not part of the body. The principle we
can take is that even if there are barriers between us and other
believers, barriers which they have placed, distances they have created-
they are still part of the body and we still need them. Denominationalism
and division over theology are perhaps the most common cause of these
distances.
12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where is the hearing? If the whole
were hearing, where is the smelling?- We cannot all have the same
function. Corinth had "ten thousand teachers" (1 Cor. 4:15). There was
clearly a desire for prominence, and this contributed to the overall
dysfunction of the body. The Corinthians were not spiritual (3:1). They
needed to accept the gifts they were given, and realizing them would mean
that they would not seek for other positions. They would be more than
content to use what they had been given.
12:18 But now has God set the members each one of them in the body,
even as it pleased Him- See on :17. If the Corinthians had accepted
their given gifts and roles to play, they would not have been interested
in usurping the place of others. God has gone to so much trouble to
potentially enable the perfect functioning of the church; to the extent
that according to John 17, the unity / perfect function of the body should
be enough in itself to convert the world. But a self focused approach and
refusal to accept the gifts of the Spirit meant that this wonderful
potential didn't work out.
God's setting or appointing of "each" member means that we each have a predetermined intention which we are to fulfil. The good works set for us from the foundation of the world. And man is never better than when doing what God intended for him. We are each "set", the same word as "ordained" in Jn. 15:6 "I have ordained you that you should go and bring forth fruit". We are all 'ordained ministers'. Paul clearly understood his calling; he was ordained or "set" (s.w.) as a preacher (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11). We need to also discern our calling and role and focus upon it.
12:19 And if they were all one member, where is the body?- A
chronic focus upon being the member we would like to be means that
effectively we are destroying the body of Christ- crucifying Christ
afresh. It would seem there were many aspiring to be leaders and teachers
(4:15)- to be the head. But the head is the Lord Jesus. This aspiration
was not only inappropriate but effectively leaves the head of the body
without a body. Man is never better than when he has a specific calling,
and the ability to achieve and practice that calling. And so it is in
Christ. We have specific gifts, designed for usage for others "to the
common good". Using them, being Spirit-filled in the ways intended for us,
will mean that we have no aspiration to fulfil other roles for which in
God's wisdom we were not intended.
12:20 But now they are many members, but one body- "But now" would
imply that Paul saw them as right then at that moment a functional body.
They were not "now" just a few members with effectively no body; they were
many members in one body. This is one of many examples of where Paul
counts the dysfunctional Corinthians as mature in Christ when in reality
they were not.
12:21- see on 12:15.
Therefore the eye cannot say to the hand: I have no need of you; nor the
head to the feet: I have no need of you-
The same word is used in :24 about our more
honourable parts thinking they have "no need". Perhaps we are therefore to
read in an ellipsis there, to the effect they [think they have] no need;
for here in :21 it is made clear that we all stand in need of each other.
Again Paul is touching to the core of our subconscious sense that we are
sufficient of ourselves.
This is something more than a random example: the head (the Lord Jesus)
cannot do without the feet (a symbol of the preacher in Rom. 10:15). In
the work of witness especially, the Head is reliant on the preacher for
the work He wills to be done. He likens preaching to drag net fishing (Mt.
13:47), in which one big fishing boat drags a net which is tied to a small
dinghy. God’s fishing is thus dependent on us, the smaller boat, working
with Him. Thus the harvest was plenteous during the Lord’s ministry, but
relatively few were converted due to the dearth of labourers (Mt. 9:37
implies). So the idea is that if even the Lord Jesus needs us, how much
more do we need each other.
As John realized the tendency of some to think they could love God without
loving His sons, so Paul here tackled the same problem at Corinth. He knew
that some would want to go off on their own, and he shows that such
behaviour would suggest that they alone were the whole body. He knew that
some would think that they had no need of other parts of the ecclesial
body; he saw that some would feel that they were so inferior to others
that they had no place in the body. All these are reasons why believers
push off on their own. But notice that Paul doesn't actually say 'the eye
shouldn't say to the hand, I have no need of you'; but rather "the
eye cannot say to the hand...". Although some may say or feel this,
ultimately, from God's perspective, it's simply not valid. Christian
disillusion with Christianity mustn't lead us to quit the body. The same
logic applies to those who think that the body of Christ is divided;
ultimately, there is one body, and from God's perspective this is
indivisible. The divisions only exist in the minds of men. Those who say
that they don't need fellowship with their brethren "cannot say" this,
according to Paul. If they continue on this road, ultimately they declare
themselves not of the one body of Christ; although I trust there are many
brethren who have done just this who may still receive God's gracious
salvation.
