# comment

text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:10'>1Co 4:10</a></em><em>&nbsp;We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You have glory, but we have dishonour-&nbsp;</em>Wise, strong and honoured was how the Corinthians felt about themselves; although Paul observes that actually few of them were wealthy, wise and honourable (<em><a href='B:530 1:26'>1Co 1:26</a></em>). But in their arrogance, they acted like this. Chapters 1 and 2 have explained that those who are fools, weak and not honoured are those through whom the Lord works. So Paul is not only criticizing them for their pretensions, but is pointing out that the way some of them despise him, consider him weak and foolish etc. is in fact placing him within the very categories which God accepts, and who are identified with the Lord Jesus. “We are despised” (<em><a href='B:530 4:9-10'>1Co 4:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 4:9-10'>2Co 4:9-10</a></em>) clearly alludes to “Him whom man despises” (<em><a href='B:290 49:7'>Isa 49:7</a></em>). This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:11'>1Co 4:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even to this present hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked and are buffeted and have no certain dwelling-place-&nbsp;</em>Paul was writing from Ephesus, where he seems to have experienced some terrible trauma which he only indirectly alludes to. See on :9&nbsp;<em>For I think…&nbsp;</em>. Hunger, thirst and lack of clothing are the very categories which the Lord says will typify the least of His brethren; and our attitudes to their needs and situations will be the basis for our final judgment. Paul was writing from "no certain dwelling place". He was no armchair theologian. His Divine inspiration notwithstanding, it is a reflection of his intense spiritual focus that he was able to compose such letters whilst confronted by such basic instability. Many would feel that they could only concentrate on spiritual matters once their basic human needs of food, clothing and shelter were met; but Paul's devotion and focus was far deeper than to require that. His mention of being "buffeted" uses the same word used of the Lord's sufferings in <em><a href='B:470 26:67'>Mat 26:67</a></em>. "To this present hour" doesn't mean that all Paul's ministry was lived in this state; for there is evidence that at times he did have access to wealth, and he himself writes of how he had experienced both wealth and poverty throughout his ministry. Maintaining faith and focus despite these oscillations is a mark of how deep was his commitment to the Lord Jesus, and how little secular things mattered to him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:12'>1Co 4:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>We toil, working with our own hands</em>- To need to do manual work in order to survive was seen as the lowest level of existence in the ancient world. And Paul the one time wealthy intellectual was driven to this. The "we" referred to could possibly be Apollos and Paul. Paul was a tentmaker and lived with Aquilla and Priscilla because they too were tentmakers (<em><a href='B:510 18:3'>Act 18:3</a></em>); and Apollos lived with Aquilla and Priscilla at one point, perhaps because he too was a tentmaker (<em><a href='B:510 18:24'>Act 18:24</a></em>).</p><p><em>Being reviled, we bless. Being persecuted, we endure</em>- This is the language of the Sermon on the Mount (<em><a href='B:470 5:10-11'>Mat 5:10-11</a></em>); such things were and are necessary for every believer. The Lord too was "reviled" (<em><a href='B:500 9:28'>Joh 9:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:23'>1Pe 2:23</a></em>). The source of this opposition was likely also from within the church at Corinth as well as at the hands of the local opposition in Ephesus from where Paul was writing. For Paul goes on to ask the Corinthians not to fellowship with those of their number who were revilers (<em><a href='B:530 5:11'>1Co 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:10'>1Co 6:10</a></em>). The 'blessing' in view was perhaps that of forgiveness. Paul forgave these brethren but didn’t want to associate with them. Forgiveness and trust / active association are different issues. It was the Lord who was "persecuted" (s:w. <em><a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:20'>Joh 15:20</a></em>). Paul saw his persecutions as a fellowshipping of the Lord's experience. But more pertinently, it was Paul who had persecuted the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 9:4'>Act 9:4</a></em>) in that he had persecuted all those in Him (<em><a href='B:510 22:4'>Act 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 26:11'>Act 26:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:13'>Gal 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:23'>Gal 1:23</a></em>). He uses the same word in speaking of his persecution of the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:570 3:6'>Phi 3:6</a></em> and straight away uses the same word in writing of his 'following after' s:w. 'persecuting' the Lord Jesus in devotion to Him (<em><a href='B:570 3:12'>Phi 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:14'>Phi 3:14</a></em>). The energy and zeal of persecution was redirected into devotion. And in this Paul sets secular man a huge challenge, with all our earlier passion and zeal for success and worldly advantage.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:13'>1Co 4:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Being defamed, we entreat-&nbsp;</em>The 'defamation' may well have included slander from the Corinthians; for the same word is used of how Paul was reviled or 'evil spoken of' by them (<em><a href='B:530 10:30'>1Co 10:30</a></em>). The word is also frequently used of the Lord's sufferings, which Paul was fellowshipping both from the world and from his own brethren and converts.</p><p><em>We are made as the garbage of the world-&nbsp;</em>The Greek&nbsp;<em>perikatharma</em>&nbsp;is a form of the Greek term&nbsp;<em>katharmata</em>&nbsp;which was used to describe how a victim was killed to expiate for the people. Paul felt that all his sufferings were for the sake of others' salvation. He was surely alluding to the Lord's sufferings for our salvation, and saw his own sufferings reflecting that. There's nothing worse than to suffer for no cause or end; and Christian suffering is the supreme form of achievement for others through personal suffering.</p><p><em>The scum of the earth, even until now</em>-&nbsp; Paul described himself as the offscouring of all things- using the very language of condemned Israel (<em><a href='B:310 3:45'>Lam 3:45</a></em>). He so wanted to see their salvation that he identified with them to this extent. By doing so he was reflecting in essence the way the Lord Jesus so identified Himself with us sinners, as our representative, "made sin" whatever precisely this means for the sake of saving us from that sin (<em><a href='B:540 5:21'>2Co 5:21</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:14'>1Co 4:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I do not write these things to shame you-&nbsp;</em>It is significant that when dealing with Corinth's belief of those who sought to totally black Paul's character, by accusing him of being weak, foolish and unworthy of honour (:10,11) he writes that he doesn't seek to shame them. Yet when dealing with their doctrinal apostacy, Paul does seek to shame them: "Some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame" (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>). Shaming people is not always effective for their growth; but in other issues, shame is a valid form of discipline.</p><p><em>But to encourage you as my beloved children-&nbsp;</em>Paul writes of Timothy as his beloved child (:17). The Corinthians were so immature, and yet because they were in Christ, Paul felt he stood related to them as intimately as he did to faithful Timothy. Appreciating what it means to consider others as "in Christ" will transform our relationships and feelings toward each other within the church. "Encourage" is better translated 'to warn', as is the same word used of how Paul in Ephesus from where he was writing to the Corinthians had warned them night and day with tears for three years (<em><a href='B:510 20:31'>Act 20:31</a></em>). Warning others was a large theme in Paul's ministry; he sensed the gravity of the issues to which we stand related, the extreme reality of the future we may miss. The figure of the Corinthians and Timothy being his 'children' connects with his claim in :15 to be their 'father'. Yet he had not baptized Timothy nor most of the Corinthians. But his pastoral efforts with them had been so colossal that he felt they were his spiritual children; and he had been the one who had first introduced the Gospel to Corinth. So those who may not have baptized anyone can still legitimately feel that they have spiritual children.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:15'>1Co 4:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For though you have ten thousand would be teachers in Christ-&nbsp;</em>Or "instructors":Paul began the letter by expressing concern that they were listening to human wisdom more than spiritual truth. These "instructors" refer to the teachers they had amassed to themselves. But he doesn't use the expected word for 'teacher'. Instead he says they were no more than a&nbsp;<em>paidogogos</em>, a slave who had to take the little children to school, where they would be taught by the teacher (cp. Jesus). This was Paul's&nbsp;<em>hope</em>&nbsp;for the Corinthians; and his hope for Corinth is a powerful exhortation to us. But I mentioned earlier on <em><a href='B:530 3:10'>1Co 3:10</a></em> that Paul seems to have in mind Matthew's account of the great commission; the basic Gospel was to be taught, people baptized into it, and then the converts instructed in all that the Lord had commanded them. Perhaps Paul is drawing a similar contrast here between him as their "father", and the instructors who came after him.</p><p><em>You have not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus it was me who begat you through the gospel</em>- See on :14<em>&nbsp;But to encourage you:&nbsp;</em>Paul is not lamenting that they have "not many fathers" as if he wished they had more fathers than teachers; his point is that he is their singular father. Although he had not baptized many of them, he considered them his spiritual children. This would humanly speaking explain his endless patience and passionate care for them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:16'>1Co 4:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I therefore urge you to be imitators of me-&nbsp;</em>Literally, 'mimic me'. This continues the imagery of Paul being their father. He has earlier warned against the danger of following leaders, including himself. But he balances this with the observation that he is their spiritual father and they should mimic him. His answer to the problem of following human leaders appears to be: 'Follow me as I am your spiritual father; but not in any cult like sense, and following me means being spiritually minded'. Paul constantly sets himself up as an example to his converts; and whenever he bids them ‘follow me’, it is in the context of his example as a preacher (<em><a href='B:570 3:15-17'>Phi 3:15-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:9'>Phi 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:6'>1Th 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:16'>1Co 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:31'>1Co 10:31</a></em> to <em><a href='B:530 11:1'>1Co 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:1'>Eph 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:14'>1Th 2:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:7-9'>2Th 3:7-9</a></em>). He was their spiritual father, and he wants the converts to have his spiritual characteristics, which included preaching to others. This perhaps accounts for the otherwise surprising lack of specific encouragement to his converts to preach which we observe in Paul’s writings. He understood his role to be initiatory- he speaks of his preaching as planting (<em><a href='B:530 3:6-9'>1Co 3:6-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:10-11'>1Co 9:10-11</a></em>), laying foundations (<em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:10'>1Co 3:10</a></em>), giving birth (<em><a href='B:530 4:15'>1Co 4:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:640 1:10'>Phm 1:10</a></em>) and betrothing (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>). His aim was for his converts to also preach and develop self-sustaining ecclesias. “Paul’s method of shaping a community was to gather converts around himself and by his own behaviour to demonstrate what he taught”, following a pattern practiced by the contemporary moral philosophers. Paul is set before us as "a Christ-appointed model" of the ideal believer. He himself seems to have sensed this happening when he so often invites us to follow his example (<em><a href='B:530 4:16'>1Co 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:1'>1Co 11:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:12'>Gal 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:17'>Phi 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:9'>Phi 4:9</a></em>;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:590 1:6'>1Th 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:10'>1Th 2:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:7'>2Th 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:9'>2Th 3:9</a></em>). He does this quite self-consciously, for example: “I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many that they may be saved... let no man seek his own, but another’s profit” (<em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:24'>1Co 10:24</a></em>). He even says that he doesn't do things which he could legitimately allow himself,&nbsp;<em>because</em>&nbsp;he knew he was being framed as their example (<em><a href='B:600 3:7'>2Th 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:9'>2Th 3:9</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:17'>1Co 4:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>.</p><p><em>For this cause have I sent to you&nbsp;Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>See on :14<em>&nbsp;But to encourage you.</em></p><p><em>Who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church</em>- As noted on :16, Paul saw himself as their spiritual father and asked them to mimic him. He draws a parallel between "my ways" and what "I teach"; he felt that his example was as it were the word becoming flesh. And yet Paul felt keenly his sinfulness. It was this which perhaps gives even more edge to his invitation to mimic him. He sensed that he was a pattern for others, but this didn’t make him blind to his own failures.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:18'>1Co 4:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now some are inflated with pride, as though I were not going to come to you</em>- <em><a href='B:540 1:17-19'>2Co 1:17-19</a></em> suggests Paul was being slandered as an indecisive man whose word was not his bond. The implication of how Paul writes here is that his literal presence in Corinth would reveal the 'puffed up' ones as being indeed just inflated and having no substance. This situation would only be possible surely if Paul had some Spirit gift of discernment and even judgment or punishment which he was not afraid to use. James 5 seems to envisage a situation where the Spirit did smite some in the first century churches with disease, and the Lord's letters in Revelation 2, 3 imply likewise. We recall the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:19'>1Co 4:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power-&nbsp;</em>"Speech" is&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;and "power" is&nbsp;<em>dunamis.