12:22 No, on the contrary, those members of the body which seem to be
more feeble are necessary- The context is of the "more
attractive parts" (:24) thinking that they have no need of more feeble
parts. The feebleness is in spiritual terms. It is the weak who are so
indispensable to our overall growth, and removing ourselves from them is
to our loss. I noted on 1 Cor. 1:28 that those who are spiritually
"despised" are significant to God.
Many of those who ungraciously storm out of
fellowship with the rest of the body, do so because they complain that
other believers are weak, unloving, hypocrites, don't practice what they
preach etc. And in many ways, their complaints are true (seeing that the
Lord came to heal those who need a doctor rather than shake hands with the
healthy). But those parts of our bodies "that seem to be weaker...that we
think are less honourable... the parts that are unpresentable are treated
with special modesty... with special honour" (NIV). The private parts of
our bodies are the parts we are most sensitive to, although on the outside
they seem weak and hidden. And so Paul reasons that the weaker parts of
the ecclesial body should be treated the same. The Greek for "feeble" (1
Cor. 12:21) is used (notably in Corinthians) to describe spiritual
weakness: Mk. 14:38; Rom. 5:6; 1 Cor. 8:7,10; 9:22; 11:30; 1 Thess. 5:14.
And in some ways, we are all "weak" (1 Cor. 1:27; 4:10). So those
we perceive ("that seem to be... that we think") to be spiritually weak in
their external appearance, we should be especially sensitive towards.
Significantly, the “sick" (s.w. "feeble") in the parable of Mt. 25:44 are
the "least" of Christ's brethren, the spiritually weakest; and at the day
of judgment, the rejected are condemned because of their attitude towards
these spiritually weakest of Christ's brethren.
Our attitude to the spiritually weak is a vital part of our salvation.
Christian disillusion with Christianity ignores this at its peril.
Thus "those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable"
(1 Cor. 12:22 NIV); indispensable for our spiritual development and
salvation. So we shouldn't be surprised if we don't like our brethren, if
there are things which unbearably bug us about the community. This
irritation, this clear vision of the weakness of our fellow believers, is
a God-designed feature of our spiritual experience. If the day of
disillusion and disappointment with the brotherhood hasn't come for you,
it surely will do. But remember how indispensable this all is.
Consider all the miserable complaints believers make about us: they gossip
about me, they actually fabricate things as well as exaggerate, she stole
from me, he disregards me, her son swore at me, would you believe
it (I would); they don't ask me to speak, he's such a hypocrite, and do
you know what she did... Let's say every word is true. These weak brethren
and sisters who are doing all this are "indispensable" to the salvation of
the one who suffers all this, if he responds properly. Just walking
away from them is to effectively put ourselves outside the body. We
need them, the Spirit says, we need all the mud, the comments and the
undermining and the upstaging and the betrayal, all at the most sensitive
and hurtful points.
12:23 And those parts of the body, which we think to be less
honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our
unattractive parts have more abundant covering- Paul, as always, is
our hero. The one who gave his life, his health, his career, his marriage,
his soul, for the salvation of others. Only to have confidences betrayed,
to be cruelly slandered, to be threatened, to be so passionately hated by
his converts that some even tried to kill him and betray him to the Romans
and Jews. He talks of how we must honour those whom we think are “less
honourable". He uses a word he earlier appropriates to himself in 1 Cor.
4:10 (AV "despised"). He's saying 'OK, if you think I'm so weak, so
despised, let's say I am. But you should receive me, because I'm still in
the body'. And to that there was no answer (and still isn't any) by those
Christians disillusioned with Christianity.
12:24- see on Eph. 5:31.
Whereas our more attractive parts have no need of this. But God tempered
the body together, giving more abundant honour to that part which lacked
it-
God has "tempered" the
whole body together, mingling together the weak and strong. That is
exactly why Paul didn't seek to resolve the problems at Corinth by
disfellowshipping the weak majority. He is likely writing here with an eye
to comforting and explaining things for the 'strong' minority who would
have wondered how they could ever retain membership in this church. The
allusion is to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were
"mingled" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an
acceptable offering (Lev. 2:4,5; 7:10; 9:4 etc.). Paul has already likened
his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (1 Cor. 5:7); he is
now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God's
Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or
denying, that “tempering" of the body which God has made. It's like a
husband and wife breaking apart their marriage, which God has joined
together. It isn't only that we are missing out on the patience etc. which
we could develop if we stayed in contact with our brethren. Our
indifference and shunning of our brethren is actively doing despite to the
Spirit of grace and unity which in prospect God has enabled His people to
experience. The body “maketh increase of itself... unto the edifying of
itself in love”. By remaining in the body, we are built up from what every
part of it contributes to the growth of the whole. To quit from our
brethren is to quit from that source of nutrition and upbuilding. The
earth in the sower parable represents various types of believers; and the
Lord went on to say that the earth brings forth fruit “of itself”. The
community of itself brings forth spirituality in its members. Some of the
most Spirit-filled brethren and sisters you can meet are those who have
stuck at ecclesial life all their days, really struggled with personality
clashes, with endless ecclesial storms and wrangles- but they've stuck it
out. And thereby they have remained in touch with, and been moulded by,
that Spirit of tempering together which is so fundamental to the body of
the Lord Jesus Christ.
“God has... given more abundant honour unto that part which
lacked" (1 Cor. 12:24), as the husband should "(give)
honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel" (1 Pet. 3:7).
God's dealings with the ecclesia are replicated both within marriage, and
within the ecclesia- for we too should give special respect and
sensitivity to the weaker parts of the ecclesial body (Rom. 14:1; 15:1).
12:25- see on 1 Cor. 12:7.
So that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should
have the same care one for another-
Paul begun his letter in chapter 1 by lamenting the schisms, and goes on
to highlight their lack of care for each other in sexual matters and in
the whole question of relationships with idol worship. But the composition
of the community of believers had been precisely calculated by the Lord of
the body for maximum spiritual functionality. The body was designed to
have no schism within it, so that each member could care for
others. This is why Paul sees schism as the first and foremost problem he
must address. It is symptomatic of all the other problems, and it was this
which was stopping the path of the Spirit in resolving all the other
issues. The tempering of the body, the choice of composition, who was
mingled with whom, was and is intended to produce an undivided community.
But as we have noted so often, Corinth didn't live up to the potential
made possible. And it is the same with us. It can seem that if only this
or that person was not in the community of believers, then all would
function so much better. But that is not in fact the case- the opposite is
true. Who should be avoided are those who cause division, especially by
the evil policy of cutting off members from the body.
12:26 And
whether one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or one member
is honoured, all the members rejoice with it- In an undivided
body, the situation of one member affects all. The idea of all suffering
together is repeated by Paul in 2 Cor. 1:5,6: "For as the sufferings of
Christ are ours in abundance, even so our comfort is also in abundance
through Christ. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation;
and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which works in the
patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer". The Lord
Jesus is a member of the body, and His sufferings and exaltation are ours.
But likewise our sufferings are not unique; they are so that we can find
comfort from others who have suffered the same, and give comfort to them
likewise. The joint rejoicing with the one member is surely alluding to
the parables of the lost in Lk. 15:6,9, where the rejoicing over the
finding of the lost member is a cause for inviting others to "rejoice with
me".
12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and each individually members of
it- This was perhaps aimed at the spiritually stronger who must have
wondered whether Corinth was still part of the body of Christ. This brief
statement stands as a huge challenge to all who would draw certain lines
of theology or practice or morality in order to exclude others. Paul
obviously drew the lines pretty low to say this about Corinth. Again, note
the emphasis upon "each [one]" of them being a member of the body.