</em> There were many words in Corinth, many claiming to be teachers, even thousands of them (:15). The Lord's preaching was with both&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>and&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:490 4:36'>Luk 4:36</a></em>). These teachers were spirit-less; they were all word but no spirit / power. Paul began by writing that the power of God is the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;of the cross (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>). They were not teaching that, instead they were using the words of human wisdom; and so their message was without spirit / power. Paul's preaching was the&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;with&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:530 2:4'>1Co 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:7'>2Co 6:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 1:5'>1Th 1:5</a></em>). The problem of words being preached without the spirit is not unknown to us today. Mere fact, mere words, will not of themselves save anyone without spirituality or an element of the Spirit. In :20 Paul will go on to argue that the things of the Gospel of the Kingdom are not only in&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;but also in&nbsp;<em>dunamis.</em> There was a danger in the first century, as there is today, of a form of Godliness, a teaching of a correct form of words, which was lacking in "the power&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;thereof" (<em><a href='B:620 3:5'>2Ti 3:5</a></em>). We are kept by the&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;of God unto salvation (<em><a href='B:670 1:5'>1Pe 1:5</a></em>). Simply imparting Biblical fact is not the same as spirituality. Theological truth can be held without the Spirit. Paul began in 1 Corinthians 1 by pointing out this problem at Corinth; they had potentially been given the Spirit but they were Spirit-less (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:20'>1Co 4:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the kingdom of God is not in talk but in power-&nbsp;</em>See on :19. The Gospel of the Kingdom was in both&nbsp;<em>logos&nbsp;</em>"talk" and power; so we are to read this as 'not only in talk, but also in power'. The Gospel demands a response. The Greek word&nbsp;<em>euangelia</em>&nbsp;actually implies this, although the English translation 'good news' may mask it. There is an inscription from Priene in Asia Minor which reads: "The birthday of the god =Augustus was for the world the beginning of&nbsp;<em>good news</em>&nbsp;<em>euangelia</em>&nbsp;owing to him". The Gospel is not therefore just a proclamation of good news, e.g. an emperor's birthday:&nbsp;<em>Euangelia</em>&nbsp;meant the response to the good news; the good news and the response one must make to it are all bound up within the one word. "For the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is not only in&nbsp;<em>word</em>, but in&nbsp;<em>power</em>" - the Gospel isn't just so many words and ideas, as a life lived. For in the previous verse Paul has argued: "I will know, not the&nbsp;<em>word</em>&nbsp;of them which are puffed up, but the&nbsp;<em>power</em>", i:e. what their lives show of the things they profess (<em><a href='B:530 4:19-20'>1Co 4:19-20</a></em> RV). And we must ask ourselves whether our personal Christianity is mere words, or the power of a life living out those words.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:21'>1Co 4:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?-&nbsp;</em>This I suggest is better placed with the material in chapter 5. Paul is going to address the need to take concrete action regarding a major moral issue in the church. And he says he can take either a hard line with them, or appeal to them for love's sake in a gentle way. And he clearly takes the latter course, despite explaining in chapter 5 that he has received specific guidance and revelation from the Lord Jesus about how to judge this matter. But despite knowing he was in the right and they in the wrong, and in need of discipline, he doesn't let possession of truth or moral high ground lead him to take a dictatorial approach. He still appeals in love and gentleness- setting us a great example:The language of "rod" is that of a father disciplining his son (<em><a href='B:240 13:24'>Pro 13:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 23:13-14'>Pro 23:13-14</a></em>). This is a metaphor pertinent to the context, for Paul has declared himself their spiritual father in :15. In this case, Paul is saying that he could legitimately take a hard line with them; but he chooses to take the path of love and gentleness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:1'>1Co 5:1</a></em> Note how Paul deals with ecclesial problems in places like Corinth. He doesn’t write to the elders and tell them to sort it out and clean up the ecclesia. He writes to every member of the ecclesia. He confronts the whole ecclesia with his concerns over pastoral issues- not just the pastors. He tells the whole ecclesia of his concern about how they have not dealt with flagrant sin amongst them (1 Corinthians 5; <em><a href='B:530 6:1-11'>1Co 6:1-11</a></em>). The Lord’s teaching in <em><a href='B:470 18:15-18'>Mat 18:15-18</a></em> doesn’t ask us to refer our concerns about others’ behaviour in the ecclesia to the elders. He asks us to personally take the matter up with the individual. His church was to be built on individuals who followed Him personally and closely.</p><p><em>It is actually reported-&nbsp;</em>The Greek implies it was widely being spread about. Some were boasting about their liberality, as some do today. They were "puffed up" about the matter (:2). It was not a case of quietly accommodating a non-standard moral situation, but of boasting in it and claiming it was quite acceptable and even commendable.</p><p><em>That there is sexual immorality among you, and such immorality as is not even among the Gentiles</em>- This alludes to Old Testament condemnations of Israel for being actually worse than the surrounding Gentiles. And Paul is writing to Corinth, a city famed for its sexual immorality. Why is it that believers at times act far worse than unbelievers? The Corinthians were not living by the Spirit but rather by legalism; and obedience to a few laws leads people to fail spectacularly in other areas, because they feel justified. And as Paul explains in Romans 7, the knowledge of God’s law provokes within human nature a desire to disobey it. The only way forward, then, is to recognize God’s law but live in the Spirit. The legalistic spirit of the Corinthians is reflected in the way that they treated the man too harshly- for in 2Cor. Paul has to urge them to receive him back lest he be psychologically and spiritually destroyed by their attitude. So, as legalists do, they went from one extreme to another rather than following the way of the Spirit.</p><p><em>That one of you has taken to himself his father’s wife</em>- The woman may not necessarily have been the mother of the offender. This case involved a man suffering wrong (<em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>), so we can assume that the woman was already married to the man's father, and he took her away from him. Hence "taken to himself...". The end of chapter 4 must be connected with chapter 5; Paul speaks of his choice of dealing with Corinth with a rod, or with the spirit of meekness, and he has in view the case he is now discussing. Adam Clarke provides some background which is likely relevant in this case: "This woman might have been a proselyte to the Jewish religion from heathenism; and the rabbins taught that proselytism annulled all former relationship, and that a woman was at liberty in such a case to depart from an unbelieving husband, and to marry even with a believing son, i.e., of her husband by some former wife". Jewish influence was at work within the Corinthian church, and they had Jews amongst them, both in society and in the church. It was presumably this ruling of Judaism which had been eagerly seized upon to justify immorality. Which is how Paul judged the case. Whereas it was doubtless presented under the garb of loving spirituality. This of course is just how marital affairs amongst believers are usually justified to this day. The man who suffered wrong in the case (2 Cor. 7:12) was therefore the woman's husband; he was perhaps a believer, but she declared him an unbeliever and his own son slandered him as an unbeliever. The emphasis upon the need to separate from the wicked individual male ["that wicked person", :13] would suggest that the man who had the affair with the woman had slandered his own father as an unbeliever to justify his father's wife separating from her husband and marrying him. Hence the man is called not only a fornicator, but an idolator and slanderer (:11). This scenario would explain why some in the church were "puffed up" in support of the man; they willingly believed the slander about the woman's husband, and justified what had happened as being a spritual act, "glorying" in it (:6). Unless there was some quasi-spiritual narrative being claimed, it is hard to imagine how naked lust could be so glorified. The words for "malice and wickedness" in :8 imply wicked plots and plans. The whole scenario was not therefore simply a case of unbridled lust, but of a wider planning. The hypocrisy was extreme, because according to :11, the man was in fact an idolator [not a super spiritually minded Christian, although he was called a brother]. He was also a manipulator, blackmailer and a thief (:11); presumably because he got his father's wealth from his father's wife, who would have had to give something to her as part of the divorce settlement especially if the divorce involved slanderous accusations against him. This suggested scenario would explain how a man marrying his father's wife was also a slanderer, thief and blackmailer. </p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Instead of grieving, you have become arrogant-&nbsp;</em>The moral failures of others should cause our grief, as Lot grieved for Sodom. The Greek can mean mourning at a funeral; they were to mourn the spiritual death of the individual, and not boast about it nor be angry with him. His loss was their loss. But as noted on :1, the Corinthians were boasting about this case. Dealing with the offender was therefore a far more nuanced question than simply removing someone from a church because they are immoral. The Lord in writing to the churches in Revelation 1, 2 doesn't take this approach; so here in 1 Corinthians 5 the question is far wider than simply the private misbehaviour of an individual.</p><p>Any such separations are brought forth from much sorrow; Corinth ecclesia were told that they should&nbsp; have mourned as they withdrew from one who had left the faith (<em><a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a></em>). "The whole house of Israel" were commanded to "mourn" the necessary destruction of Nadab and Abihu (<em><a href='B:30 10:6'>Lev 10:6</a></em>). Samuel mourned and God repented when Saul was finally rejected (<em><a href='B:90 15:35'>1Sa 15:35</a></em>). Paul wept when he wrote about some in the ecclesia who had fallen away (<em><a href='B:570 3:17-19'>Phi 3:17-19</a></em>). It must be said that 'block disfellowship'- the cutting off of hundreds of brethren and sisters because theoretically they fellowship a weak brother-&nbsp; hardly enables 'mourning' and pleading with each of those who are disfellowshipped.</p><p><em>Remove the one&nbsp;who has done this deed from among you</em>- Paul explains his motivation for writing this in <em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>: "So although I wrote to you, I wrote not for his cause that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the wrong; but that your earnest care for us might be revealed to you in the sight of God". Paul was surely aware of many such non-standard moral cases in the churches, but he was making a test case of this one. He was not commanding the removal of the person solely for the sake of the offender, but for wider reasons. So it would be unwise to assume from this case that every immoral person in a church must be removed. There was clearly a wider context here.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:3'>1Co 5:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I truly, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him that has done this thing</em>- There was a Spirit gift of knowledge which resulted in Paul being as it were virtually present; he was not therefore judging from a distance on the basis of gossip. Hence he can write in :4 that "when you are gathered together (and my spirit is present with you when you do)". And he alludes to the same phenomenon in <em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em> "I tell you as if I were present". This ability to be virtually present is used supremely by the Lord, whose presence is to be found in our lives and where two or three are gathered together. If Paul knew this case by the Spirit and was spiritually present in their gatherings to discuss the matter; how much more the Lord Himself.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:4'>1Co 5:4</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>I command you that in the name of our Lord Jesus-&nbsp;</em>This decision was confirmed by the Lord Jesus; for Paul commands it by the Spirit. But it's a dangerous path to assume that this is a pattern for all disfellowships, for we have not received an inspired word from the Lord to excommunicate specific named individuals.</p><p><em>When you are gathered together-&nbsp;</em>The principles of <em><a href='B:470 18:16-17'>Mat 18:16-17</a></em> concerning dealing with personal offences are applied by Paul writing on the specific command of the Lord Jesus, which we do not have in the cases we deal with to dealing with the moral and doctrinal problems at Corinth (= <em><a href='B:540 13:1'>2Co 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:4-5'>1Co 5:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:9'>1Co 5:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:1-6'>1Co 6:1-6</a></em>). We are all priests, a community of them. This is why Paul writes to whole ecclesias rather than just the elders. <em><a href='B:530 5:4-5'>1Co 5:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:11'>1Co 5:11</a></em> make it clear that discipline was the responsibility of&nbsp;<em>all</em>, “the many” as Paul put it in 2Cor:, not just the elders. Even in Philippians, where bishops and deacons are specifically mentioned, Paul writes to “all the saints”.</p><p><em>And my spirit is present with you when you do-&nbsp;</em>See on :3.</p><p><em>With the power of our Lord Jesus</em>- Paul was commanding this course of action with the specific authority of the Lord. We do not have this available to us today when considering specific individuals. Perhaps this is why Paul labours the point- that he is speaking in this case according to a specific Spirit revelation received.