12:28 And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondly
prophets, thirdly teachers, then those who do miracles, then the gifts of
healing, helping, administration and various kinds of languages- God
set the apostles first in the ecclesia (1 Cor. 12:28)- but in
another sense, God set the apostles last in the ecclesia (1 Cor.
4:9). It depends from which perspective we look at these things.
Pentecostals need to note that healings and tongues are low down the list.
"Administration" is likewise these days read as 'leadership'; but it is
well down the list. Perhaps the idea also was that there was no use
pretending to positions of apostles or prophets, because true apostles and
prophets had been "set" by God in the church. Hence Paul elsewhere speaks
of how he had been set or appointed as an apostle (s.w. 1 Tim. 1:12; 2:7;
2 Tim. 1:11); any attempt by the agitators to talk that down was simply
going against God's sovereign choice.
12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all
workers of miracles?- Paul so often positions himself as Moses. The
revolt against the authority of Moses was on the basis that "all the
congregation are holy, every one of them" and therefore Moses did not
really have the special authority he claimed (Num. 16:3). It seems the
same was happening at Corinth.
12:30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak with languages? Do all
interpret?- The answer in reality was not 'No, only some do'. Because
I have argued elsewhere that these gifts had only potentially been given.
Those who had been struck with sickness had no healers in the church
(11:30); and chapter 14 will rebuke the Corinthians for not using the gift
of interpretation, and not speaking in foreign languages but rather in
unintelligible gibberish after the pattern of the idol cults. Yet the
Corinthians claimed to have these gifts. I have suggested earlier that
they were imitating the claims made within the idol cults, but in their
case, were claiming that these were Spirit gifts from God. In reality they
were not. But Paul gently doesn't take direct issue with this. Instead he
criticizes their desire to have the more public gifts, or at least, their
desire to lay claim to them.
12:31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts- Although believers
were "set" or appointed to have certain gifts and should not therefore
aspire to others, according to the teaching in :4-11, there appears here
and in 14:1 to be the possibility of desiring
even "higher" ones. It may be that this reflects the openness of God to
serving Him and His people- that we can move above or beyond our calling.
Or it could be that Paul is treating their wrongly motivated desires for
Spirit gifts in the same way as he treated their wrongly motivated desires
for singleness and freedom from the marital ties that bound them. He goes
along with them, by saying that indeed singleness unto the Lord is
commendable; but warns them against using the church prostitutes in their
single state, and against breaking up existing marriages. And so here,
having said that we should receive and use the gifts we were appointed to
and not pretend to others which were not intended, he now seems to say
that of course, God is open to dialogue with man, and may grant even
greater gifts "for the common good" if our motivation is correct. But the
highest way is a way far higher than miraculous gifts- it is the way of
love without exercising those miraculous gifts. We marvel
that Paul does not just bluntly tell the Corinthians to stop getting drunk
in church, using prostitutes, commending incest and doubting the
resurrection of Jesus- but instead, along with of course criticizing those
things, he seeks to inspire them with spiritual ambitions of a very high
nature.
And I will show you a still more excellent way-
The "way" of love outlined in the next chapter. The
"higher gifts" were those which would help others the most; but the way of
love was higher. 1 Cor. 12:31-13:12 implies that Paul was faced with the
higher choice of the ministry of love and the written word, compared to
the lower choice of exercising the Spirit gifts. By all means compare this
with the choice which he had in Phil. 1:21-26: to exit this life was made
possible to him, but he chose the higher, more difficult and more
spiritually risky option of living for a few more years, in order to
strengthen his brethren. See on 1 Cor 7:11. The miraculous gifts were
given "for the common good", and would have been given to those who truly
sought the good of others. But the way of love was a better way. And that
is the way open to us. We can achieve even more by that, than by
possessing miraculous gifts. This is not only a stern counter to the
obsession of Pentecostalism for the miraculous gifts. It means that we
should never feel that we cannot serve others as we would wish because of
lack of resources or gifts. The way of love, after the pattern of chapter
13, is even more effective.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