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Deliver such a person to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus-&nbsp;</em>Who the Lord Jesus was is who He will be in the future; in the same way as who&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>are now, is who we will eternally be. For our spirit, our essential personality, will be&nbsp;<em>saved</em>&nbsp;in the day of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>). “Flesh and blood” will not inherit the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:530 15:50'>1Co 15:50</a></em>); and yet the risen, glorified Lord Jesus was “flesh and bones” (<em><a href='B:490 24:39'>Luk 24:39</a></em>). We will be who we essentially are today, but with Spirit instead of blood energizing us. It’s a challenging thought, as we consider the state of our “spirit”, the essential ‘me’ which will be preserved, having been stored in Heaven in the Father’s memory until the day when it is united with the new body which we will be given at resurrection. For in all things the Lord is our pattern; and we will in that day be given a body like unto His glorious body (<em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em>)- which is still describable as “flesh and bones” in appearance (<em><a href='B:490 24:39'>Luk 24:39</a></em>).</p><p>The purpose of this delivering was in order “that the spirit may be saved”. If Satan is intent on making people sin and alienated from God, why should what he does to them result in them being saved? It is by the experiences of life that God controls, that we are spiritually developed (<em><a href='B:650 12:5-11'>Heb 12:5-11</a></em>). How could the church at Corinth deliver the fallen brother to Satan if no one knows where to locate him? “Destruction” can also imply “punishment” (e.g. <em><a href='B:600 1:9'>2Th 1:9</a></em>). Are we to think that God would work in cooperation with an angel who is rebelling against Him? Notice that Satan is not described as eagerly entering the man, as we would expect if Satan is constantly trying to influence all men to sin and to turn believers away from God. The church (v. 4) is told to deliver the man to Satan. We note that in 1 Cor. 3:16,17, where the warning is that God will destroy the sexually immoral. But here, the satan is the destroyer. God therefore is ultimately behind the satan; just as in the Old Testament parallel between God and a satan / adversary of God's people in 2 Sam. 24:1 cp. 1 Chron. 21:1. The allusion in 3:16,17 may in turn be to Josh. 7:25 LXX, where the need for destruction by the Lord is in order to preserve the community: "And Joshua said to Achan, why have you destroyed us? The Lord will destroy you as at this day". And the spiritual preservation of the community may well be an issue in the command to separate from this sinful man. But the purpose was "for the destruction of the flesh", not the body. Death is not in view, because we will later learn that the man repented and was to be received back into the church. The idea was to save the man from his flesh, that in the process of discipline leading to repentance, this aspect of the "flesh" would be destroyed. This is in fact the process which happens to us all as we respond to our connection with the Lord Jesus; baptism is so that "the body of sin might be destroyed" (Rom. 6:5). </p><p>One of the big “Satans” – adversaries – to the early church was the Roman authority of the time, who, as the first century progressed, became increasingly opposed to Christianity. The Greek phrase “to deliver” is used elsewhere, very often in a legal sense, of delivering someone to a civil authority, e.g.:</p><p>– Someone can “deliver you to the judge” (<em><a href='B:470 5:25'>Mat 5:25</a></em>).</p><p>– “They will deliver you up to the councils” (<em><a href='B:470 10:17'>Mat 10:17</a></em>).</p><p>– The Jews “shall deliver (Jesus) to the Gentiles” (<em><a href='B:470 20:19'>Mat 20:19</a></em>)</p><p>– “The Jews will... deliver (Paul) into the hands of the Gentiles” (<em><a href='B:510 21:11'>Act 21:11</a></em>).</p><p>– “Yet was I delivered prisoner” (<em><a href='B:510 28:17'>Act 28:17</a></em>).</p><p>So is Paul advising them to hand over the sinful brother to the Roman authorities for punishment? The sin he had committed was incest, and this was punishable under the Roman law. Remember that “destruction” also implies “punishment”. Leander Keck demonstrates that the behaviour of the incestuous man was “contrary to both Jewish and Roman law”, rendering him liable to punishment by those authorities (Leander Keck,&nbsp;<em>Paul and His Letters</em>&nbsp;(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) p. 106).</p><p>“Satan” here may also refer to the man’s evil desires. He had given way to them in committing the sin of incest, and Paul is perhaps suggesting that if the church separates from the man and leaves him to live a fleshly life for a time, maybe eventually he will come round to repentance so that ultimately his spirit would be saved at the judgment. This is exactly what happened to the prodigal son (Luke 15); living a life away from his spiritual family and totally following Satan – his evil desires – resulted in him eventually repenting. <em><a href='B:300 2:19'>Jer 2:19</a></em> sums this up: “Your own wickedness shall correct you and your backslidings shall reprove you: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter” (that they had done).</p><p>“The flesh” does not necessarily mean “the body”. It may also refer to a way of life controlled by our evil desires, i:e. Satan. Believers “are not in the flesh, but in the spirit” (<em><a href='B:520 8:9'>Rom 8:9</a></em>). This does not mean that they are without physical bodies, but that they are not living a fleshly life. Before conversion “we were in the flesh” (<em><a href='B:520 7:5'>Rom 7:5</a></em>). <em><a href='B:550 5:19'>Gal 5:19</a></em> mentions sexual perversion, which the offender at Corinth was guilty of, as a “work of the flesh”. <em><a href='B:690 3:5'>1Jn 3:5</a></em> (cp. v. 8), defines sins as the “works of the Devil”, thus equating the flesh and the Devil. Thus <em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em> could be understood as ‘Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of Satan/the Devil’, so that we have Satan destroying Satan. It is impossible to understand this if we hold to the popular belief regarding Satan. But if the first Satan is understood as the Roman authority and the second one as the flesh, or sinful expressions of our evil desires, then there is no problem.</p><p>We have seen in our notes on <em><a href='B:490 10:18'>Luk 10:18</a></em> that Satan is sometimes used in the context of reminding us that physical illness is ultimately a result of our sin. It may be that the spirit – gifted apostles in the first century had the power of afflicting sinful believers with physical illness or death – e.g. Peter could order Ananias and Sapphira’s death (Acts 5); some at Corinth were physically “weak and sickly” as a punishment for abusing the communion service (<em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>); Jesus could threaten the false teachers within the church at Thyatira with instant death unless they repented (<em><a href='B:730 2:22-23'>Rev 2:22-23</a></em>) and <em><a href='B:660 5:14-16'>Jas 5:14-16</a></em> implies that serious illness of some members of the church was due to their sins, and would be lifted if there was repentance. If the sickness mentioned here was an ordinary illness, it does not follow that if a Christian repents of sin he will automatically be healed, e.g. Job was afflicted with illness as a trial from God, not because he sinned. It was for the help and healing of repentant believers who had been smitten in this way, that “the gift of healing” was probably mainly used in the early church (<em><a href='B:530 12:9'>1Co 12:9</a></em>). Thus Paul’s delivering the incestuous brother to Satan and also delivering “Hymaenaeus and Alexander... unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (<em><a href='B:610 1:20'>1Ti 1:20</a></em>), may have involved him smiting them with physical sickness due to their following of Satan – their evil desires. Some time later Paul noted how Alexander still “greatly withstood our words” (<em><a href='B:620 4:14-15'>2Ti 4:14-15</a></em>). The extent of his withstanding Paul’s preaching is made apparent if we understand that Alexander had been struck ill by Paul before he wrote the first letter to Timothy, but had still refused to learn his lesson by the time Paul wrote to Timothy again. Again, notice that Satan would try and teach Alexander “not to blaspheme” (<em><a href='B:610 1:20'>1Ti 1:20</a></em>). If Satan is an evil person who is a liar and blasphemer of God’s word, how can he teach a man not to blaspheme God?</p><p>The same verb for ‘delivering over’ occurs in the LXX of <em><a href='B:220 2:6'>Job 2:6</a></em>, where God ‘hands over’ Job to Satan, with the comment in LXX: “you are to protect his&nbsp;<em>psyche</em>, his spirit”. The connection between the passages would suggest to me that Job was in need of spiritual improvement, even though he was imputed as being righteous (<em><a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a></em>). Whatever, the point surely is that God handed a person over to an adversary, for that person’s spiritual salvation. The orthodox idea of God and Satan being pitted in conflict just doesn’t cut it here. Biblically, God is portrayed as in charge of any ‘Satan’ / adversary, and using ‘satans’ at His will for the spiritual improvement of people, rather than their destruction. The story of Job is a classic example. Are we to really understand that there is a personal being called Satan who’s disobedient to God, out of His control, and bent on leading people to their spiritual destruction? No way, Jose. Not yet, Josette. <em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em> and the record of Job teach the very dead opposite. And by all means bring on board here <em><a href='B:620 2:26'>2Ti 2:26</a></em>, which speaks of people being caught in the Devil’s trap at God’s will / desire. This is the translation offered by H:A. Kelly,&nbsp;<em>Satan: A Biography</em>&nbsp;(Cambridge: C:U:P:, 2006) p. 119.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:6'>1Co 5:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little yeast raises the whole lump of dough?-&nbsp;</em>Paul is cleverly alluding to a common Jewish maxim that sinners must be removed from the community because just a little yeast affects the whole lump. But he is saying that the attitudes of those who were boasting about this matter were in fact the yeast. He has said that they were "puffed up" (:2 Gk. and AV). And here he continues the analogy. Their boasting had to be purged out- and so he urges them to purge out that yeast so that they might be "a new lump" (:7). Their boasting was the yeast. Whilst indeed the immoral personal had to be removed, their attitudes were no better. This is a very telling play on the idea of yeast, and is so true of the wrong attitudes which have accompanied so much excommunication. Those attitudes were as bad and as damaging as the behaviour of the individual being disciplined. Paul makes his point specifically in :8, where he asks them to remove the yeast of "malice and wickedness" and instead be sincere and truthful. He uses the same word for "malice" in describing how things were amongst the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 10:6'>1Co 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:33'>1Co 15:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:7'>2Co 13:7</a></em>). The Greek word for "wickedness" is that used of "that wicked person" (:13). Their wickedness, which they had to purge out, was no better than his wickedness. As noted earlier, the command to remove the individual was not simply for his sake (<em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>); there were far wider issues here. The essence of his sin was to be found in those who were boasting of him, and who would later over harshly condemn him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Purge out the old yeast so that you may be a new lump-&nbsp;</em>See on :6. As a man or woman seriously contemplates the cross, they are inevitably led to a self-knowledge and self-examination which shakes them to the bone. We are to “purge out" the old leaven from us at the memorial meeting (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>). But the same Greek word for “purge" is found in passages which speak of how the blood of Christ purges us: <em><a href='B:500 15:2'>Joh 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:2'>Heb 10:2</a></em>. We purge ourselves because Christ has purged us. This is the connection between His death for us, and our self-examination.</p><p><em>Even as you actually are-&nbsp;</em>They were full of yeast, and yet they were in another sense a new, unleavened loaf. The loaf represents the Lord Jesus. They were in Christ and by grace counted as in Him. But in reality they were leavened with malice, wickedness and boasting. This approach surely helped the spiritual Paul in coping with the unspiritual Corinthians. And it helps us in our struggles with all the moral weakness we see in our brethren. We are not to be naively blind to it, whilst on the other hand we are to perceive them as our brethren, justified in Christ.</p><p><em>For our Passover lamb has been sacrificed, even Christ</em>- They were to live in the intensity of Passover night, awaiting the call to leave Egypt at the Angel's coming, just as we await the Lord's coming. The lamb had been slain; now they were to keep the feast with unleavened bread. The plagues on Egypt are the basis for the various latter day judgments described in Revelation and the Olivet prophecy. Perhaps we too will be shielded from the final ones, as Israel were. The lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread, and Paul urges them all to look to themselves in order to purge themselves within of yeast. He was concerned that the expulsion of a failed individual might lead them to not look within, when they were in essence as much at fault as him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old yeast, neither with the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the bread of sincerity and truth which has no yeast-&nbsp;</em>Paul's selfless relationship with Corinth was inspired by that of Moses with Israel. This is echoing Moses' command to keep the Passover feast without leaven, putting Moses' words in his own mouth (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:3'>Deu 16:3</a></em>). Paul saw himself as Moses in trying to save a generally unresponsive and ungrateful Israel. The word chosen for "wickedness" [poneros] clearly echoes that for fornication [pornos], indeed the two words are a simple anagram of each other. The hint may be that the fornication was occuring at the breaking of bread meeting. And that is quite possible, because the church in Corinth were clearly acting like the idol cults, where alcohol was consumed and cult prostitutes were slept with as part of the worship. The scene in 1 Cor. 11 seems to suggest this was happening, and I have commented on 1 Tim. 2 that a similar problem was going on at Ephesus. Jezebel taught the Lord's servants to commit fornication within the church (Rev. 2:20). This would explain why the man is accused of being an idolator (:10); but like Israel of old, he was mixing idolatry with an apparently hyper conservative spiritual argument, that his father was apostate and so he had disfellowshipped his father and married his father's wife, and was having sex with her publically in church as an expression of his supposed spirituality. This explains :3 Gk. "he that has perpetrated this deed in such a manner". And Paul goes right on in 1 Cor. 6:12-20 to warn the church to quit fornication with prostitutes, as if it were a widespread problem. He reasons that he who is joined to a prostitute is one body with her (6:16), whereas the breaking of bread service commemorates that we are one body with Christ. All 'being one' with anyone or anything else is thereby precluded. 
We marvel that Paul does not teach disfellowship of the entire church, but rather a focus upon the removal of one individual who was openly teaching and exhibiting publically this kind of behaviour. And yet according to 2 Corinthians, the man repented and Paul was urgent that he should be restored, lest he be "consumed from overmuch sorrow", i.e. be psychologically shattered by realizing what he had done. We take the simple lesson that change really is possible even in the apparently hardest cases. If that brother changed, and we look forward to seeing him in the Kingdom- then so can we. We also see that quoting this passage as an excuse to disfellowship brethren who differ on some matter of interpretation, or who failed morally in hot blood, is totally inappropriate. But we also must note that this extreme, public immorality is bracketed together with malice and wickedness. To have malice in your heart, to be covetous and argumentative (:11), is the same "leaven" or yeast which will spread to others. The searching for leaven (:7), as the Jews did at Passover, speaks of the searching of our own hearts. Especially at the breaking of bread. 
</p><p>In <em><a href='B:50 16:3'>Deu 16:3</a></em> the unleavened bread is called the "bread of affliction", whilst in <em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em> it is called the "unleavened bread of sincerity and Truth", as if being sincere and true and not having malice and bitterness in our hearts is a result of much mental affliction and exercising of the mind. So to keep the feast we have to search our houses, our lives, for anything like leaven- anything that puffs us up, that distorts us from the true smallness and humility we should have, that corrupts our sincerity. By nature we have so much pride in us, so much that puffs us up. We should always find some leaven in us every time we examine ourselves. The Jews used to search their houses with candles, looking for any sign of leaven. So we too must look into every corner of our lives with the candle of the word. Similarly before the great Passovers of Hezekiah and Josiah there was a searching for idols which were then thrown down. Note how Paul calls on the Corinthians to keep the feast “with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,” which he contrasts with “malice and evil” (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>). Truth is set up against evil- not against wrong interpretations of Bible passages.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:9'>1Co 5:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I wrote to you in my letter to have no association with fornicators</em>- Paul had written a letter to the Corinthians previously which has not been preserved:&nbsp;<em>Pornos&nbsp;</em>, "fornicators", doesn't really refer to a young unmarried couple who 'go too far', although that is also not spiritual behaviour. The word refers to prostitutes or those willfully pushing immoral behaviour; we might translate 'pornographers'. The man who had taken his father’s wife was therefore involved in a far wider scene of immorality. In <em><a href='B:530 5:9-13'>1Co 5:9-13</a></em> Paul says that he doesn’t intend the converts “to get out of the world” but rather to mix with the greedy, robbers and idolaters who are in the world. We know from later in this epistle that Christians in Corinth were free to use the pagan meat markets, and to accept invitations for meals in pagan homes. The Corinthians seemed to think that because they were self-consciously separate from the world, therefore it didn’t matter how they lived within the community. It seems they had misunderstood Paul’s previous letter about separation from sinful people as meaning they must be separate from the world. But Paul is saying that no, one must mix with the world, but separate from sin within our own lives. However, by the end of the 1st century, ‘going out of the world’ became the main preoccupation with some Christians, even though they themselves often developed low moral standards as a result of this. It was these ascetic groups who so over analysed some aspects of doctrine- for they had nothing better to do with their time- that they ended up with false doctrine. They converted only from within their groups, so the world was not witnessed to, the fire of love and compassion for humanity that was the hallmark of true Christianity was lost, and thus by the 2nd century the Truth both doctrinally and in practice had been lost.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:10'>1Co 5:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I did not mean with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters. For you must go out of the world to do this-&nbsp;</em>The implication is that the "world" of Corinth was totally full of these things, and to not mix with such people meant going out of the world, which is impossible. We have here a window onto the deep immortality in Corinth. The Lord likewise mixed with sinful people and shared His table with them in order to bring them to Himself. He came<em>&nbsp;into</em>&nbsp;the world rather than going out of it to live on a mountain top. But this does not mean that within the community of Christ we can act just as the world does.  It would seem that the Corinthians had misunderstood Paul's teaching; they were reasoning that they should not mix with unbelieving fornicators, but such fornication was therefore acceptable within the Christian community, and they were boasting about it. This is psychologically credible. Some of the most 'separated from the world' Christian communities today have been exposed as riddled with sexual immortality. "I did not mean..." suggests there had been an earlier communication from Paul about this matter (:8 "I wrote unto you in a letter..."). Nearly all misinterpretation is not simply a case of intellectual failure; there is a moral, psychological drive behind it, however subconscious. Later in this letter we will read of the Corinthians not believing in the resurrection, getting drunk at the breaking of bread, even using prostitutes within their church services. This was hardly misinterpretation, but rather a desire to justify unspiritual behaviour. It would seem that the Corinthians had misunderstood Paul's teaching; they were reasoning that they should not mix with unbelieving fornicators, but such fornication was therefore acceptable within the Christian community, and they were boasting about it. Nearly all misinterpretation is not simply a case of intellectual failure; there is a moral, psychological drive behind it, however subconscious. Later in this letter we will read of the Corinthians not believing in the resurrection, getting drunk at the breaking of bread, even using prostitutes within their church services. This was hardly misinterpretation, but rather a desire to justify unspiritual behaviour. And I suggest that all of the classic 'false doctrines' likewise have a subconscious element driving them- the parade example would be the refusal to accept the Lord Jesus had human nature. For that demands so much practically from we who share that same nature.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:11'>1Co 5:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I wrote to you not to keep association, if anyone that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner. With such a one have no association, not even to eat-&nbsp;</em>When Peter baptized thousands of people as recorded in Acts, there is no indication that he as it were screened them for morality. Likewise the 'baptismal interview' of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 focused upon his faith in Christ rather than his personal morality. The spirit of grace which there is in Jesus leads us towards a tolerance of others, in order to patiently lead them towards repentance. The Lord Himself broke His bread with serious sinners- and was criticized for eating with them, seeing that 'eating' with someone was freighted with huge spiritual significance in 1st Century society. The apparent command here not to eat with sinners would appear at variance with the Lord's teaching and example, almost purposefully so. Paul writes here in the context of the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>), and in chapter 11, he criticizes the Corinthians for being drunk at the breaking of bread. We know from <em><a href='B:730 2:20'>Rev 2:20</a></em> that there was a female false teacher in at least one ecclesia, who was teaching Christ's brothers to engage in fornication and idol worship. Bearing this in mind, let's observe that the format of the breaking of bread service was in outline terms similar to the 'symposia' of the trade guilds and religious club gatherings of Corinth; a group of likeminded people sat down to a meal, heard an address from a member of their guild or religion about what was of common interest to them all, and then drank wine to the relevant gods. These meetings, however, were characterized by the presence of male and female prostitutes, drunkenness was common, and the commonality provided by the trade guild or religion was really an excuse for an evening of debauchery and idol worship. It would appear that there was a tendency in Corinth for the breaking of bread meeting to be turned into just such an event, featuring drunkeness and idolatry. The word used here in <em><a href='B:530 5:11'>1Co 5:11</a></em> for "fornicator" is&nbsp;<em>pornos</em>, which specifically carries the meaning of a male prostitute- exactly the kind of person to be found at the 'symposia'. The Greek words translated "covetous", "railer" and "extortioner" all carry the idea of someone given over to utter debauchery. Such behaviour would be commonly associated with the drunken sexual debauchery which the symposia could turn into. It seems that the church at Corinth, and perhaps elsewhere, was slipping into this kind of behaviour at the breaking of bread. Paul condemns it in the strongest terms. He's saying that if any brother is acting as a 'pornos', a male prostitute, a facilitator and thereby teacher and encourager of this kind of behaviour, he is not to be eaten with. The Greek construction is rather strange: "Any man that is called a brother... with such an one, no not to eat". The grammar could suggest that one specific individual is being spoken about- 'That person who calls himself a brother, yes, that's right, with that one, don't even eat'. And the earlier context of chapter 5 makes it quite clear who that person was- the individual who had taken his father’s wife, whom Paul had just commanded they separate from (:5) during those times when they were "gathered together" at the breaking of bread meeting (:4). This individual was involved in leading the breaking of bread meeting into gross sexual misbehaviour, alcohol abuse and debauchery. Such a person should not be eaten with, he shouldn't be allowed at that meeting as he clearly had an unspeakably awful agenda. Read this way, this verse doesn't mean we shouldn't break bread with someone who e.g. struggles with an alcohol problem or who is at times "covetous". The question of whether or not such a person has repented is very difficult to decide. But we don't need to struggle with those questions, because this verse doesn't demand that of us. It asks the Corinthians to exclude an individual with the awful, publically advertised, wilfully perverted agenda described above, and we likewise of course should do the same. In our age any church comprised of new converts will have its share of immorally living folks; the question is whether this immorality is being paraded and gloried in, by them and others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:12'>1Co 5:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For what have I to do with judging those that are without? Do you not judge those that are within?-&nbsp;</em>They were already judging those within by having adopted a position on the individual in question. They were being asked to reasess that judgment. But bear in mind that judging can mean either to condemn, or to have<em>&nbsp;an opinion:&nbsp;</em>By not judging in the sense of condemning, pre-judging the Lord's final judgment, this doesn't mean that we have no moral position on anything.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:13'>1Co 5:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But them that are without God judges. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves</em>- As noted on :6, their "wickedness" is described with the same word as used for the "wicked man". They were in essence no better, and the command to remove him was not so much for his sake as for other reasons (<em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>). It was not that wicked people must be removed from the church; for as noted on :6, they too were "wicked". There was a wider agenda here, as noted throughout this chapter. This was not temporary hot blood failure, but a wilful way of life. Paul is quoting here from Dt. 17:7 LXX "And the hand of the witnesses shall be upon him among the first to put him to death, and the hand of the people at the last; so shalt thou remove the evil one from among yourselves". This was to be the punishment for the man who broke covenant and "should go and serve other gods, and worship them, the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven" (Dt. 17:2,3). Clearly Paul sees the behaviour of immorality, lying and boasting in it as the equivalent of idolatry under the new covenant. Hence the mention of idolatry in :10. The worship of sex and wealth in our age is clearly enough the equivalent of Old Testament idolatry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:1'>1Co 6:1</a></em><em>&nbsp;Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbour, go to law before the unrighteous and not rather take it before the saints?-&nbsp;</em>It is likely that this issue is related to that discussed in chapter 5 about the immoral man. That chapter concluded with an appeal to judge those within the church, and this theme continues here. I noted throughout chapter 5 that the case of the immoral man was not simply a case of removing a sinner from the church; <em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em> is clear about that. The issue was wider and more nuanced than that. It could be that the immoral man had even taken his father to court in order to take his wife from him; for Paul later writes about an individual who "suffered wrong" in the matter, who would surely refer to the man who had had his wife taken from him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:2'>1Co 6:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you</em>- They were therefore "the saints", for this is paralleled with them 'judging angels' in the future age (:3). Paul shows that in terms of salvation, he sees no difference between the Corinthians and himself, despite their deep moral failings and spiritual misunderstandings. Once someone was in Christ, Paul accepted them as redeemed and in prospect saved. He assumed their final salvation- and this is a huge challenge to us, with all our frustrations at the moral and doctrinal delinquency of others in the church. "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world" is referring back to <em><a href='B:470 19:28'>Mat 19:28</a></em>, which promises all those who have followed Christ that they will sit on thrones of judgment. That this promise was not just to the disciples is evident from <em><a href='B:490 22:30'>Luk 22:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 1:33'>Luk 1:33</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:730 3:21'>Rev 3:21</a></em>. It's as if Paul is saying: 'Now come on, you ought to know this, it's in the Gospels'. He expected other believers to share his familiarity with the words of Christ.</p><p><em>Are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?-&nbsp;</em>Paul often seems to quote snippets from the Corinthians' statements or even perhaps their correspondence. It seems they were arguing that they were not qualified to judge the moral behaviour of their brethren, and therefore they tolerated the situation which had developed, and even applauded it in the name of liberality.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>Do you not know that we shall judge angels?-&nbsp;</em>We have to assume our brethren will be in the Kingdom. Paul did this even with Corinth; he wrote of how “<em>we&nbsp;</em>shall judge angels” when we are all accepted in the Kingdom. And his way of writing to the Thessalonians about the resurrection and judgment assumes that all of his readers would be accepted (“so shall&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;ever be with the Lord… ye are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the children of light”). We too can do nothing else but see each other like that. The impact of this is colossal. We’d rather shy away from it. But meditate awhile upon it.</p><p>The Angels could refer to literal Angels who existed and sinned during some previous creation, but who will only be finally judged and destroyed when death itself is destroyed totally at the Lord's return. "The Angels which kept not their first estate... He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgement of the great day" (<em><a href='B:720 1:6'>Jud 1:6</a></em>)- clearly the judgement at the second coming. See on <em><a href='B:720 1:6'>Jud 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 9:23'>Heb 9:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 11:32'>Luk 11:32</a></em>.</p><p>Or the 'Angels' in view may simply be messengers or local representatives of the nations, whom we shall 'judge' at the time of the Kingdom's establishment. Under the Law, there was a referral system up to Moses, smaller cases being dealt with by the 70 elders and family heads. These 'elohim' must surely point forward to us, the King-priests of the future age. "We shall judge angels" may refer to each believer being in the position to pass judgment on a messenger or representative of, e.g., a town or village. This mention of angel-messengers implies that we will be geographically located in one place in a region, to where cases must be brought by a messenger.</p><p>Judging Angels doesn't have to mean that we will condemn them. We are to “judge” our brethren, not in condemning them but in discerning between them, in the same way as we will “judge Angels” in the future. Then, we will not condemn them, but perceive / discern the differences between them:&nbsp;</p><p><em>How much more, things that pertain to this life?-&nbsp;</em>The Greek word only occurs in <em><a href='B:490 21:34'>Luk 21:34</a></em> about how the rejected at the last day have been obsessed with "the cares of this life".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:4'>1Co 6:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If then you have to judge things pertaining to this life</em>, set&nbsp;<em>them to judge who are of no account in the church-&nbsp;</em>Literally, seat them down in the judgment throne. The Greek for "no account" has been used in <em><a href='B:530 1:28'>1Co 1:28</a></em> to describe how the Lord uses "things which are despised", in the total inversion of values which we see in the operation of the Spirit. Paul was thought by the Corinthians to be "of no account" (s:w. <em><a href='B:540 10:10'>2Co 10:10</a></em>). Here, Paul may therefore even have himself in view; he would be asking them to accept his judgment, which he offered to them concerning the immoral man in chapter 5.</p><p>It was usual for the head of the household to automatically be the leader of the religion which his household practised. But for the true Christians, this was not necessarily so to be; for the Lord had taught that it was the servant who was to lead, and here the least esteemed in the ecclesia were to judge matters. Elders of the household fellowships had to be chosen on the basis of their spiritual qualification, Paul taught. The radical nature of these teachings is so easily lost on us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I say this to move you to shame</em>- See on <em><a href='B:530 4:14'>1Co 4:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>What Is there not among you even one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brothers?-&nbsp;</em>This is a reference back to <em><a href='B:530 1:19-20'>1Co 1:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:25-27'>1Co 1:25-27</a></em>. The gift of wisdom was given to those "not esteemed" (<em><a href='B:530 1:28'>1Co 1:28</a></em>). Paul laments that despite having been given the Spirit, they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>) and therefore lacked wisdom. Paul had the Spirit, and he judged the situation about the immoral brother in chapter 5. But here he laments that there seems not one who has made use of the gift of spiritual wisdom. Christ had been made wisdom to the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>), but there was not a wise man amongst them. Just as they had been richly blessed with the Spirit, according to chapter 1, but were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). The Greek translated "decide" is used again in <em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em> about not discerning the Lord's body, which is His church.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:6'>1Co 6:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But as it is with you at the moment, brother goes to law with brother- and that before unbelievers</em>- In terms of 1 Corinthians 1, they had turned to worldly wisdom and judgment rather than using the wisdom and judgment given by the Spirit. 'Going to law' translates&nbsp;<em>krino</em>; in :5 Paul lamented that they were not 'deciding' between their brothers, using&nbsp;<em>diakrino</em>. The same distinction is found in <em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em> - if we would&nbsp;<em>diakrino&nbsp;</em>"judge" ourselves, we will not be judged&nbsp;<em>krino</em>&nbsp;in the sense of condemned. It is the Spirit which enables us to&nbsp;<em>diakrino</em>&nbsp;(s:w. <em><a href='B:530 14:29'>1Co 14:29</a></em>). But the Corinthians refused to make use of that gift.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:7'>1Co 6:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>No, already there is totally a defect in&nbsp;you, that you have lawsuits with one another-&nbsp;</em>There was a 'lack', a deficit- of the Spirit. For despite having been given the Spirit, they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>).</p><p><em>Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?</em>- <em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em> speaks of "he that suffered wrong", presumably the father of the immoral brother, whose wife had been taken from him. But it would appear that the father had launched legal action against his son for going off with his wife. "Defrauded" is used in a sexual sense (<em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:6'>1Th 4:6</a></em>). The man is here being encouraged not to seek legal redress over the matter; and we note that Paul accuses them all of defrauding their brethren, as if they too were guilty of gross sexual misbehaviour. In the same way, he argued in chapter 5 that they had the same leaven within them which was as it were within the immoral brother.</p><p>Paul taught his hopeless Corinthians that they ought not to be taking each other to court in the world, but rather should get brethren to settle disputes between brethren. But then he offers the higher level: don’t even do this,&nbsp; but “rather take wrong... rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded”. This kind of concession to a lower level is something we will find throughout chapter 7.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:8'>1Co 6:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>No, but you yourselves do wrong and defraud- and that your brothers-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :7, 'defraud' is used in a sexual context in <em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em> and <em><a href='B:590 4:6'>1Th 4:6</a></em>. The defrauded were defrauding- they had not allowed the Spirit of grace to break that endless cycle of bad behaviour in response to bad behaviour. The defrauding of brothers was in the form of taking brothers to law (:6).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?-&nbsp;</em>If they really believed that, they would not have searched for human justice and retribution. They 'knew' these things but not on the level of deep faith and relationship. Paul’s reasoning about not going to law against those whom we consider to be in the wrong is based upon his reasoning that there will be a future judgment, and thieves, covetous persons, extortioners etc:- the very ones we might be tempted to take to law- will not inherit the Kingdom. If we take these types to law, Paul reasons, it’s as if we don’t know this basic first principle- that they will not be in the Kingdom. And this is surely judgment enough. They don’t need our judgment now. Rather should we receive motivation to preach to others from the thought of judgment to come. He uses the "know ye not?" rubric several times in his writings (e.g. <em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em> in this context) to point the new converts back to the implications of the basic doctrines they had recently converted to. If we believe that there will be a righteous judgment, and those responsible who have sinned will suffer the awful experience of rejection… then why seek to judge them yourself, in this life? Why worry about the prosperity of the wicked within the ecclesia if you really believe that the wicked will not be in the Kingdom? That is such an awful thing that one need not worry about trying to judge them ourselves in this life. Take comfort in the fact that judgment is coming… that's Paul's message, built as it is on the implications of basic doctrines.</p><p><em>Be not deceived-&nbsp;</em>Neither by their own internal reasoning, nor by false teachers who were claiming that sexual immorality was acceptable and even a condition for entering the Kingdom of God. Hence the emphasis may be that the unrighteous shall&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;inherit the Kingdom, as compared to the claim that they would certainly inherit the Kingdom.</p><p><em>Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men-&nbsp;</em>Paul lists sins which will exclude from God’s Kingdom; he focuses here on sexual sins, and some of the words he uses could imply prostitution. Clearly these were ongoing problems amongst the Corinthian Christians. They came from a background in which prostitution and sexual immorality were justified as part of religious services, and it is clear that they had imported such practices into the church. It is evident that he does not mean those who have committed one act of theft or adultery would be condemned at the last day (for this would, e.g., exclude David from God’s Kingdom). He is evidently referring to those who continue in this way of life, justifying it as spiritually acceptable, and actually committing the prostitution rather than using it. And this was the problem at Corinth. The church is in embryo the Kingdom of God (<em><a href='B:580 1:13'>Col 1:13</a></em>), and therefore what will evidently be excluded from God’s future political Kingdom must be excluded from the church now.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:10'>1Co 6:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God-&nbsp;</em>Along with the likes of prostitutes, we find greedy and slanderers listed. This continues the approach taken to the immoral man of chapter 5; Paul there made the point that the leaven in that man was within them all. It's possible that the theft, greed, drunkenness, slander and extortion are all specifically relevant to the case of the immoral brother, who it seems was in court with his father. The whole question was it seems far more nuanced than a man simply and solely having an illicit relationship with a married woman. It could be that the reference to drunkenness refers to some particular abuse of alcohol within the church, just as the reference to prostitution apparently does in :9. Abuse of alcohol was common in religious ritual, and it seems it had been imported into the Christian church at Corinth- hence the rebuke regarding abuse of alcohol at the time of the breaking of bread meeting in chapter 11. However it is possible that Paul does have in view 'just' alcoholism. But does this mean that no alcoholic who can’t quit will be there? No. On what basis, then, will they be there? Because they are repentant. They have a state of mind that turns back time and again from what they have done. It’s easy to point the finger at alcoholics. Theirs is a sin that is open and goes before them to judgment. But we are all, sadly, habitual sinners. We sin, repent, and do the same again.</p><p>The language of not inheriting the Kingdom alludes to how Israel in the wilderness were unable to enter the promised land. Their behaviours in the wilderness matched those of the Corinthian Christians, and Paul will develop this point in chapter 10.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God-&nbsp;</em>References to washing, the name, Jesus, the Spirit, God... all inevitably make this an allusion to our baptism into the Name, thus connecting us with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Because they had been justified, counted as sinless due to their baptism into Christ, therefore they should:<br/>a) recognize their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to glorify God in spirit and body<br/>b) realize that they are not their own, to live their lives just as they wish<br/>c) act as if they are indeed joined to Christ<br/>d) let the power of Christ’s resurrection and new life work in them<br/>Clearly enough, the Corinthians were&nbsp;<em>still</em>&nbsp;fornicating and getting drunk. Yet, Paul says that this is how they used to be. Evidently he means that they have changed status- and they should live that out in practice. But Paul delves deeper into the psychology of sin’s self-justification. They were saying that “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats” (:13). In other words, we have basic human desires and there are ways to satisfy them. Paul’s response is basically that if we are in Christ, then we have vowed to put to death those desires, and to fulfil them is to act as if they are still alive and well. Further, in baptism we are counted to have died to them; and we seek to live the new life, empowered by the resurrection life which is now in the Lord, whose body we belong to. The comfort and challenge comes to Christian alcoholics today: You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified, counted as righteous. Think back to your baptism. That’s what happened then. Now, try to live out that life. Act, or at least try to act, how God perceives you. The alcoholic needs to remember, as the Romans also needed to, the colossal significance of the fact they have been baptized. They have a responsibility and also tremendous, boundless possibility because of this. Remind them of it. Leave some photos or reminders of their early days in the Lord around the house. Talk about it...</p><p>Paul writes here about believers being sanctified and justified, in that order, and by so doing he reflects his absorption of how his Lord had referred to the Father as firstly sanctified and then justified in <em><a href='B:500 17:11'>Joh 17:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:25'>Joh 17:25</a></em>?</p><p><em><a href='B:290 30:1'>Isa 30:1</a></em> condemns the Jews for seeking forgiveness their own way rather than by the gift of God’s Spirit: they "cover with a covering (atonement), but not of my Spirit, that they may add (rather than subtract) sin to sin". <em><a href='B:290 44:3'>Isa 44:3</a></em> describes the latter day forgiveness of Israel in similar terms: "I will pour... floods upon the dry ground (spiritually barren- <em><a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a></em>): I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring". The blessing of Abraham's seed is in their forgiveness through Christ (<em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>)- which is here paralleled with the pouring out of the Spirit upon the Jews. This is clearly the language of Joel 2 and Acts 2. <em><a href='B:550 3:14'>Gal 3:14</a></em> puts all this in so many words: "That the blessing of Abraham (forgiveness) might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit". Thus <em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em> speaks of being washed from our sins "by the spirit of our God". There is a parallelism in Romans between us receiving "grace... the atonement... the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:11'>Rom 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:15'>Rom 8:15</a></em>), showing the connection between the gift ("grace") of the Spirit and the forgiveness which leads to the atonement. It is hard to overstate how much the New Testament builds on the language and concepts of the Old Testament, especially in view of the large primarily Jewish readership the epistles would have had. Time and again in the Pentateuch and Joshua God promises to give the land to His people- "the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it" is a common phrase. The counterpart of the land under the new covenant is salvation; that is therefore the gift of God now in prospect, with its associated forgiveness of sins.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:12'>1Co 6:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient-&nbsp;</em>Perhaps Paul is quoting a phrase used by the Corinthians- "all things are lawful for me". He runs with the idea, but shows that this is not the complete picture. "Expedient" is a favourite word of Paul's in the Corinthian correspondence. The idea is always of what is best for others or in the context of salvation (<em><a href='B:530 7:35'>1Co 7:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:7'>1Co 12:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:10'>2Co 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:1'>2Co 12:1</a></em>). Paul will use the same phrase in <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>, in the context of not eating food offered idols. It was lawful, but it didn’t 'gather together for advantage' (Gk:). The Corinthians lacked the Spirit and were therefore selfish, thinking of what felt good for them, rather than seeing their own actions and decisions within the wider context of what is good for others in the perspective of attaining the Kingdom, both for them and us as individuals. Again we have a principle which affects so many of the challenges we face today. Whether or not something is admissable within our own consciences is not the complete picture.</p><p><em>All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any-&nbsp;</em>This is a valid observation in the context of addictions, or permitting oneself things which may later lead to enslavement. Paul would not be brought under the&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;of any policy, dogma, political requirement or agreement- exactly because he was under the sole&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;of the Lord Jesus. His Lordship becomes the practical answer to so many quandries regarding which course to follow. We are under His authority or power, the power of the Spirit which we received at baptism. This must be the deciding issue rather than the power of group think, acting as others do, even within a church. Being under the Lord's&nbsp;<em>exousia</em>&nbsp;is in fact a call to radical individuality and perception in practice of the true meaning and value of the human person.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:13'>1Co 6:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Food for the belly and the belly for food, but God shall bring to nothing both it and them</em>- Again this seems to be a quotation from the Corinthian philosophy: "Food for the belly and the belly for food". Human behaviour was seen as simply fulfilling the quite legitimate needs of the body; if the body demanded sex or over eating or drinking, then so they reasoned it was legitimate and natural to permit this. But the case of the sexually immoral man who took his father’s wife surely demonstrates for all time where this approach leads, when taken to its ultimate term. Again, the Corinthians were going wrong as many do today because they left the Spirit out of account, and acted as if there was no 'spiritual' aspect to life. The chasmic difference and tension between flesh and spirit is a major theme with Paul. The flesh with its passions is doomed to destruction, being 'brought to nothing' in human death and at the last day.</p><p><em>But the body is not for fornication</em>- If the Spirit of God has possessed us, then our whole being, our bodies included, are for Him. The Corinthians had been given this Spirit, as explained in chapter 1; but they denied its power, and were in practice not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). Therefore it is not for us to justify the usage of even our bodies for ourselves. The idea of our bodies belonging not to us but to our Lord / Master is lifted directly from the language of slavery. A slave was bought, and therefore every part of him or her belonged to their master, including their very bodies. Given the prevalence of slaves amongst the early Christian population, this was both a liberating and challenging idea. And it is no less radical or those whose souls are effectively bought be employers, the minimum wage culture or oppressive social and family structures.</p><p><em>But for the Lord-&nbsp;</em>The message and demand of Christ in moral terms would have stood out starkly and attractively, despite all the first century objections to Christianity; and so it should be with us, living in identical circumstances. In the Graeco-Roman world, sexual immorality was just the done thing. The feeling was that the body is essentially evil, therefore what was done with the body wasn’t that great a deal. The call of the Gospel was that the body is for the Lord- something totally unheard of. And Paul places sexual sins at the beginning of his list of works of the flesh in Galatians 5, labouring the point to the Corinthians that sin involving the body was in fact especially bad. This was radical stuff in a culture where prostitution and sexual immorality were seen as an almost necessary part of religion. Yet the Christian teaching of chastity was actually attractive to people precisely because of its radical difference. And yet we can be sure that this was also a barrier to the general mass of humanity at the time. This is just one of many examples where Christianity consciously broke through deeply held boundaries and worldviews. The self-consciousness of how the Gospel did this was bound to make it obnoxious to the majority.</p><p><em>And the Lord for the body-&nbsp;</em>It makes an interesting study to analyze the areas of Paul's writing where he makes most intense use of the title "Lord" for Jesus. One such passage is in <em><a href='B:530 6:13'>1Co 6:13</a></em> to <em><a href='B:530 7:40'>1Co 7:40</a></em>, where Paul addresses issues relating to sexual self-control. Here the density of usage of the title "Lord" is higher than anywhere else in his writings. And he wasn't merely playing with words- the idea clearly is that the Lordship of Jesus is to have a gripping practical effect upon our lives.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:14'>1Co 6:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And God both raised up the Lord and will raise us up also through His power</em>- The Lord's resurrection is ours. The presence of His Spirit / power within us now is the guarantee that we shall be resurrected like Him. What happened to His body shall happen to ours. The resurrection of the body is thus clearly held to be the basis of the Christian hope (and not any idea of the redemption of an immortal soul):&nbsp; All this is the concept of baptism which has just been alluded to in :11. As in writing to the Romans, Paul seeks to remind them of&nbsp; the implications of their baptisms. To share a resurrection like His required them to have His Spirit actively within them. For the Lord's resurrection becomes ours, and His resurrection to eternal life was predicated on the fact He had the Spirit; he was "justified in the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a></em>), raised according to His Spirit of holiness, His holy spirit (<em><a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a></em>). <em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em> is explicit: "But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies- through His Spirit that dwells in you".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:15'>1Co 6:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?</em>- We noted on :11 and :14 that baptism is in view here; for we are baptized into the mystical body of Christ. Paul in <em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> likewise warns against the misuse of our "members" in immorality; because we are baptized into Christ, our members are His and not our own. In chapter 12 Paul will explain that our membership of the Lord's body calls us to practical service within that body- rather than using our members for our own gratification.</p><p>Therefore, Paul says, smashing through all Corinth's rationalizations of their sin, "know you not" (isn't it obvious to you?) that we should not become one body with a prostitute. This isn't just because&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>belong to the body of Christ and manifest Him; it is also because we are representative of us all who are in that body, and we wouldn't wish to bring His body, i:e. all the other believers, into such an inappropriate position. What you do, we all do. And the Lord Jesus has delegated His reputation in the eyes of this world to us, who are His body to them. The wonder of being baptized into His Name, entering the body of Christ (<em><a href='B:530 6:14'>1Co 6:14</a></em> matches our resurrection with that of the Lord) means that like our early brethren, we will rejoice to suffer shame for the sake of carrying that Name (<em><a href='B:470 10:24-25'>Mat 10:24-25</a></em>). It will be "enough" for us that we know something of our Lord's sufferings. The more we reflectively read the Gospels, the more we will know the nature and extent of His sufferings, and the more we will see in our own something of his.</p><p>Pause for a moment to reflect that the Lord’s resurrection is a pattern for our own. This is the whole meaning of baptism. “God has both raised the Lord and will raise us up through his power” (<em><a href='B:530 6:13-14'>1Co 6:13-14</a></em>). Yet there were evident continuities between the Jesus who lived mortal life, and the Jesus who rose again. His mannerisms, body language, turns of phrase, were so human- even after His resurrection. And so who we are now, as persons, is who we will eternally be. Because of the resurrection, our personalities in the sum of all their relationships and nuances,&nbsp;<em>have an eternal future</em>. But from whence do we acquire those nuances, body languages, etc? They arise partly from our parents, from our inter-relations with others etc; we are the sum of our relationships. And this is in fact a tremendous encouragement to us in our efforts for others; for the result of our parenting, our patient effort and grace towards others, will have an eternal effect upon others. Who we help them become is, in part, who they will eternally be. &nbsp;Job reflected that if a tree is cut down, it sprouts (Heb:&nbsp;<em>yaliph</em>) again as the same tree; and he believed that after his death he would likewise sprout again (<em>yaliph</em>) at the resurrection (<em><a href='B:220 14:7-9'>Job 14:7-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 14:14-15'>Job 14:14-15</a></em>). There will be a continuity between who we were in mortal life, and who we will eternally be- just as there is between the pruned tree and the new tree which grows again out of its stump.</p><p>Because He rose,&nbsp;<em>therefore&nbsp;</em>we stop committing sin (<em><a href='B:530 6:14'>1Co 6:14</a></em>). We can't willfully sin if we believe in the forgiveness His resurrection has enabled. Men should repent not only because judgment day is coming, but because God has commended repentance to us, He has offered / inspired faith in His forgiveness&nbsp;<em>by the resurrection of Christ&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:510 17:30-31'>Act 17:30-31</a></em> AV mg:). The empty tomb and all the Lord's glorification means for us should therefore inspire personal repentance; as well as of itself being an imperative to go and share this good news with a sinful world, appealing for them to repent and be baptized so that they too might share in the forgiveness enabled for them by the resurrection. Because the Lord was our representative, in His resurrection we see our own. We are therefore born again unto a living and abounding hope, by our identification with the resurrection of Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:670 1:3'>1Pe 1:3</a></em>). The Ethiopian eunuch read of his representative Saviour as also being childless, and being as he was, in the midst of a wilderness; and realizing this, he desired to be baptized into Him. Grasping the representational nature of the Lord's death inspires response in baptism, and yet the motivational power of this fact continues afterwards.</p><p><em>Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? God forbid</em>- We need to read this carefully. Paul is not accusing them of simply using prostitutes. He is saying that they were the body members of Christ by baptism, but they were acting as the body members of a prostitute. They are therefore accused not of&nbsp;<em>using</em>&nbsp;prostitutes, but&nbsp;<em>being</em>&nbsp;prostitutes. And this connects with our earlier thoughts in this chapter, that the cult of prostitution as practiced in the surrounding religions had been imported into the church at Corinth. They had 'taken' parts of Christ's body and used them in that way; the suggestion is surely that they had appointed some of their number to be ecclesial prostitutes. And this was likely what was going on at the breaking of bread. For this reason I have some sympathy with the reading of the sexual sins in :11 as specifically referring to prostitution of various kinds. Paul was not going to 'take' Christ's body parts, the believers, and use them as the body parts of a prostitute. Perhaps he had been invited to do so and was turning it down. It could be that Paul has in view a symbolic prostitute such as 'Babylon' but the context here is surely of literal sexual misbehaviour.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:16'>1Co 6:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or do you not know that he that is joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For the scripture says: The two shall become one flesh</em>- The implication of this reasoning is that the Genesis command that the two shall become one has a specific reference to the sexual act. And this was designed as part of the way God fuses man and woman together within the marriage context. By using the sexual act the Corinthians were declaring that they were married to the prostitute they were using. Seeing their bodies belonged to Christ and were indwellt by His Spirit, they were therefore joining Christ to that prostitute:&nbsp; But the Corinthians didn’t sense this indwelling of the Lord Jesus through His Spirit, and so they were unaware of the enormity of the implications of how they were using what was effectively&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>body.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit-&nbsp;</em>The act of intercourse makes husband and wife "one flesh". In the same way as there is "one&nbsp;<em>body</em>... one&nbsp;<em>flesh</em>" at this point, so "he that is joined unto the Lord is one&nbsp;<em>spirit</em>" (<em><a href='B:530 6:16-17'>1Co 6:16-17</a></em>):&nbsp; Highlight, or underline, those phrases "one body" and "one flesh" in v:16, and also "one spirit" in v:17. Don't miss the point. We must "stand fast in&nbsp;<em>one spirit</em>, with one mind striving together..." (<em><a href='B:570 1:27'>Phi 1:27</a></em>). We are to be one spirit with the Lord, as a man is one body and spirit with his wife (<em><a href='B:530 6:16-17'>1Co 6:16-17</a></em>). But that same intense union is to be seen within the ecclesia. We become one spirit with the Lord Jesus by baptism (<em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>); thus what we feel deep inside us in our spirit, in the spirit-man created within us, is automatically, instantly the feeling of the Lord Jesus. And because He is one with the Father in Spirit, He can therefore relay our spirit to Him. Romans 8 is teaching that this is really what prayer is all about, and what we request verbally, not knowing what to pray for as we ought, is not really the essence of prayer. Yet the Corinthians were denying the operation of the Spirit, and therefore they failed to feel their personal relationship and connection with the Lord Jesus; and this led to them using their bodies in sinful connections with prostitutes. They failed to realize what Paul will now make explicit in this chapter- that possession of the Lord's spirit means we, our bodies, are His and not our own to use as we please. That principle goes far beyond sexual issues.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:18'>1Co 6:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Flee fornication-&nbsp;</em>Surely an allusion to Joseph literally fleeing from sexual temptation.</p><p><em>Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he that commits fornication sins against his own body-&nbsp;</em>Whilst Paul does have in mind the use of the physical body, we must bear in mind that "the body" in Corinthians is usually used by Paul in the sense of the body of Christ. We also must answer the question as to how sexual sin is a sin against our own body. Sin is surely against God and against persons, rather than against the sack of water, calcium and complex chemicals which forms the human body. The Greek&nbsp;<em>eis</em>&nbsp;translated "against" is a very common word in the Greek New Testament, and usually carries the sense of "in" or "within". Within our bodies And the context of 1 Corinthians 6 is about how our individual behaviour affects the body of Christ as a whole. Sin is sin not only because it is a technical infringement of Divine law, but because of what it does to others in practice. Sexual sin in particular rarely simply affects two persons. If a sister commits adultery in an ecclesia with a brother, there are many other parties affected, and ecclesias so often divide as the members take sides as to how to deal with the issue, and in their foolish human efforts to apportion blame- "She was more responsible... he was easily led... but her husband is abusive, you can understand how it happened... he has baptized kids and young grandchildren, you can't disfellowship him". The context of Corinthians is warning against turning the breaking of bread meeting into the kind of&nbsp;<em>symposium</em>&nbsp;common in Corinthian society, whereby a group of equals met together to hear a speech of common interest to them, relating to their trade guild or religion, and it turned into a time of drunken revellry and use was made of prostitutes. The command therefore to "flee fornication (Gk:&nbsp;<em>porneia)</em>&nbsp;(:18) doesn't so much speak of going too far with your girlfriend (which is wrong but for other reasons), but is a warning against the systematic immorality (<em>porneia</em>) of using prostitutes. See on <em><a href='B:530 5:11'>1Co 5:11</a></em>. Paul is arguing that what's wrong with this is that it's a sin against the body of Christ, against many others within the body, and thus against Christ personally, whose body we are part of and individually representative of. This would explain why he writes of "your 'you' plural body" (:19).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or do you not know-&nbsp;</em>Paul says this several times. He is asking them to review their spiritual potential and use it. Chapter 1 opened with the encouragement that they had richly received the Spirit; but <em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em> then explains that they were not spiritual. Paul is asking them to live up to the huge spiritual potential and possibility which comes with being baptized into Christ.</p><p><em>That your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you which you have from God-&nbsp;</em>They were unaware that the Spirit was within them- and their behaviour reflected that. 1 Corinthians 1 tells them that through being baptized into Christ, they have been given the Spirit; but <em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em> is clear that they were spirit-less. Paul asks them to be aware that because they have been redeemed, bought as the property and slaves of the Lord Jesus, He has filled them with His Spirit so that they might be wholly his. But they had to allow that process and to as it were buy in to it. The Spirit dwelt amongst Old Testament Israel in the wilderness, but they grieved the Spirit of God and were unresponsive to it.</p><p>The Holy Spirit dwells in the community of believers as it earlier dwelt in the tabernacle and temple in the form of an Angel and the shekinah glory. The "price" paid for "you" plural refers to the redemption of the body of believers by the blood of Christ (:20). By baptism into the body of Christ (which Paul emphasizes in <em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>, where again he speaks of how in body and spirit we are made one with the Lord by baptism) we are His body, and to lock Him into intercourse with a temple prostitute is therefore a statement to the world about Him personally (:15). Note how in :13 "for the Lord... the Lord for the body" is a poor translation in that "for" has been provided by the translators in a failed attempt to make better sense of the blunt original- "the body... is the Lord Jesus- the Lord is the body". The implications of baptism into His body are major indeed. He is us and we are Him:&nbsp; Whilst the word 'baptism' isn't found here in chapter 6, the idea is clearly alluded to in <em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>. Therefore just as surely as He was raised up, so will we be (:14). Sin therefore has implications for Christ personally, and for the wider body of Christ. We sin in&nbsp;<em>eis</em>&nbsp;our own body, which is the body of Christ. Therefore even if something is considered "lawful" by us personally, this doesn't mean we can therefore do it- because it has effects upon others (:12). And this is exactly the reasoning Paul uses later in his reasoning about the question of meats offered to idols. Paul has said the same about himself&nbsp; earlier in <em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em>, where he comments that he has a good conscience, he knows nothing against himself, but this doesn't make him thereby acceptable to God. To some extent, the conscience of others must be factored into our own personal conscience. We will only find the strength and motivation to do so by appreciating that we are together with them in the same one body.</p><p><em>And you are not your own</em>- To willingly describe oneself as a slave of Christ was totally against the grain of first century social norms- for to be a slave in any form took away a person's credibility and value. And yet Paul especially in the context of describing his witness, speaks of himself as a slave of Jesus. He urges the converts to see themselves as "not your own" because they have been bought as slaves by the blood of the cross (<em><a href='B:530 6:19-20'>1Co 6:19-20</a></em>). People were trained to take their place amongst fixed categories within society- the whole idea of transformation, of taking ones' place amidst the ecclesia of Christ, of being a saint, a called-out one, of being made free from how others' see us... was all so radical that even those who converted to Christianity likely never grasped the full extent of the ideas.</p><p>Slaves in the first century were seen as mere bodies owned by their masters or mistresses. Hence <em><a href='B:730 18:13'>Rev 18:13</a></em> describes slaves as&nbsp;<em>somata</em>, bodies. They were seen as both the economic and sexual property of those who owned them. It seems Paul had this in mind when he spoke of how we have one master, Christ, and our bodies are indeed not our own- but they are His, to be used according to His wishes. For many slaves, this would’ve meant running the risk of death or flogging. And yet despite this radical demand, Christianity spread rapidly amongst the huge slave population of the first century world.</p><p>The importance (the&nbsp;<em>eternal</em>&nbsp;importance) which attaches to our attitude to materialism is certainly stressed. All that we have is not our own. It's not '<em>my&nbsp;</em>money', it's not '<em>your&nbsp;</em>car', it's not even '<em>my&nbsp;</em>toe' which&nbsp;<em>you&nbsp;</em>accidentally trod on. Yet we all cling on to what little we have; we get offended and upset if we 'lose' it, or if we feel it is demanded of us. But not only is our material possession not 'ours'; "<em>ye</em>&nbsp;are not&nbsp;<em>your own</em>:&nbsp; For ye are bought with a price" (<em><a href='B:530 6:19-20'>1Co 6:19-20</a></em>). This is said in the context of warning against abuse of our sexuality; it's not&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;body, so follow God’s teaching concerning it. We ourselves, the very essential me, and you, have been bought with the blood of the Lord Jesus. If I don't own even myself, I certainly don't own anything material:&nbsp;<em>Now</em>, I am not my own. I am a slave, bought by the Lord Jesus. The fact He is Lord&nbsp;<em>of all</em>&nbsp;means He is owner of absolutely everything to do with us (<em><a href='B:510 10:36'>Act 10:36</a></em>). At the judgment, this fact will be brought home. The Lord will ask for “my money... mine own"; we will be asked what we have done with our Lord's money (<em><a href='B:470 20:15'>Mat 20:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:27'>Mat 25:27</a></em>). All we have is God’s; it is not our own. Therefore if we hold back in our giving, we are&nbsp;<em>robbing God</em>. Israel thought it was absurd to put it like this: But yes, God insisted through Malachi (<em><a href='B:530 3:8-12'>1Co 3:8-12</a></em>), you are&nbsp;<em>robbing me</em>&nbsp;if you don't give back, or even if you don't give your heart to Him in faith:&nbsp;<em>And will a man rob God?&nbsp;</em>Will a man…? We must give God what has His image stamped on it: and we, our bodies, are made in His image (<em><a href='B:470 22:21'>Mat 22:21</a></em>); therefore we have a duty to give ourselves to Him. We are not our own: how much less is 'our' money or time our own Like David, we need to realize now,&nbsp;<em>in this life</em>, before the judgment, that all our giving is only a giving back to God of what we have been given by Him: "Of thine own have we given thee" (<em><a href='B:130 19:14'>1Ch 19:14</a></em>). The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate owners of what we 'have'. See on <em><a href='B:490 16:12'>Luk 16:12</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 13:46'>Mat 13:46</a></em>.</p><p><em>For you were bought with a price. Glorify God therefore in your body and spirit, for they are God’s-&nbsp;</em>In the slave-master analogy, the Lord had bought them with His blood. They were therefore completely His, even their very bodies, and His Spirit was potentially within them. But they had to allow the action of the Spirit within their spirit; and use their bodies and minds appropriately.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:1'>1Co 7:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now concerning the things of which you wrote-</em>&nbsp;I have to say in preface to this section that what follows is how I understand this passage in all intellectual and expositional honesty. I as a married man can make no pretension to being able to live up to the high standard which Paul seems to be suggesting:&nbsp; As with much in this commentary, I offer the following exposition more to stimulate Bible-minded and prayerful meditation, rather than as a prescriptive statement of how a believer must live:&nbsp;</p><p>Clearly the Corinthians had written to Paul; this explains why often in his reply he appears to quote terms and phrases from their correspondence. The Bible which we have bears the marks of the fact that it was written for a primary readership (as well as for us), and the language used is proof of that. Take a read through 1 Corinthians 7 to see what I mean. It is clear that Paul is answering some highly specific questions which the Corinthian believers had written to him. He begins his paragraphs: “<em>Now concerning&nbsp;</em>the things whereof ye wrote unto me…<em>&nbsp;now concerning&nbsp;</em>virgins…<em>&nbsp;now as touching</em>&nbsp;things offered unto idols…” (<em><a href='B:530 7:1'>1Co 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:25'>1Co 7:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:1'>1Co 8:1</a></em>). We can almost imagine him sitting there with their letter in front of him, answering the questions point by point. But we don’t know what their questions were, and this fact makes the interpretation of Paul’s words here difficult; although of course the study of them is beneficial to us. The fact is, some parts of the Bible which we have were written for its primary readership, and the language used reflects this (<em><a href='B:50 3:9'>Deu 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 3:11'>Deu 3:11</a></em>).</p><p><em>It is good for a man not to touch a woman-&nbsp;</em>Paul's usage of the word "good" in this chapter must be understood as his clarification of what he means (:8,26). We marvel at how this group of believers on one hand were involved with serious sexual immorality, the use of prostitutes within the church (chapter 6) and boasting that one of them had taken his father’s wife (chapter 5), and collectively they warranted the charge that they were lacking in the Spirit, unspiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>); and yet on the other hand, they were discussing issues such as remaining single for the sake of Christ, or married couples abstaining from sex in order to fast and pray. Perhaps there was a very wide range of spirituality within the church; and thereby we have a huge challenge to the exclusive mindset which many churches have operated, whereby the less spiritual or unspiritual or moral failures are excluded from the congregation. But it may equally be that we find here a reflection of the terrible duality which there is within religious people; extremes of spiritual devotion can beget extreme unspirituality and self-indulgence, justified by the idea that they have been so spiritual in other areas.</p>&nbsp;


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:2'>1Co 7:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But because there is so much immorality</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>&nbsp;refers to the use of prostitution, and in chapter 6 we saw that this sort of thing was going on within the Corinthian church. The context is not speaking about young couples 'going too far' and being advised to marry in order to avoid that temptation. Prostitution was common in religious practices in Corinth, and it seems likely there were some who wanted to justify practicing it in the church. An argument was being made that seeing human passions could be satisfied as much as physical desires for food (<em><a href='B:530 6:13'>1Co 6:13</a></em>), the Christian should commit himself to the Lord's service as a single person, even breaking up marriage to do so, and use church prostitutes to satisfy sexual urges.</p><p><em>Let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband-&nbsp;</em>I suggest this not an appeal for single people to get married, but rather an encouragement to 'have' sexual relations with their&nbsp;<em>own</em>&nbsp;partners- rather than making use of the church prostitutes. This would be the force of the word "own". The next verses speak in this same context. I would doubt the reference is to getting married rather than being single because the majority of people in first century society were married. Singleness was not anywhere near as common as it is today, indeed New Testament Greek refers to either an underage girl, or a married woman. If my approach is correct, then we would need to note that women were also tempted to use male prostitutes in the church, and this would explain the usage of words relating to male prostitution in chapter 6.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:3'>1Co 7:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let the husband render to the wife her due and likewise also the wife to the husband-&nbsp;</em>As explained on :2, the problem in view appears to be the usage of religious prostitutes within a religious, Christian context. Paul is saying that sex should be confined to marriage, and both partners should accept this. Sex is a "due", a debt which is intrinsic to the marital agreement; and it should not be avoided on the basis of using prostitutes in the name of religious devotion.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:4'>1Co 7:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The wife has no power over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise also the husband has no power over his own body, but the wife does-&nbsp;</em>The "power" is hard to interpret. The word really means 'authority' and is used rarely; but one of the other two usages is in <em><a href='B:530 6:12'>1Co 6:12</a></em> where Paul says he will not be brought under the authority of any- perhaps, of anyone. It could be that some teachers in the church were claiming authority over others in these intimate matters. Or Paul may simply be pointing out that marriage is a surrendering of personal autonomy. It is a surrendering of the body to the partner. This kind of language is in fact appropriate to the sexual act itself, both physically and psychologically. Paul may therefore be saying that the sexual act is to be seen as a surrendering of autonomy to the authority of the partner- and that surrender is not to be made to a prostitute, nor to a religious leader, but solely to the marital partner.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:5'>1Co 7:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 23:25'>Mat 23:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>Do not deprive one another, unless it is for an agreed time, so that you may give yourselves to prayer and then come together again-&nbsp;</em>"Deprive" is literally "defraud" and continues the metaphor of sex as debt which was introduced in :3. Paul says that sex might be foregone for an agreed period in order to enable total devotion to prayer and by implication, personal connection with the Lord Jesus. This is a very high standard to speak of. We must ask how long we spend each day in communion with the Lord Jesus, how many minutes we are in prayer for, and whether foregoing marital sex would enhance our prayer life. For many of us, the answer would have to be that such sexual 'fasting' would not enhance our contact with the Lord Jesus because we are just not on that spiritual level. But what is interesting is that Paul speaks of this high level of spiritual devotion in the same context as warning against the usage of prostitutes rather than marital partners, and has commented that the Corinthians were generally unspiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>) and lacking basic fruits of the Spirit. Perhaps Paul is here addressing a very spiritual minority within the church- in which case we are challenged by the way that they coexisted along with the less spiritual in the same church environment. Or it may be that there was a heady mix of the heights of spiritual devotion and the depths of moral failure which existed amongst the Corinthians. Such mixture would be typical of human nature and the kinds of juxtaposition and tension between flesh and spirit which we find within ourselves and see constantly in others. The spiritually minded alcoholic, the sister with a heart of gold who has affairs... these are all so frequently encountered within church life.</p><p>There is an allusion to <em><a href='B:470 17:21'>Mat 17:21</a></em>. Give yourselves to prayer and fasting with the passion and intensity required to perform a miracle. Paul assumes that prayer will be such a major component in the lives of married believers that they may well chose to temporarily abstain from sexual relationships in order to find a greater intensity in prayer. This speaks of quite some emphasis on prayer; not just a few minutes at the end of each day saying often the same words.</p><p><em>That Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control</em>- The temptation in view was that of desiring sexual expression, and that is a deeply internal process. The 'satan' or adversary would therefore refer to the lusts of the human mind. Paul speaks as if their lack of self-control is a given, it exists amongst them. He doesn't argue that they should have sexual marital relationships&nbsp;<em>in case</em>&nbsp;they might lack self-control and fall into sin. He states that they lack self-control- for they were lacking the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). So we get the picture of believers who lacked self-control who were on the other hand very zealous to connect with the Lord Jesus in prayer and would even forego sex in order to focus upon their prayer life. This mixture of flesh and spirit is within each of us and within every church. But the lid is taken off here by Paul, we see the internal workings within the minds and church lives of the Corinthians- because in essence the same conflicts will be seen in all who have not totally surrendered to the ministry of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:6'>1Co 7:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But this I say by way of concession, not by commandment-&nbsp;</em>This must be linked with <em><a href='B:530 7:12'>1Co 7:12</a></em>: "Now to the rest speak I, not the Lord (Jesus)". The implication is that verses 1-6 were not a repetition of Christ's direct teaching, neither were vv. 12 ff. But therefore we should read verses 7-11 as being 'the Lord Jesus speaking', i:e. Paul is repeating the spirit of Christ's teaching. The content of v. 7-11 concerns being single and not divorcing; it is significant that Paul says that what he said about marriage was him speaking "by permission" or concession, but what he says about singleness is from the Lord Jesus Himself. However, the translation "concession" is not helpful. The Greek word occurs only here, but it means literally 'common knowledge'; he may mean that he is sharing the implications of the Lord's direct teaching rather than His specific commandments- either in the Gospels, or as directly revealed by the Lord to Paul.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:7'>1Co 7:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Yet&nbsp;I would that all men were even as I myself-&nbsp;</em>The power of Paul's teaching about singleness is backed up by his personal situation. As a member of the Council who condemned Stephen, he would have had to be married. An unmarried Orthodox Jew would have been a contradiction in terms at that time. And yet he is evidently single in his Christian ministry. It seems fairly certain that his wife either died or left him at the time of his conversion, probably taking the children with her. If this is so, it gives extra poignancy to his comment that he had suffered the loss of all things for the sake of his conversion (<em><a href='B:570 3:8'>Phi 3:8</a></em>). The chances are that he thought and wrote that with a difficult glance back to that Jerusalem girl, the toddlers he'd never seen again, the life and infinite possibilities of what might have been... And it gives another angle on his description of his converts as his children.</p><p><em>However each man has his own gift from God, one after this manner and another after that-&nbsp;</em>Our life situation, married or unmarried, married to a reasonable or unreasonable person, believer or unbeliever; or whether we are wired with stronger or weaker self-control... all these things are a gift from God, and should be seen in that way, rather than ever seeking to change our situation or wishing that somehow we were in another situation. The word "own" links back to the exhortation to have relationships with our "own" partner- and not prostitutes.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:8'>1Co 7:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I say to the unmarried and to widows</em>- The "But&nbsp;<em>I&nbsp;</em>say" may mean that Paul is now sharing what has directly been revealed to him, whereas his other teaching is a reflection of the Lord's 'saying' or teaching as recorded in the Gospels. It would seem from the context of&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>&nbsp;and the problem of church usage of prostitutes that the sexual needs of the unmarried and widows were being met by prostitutes, and in this context Paul argues for marriage if they feel their sexual needs are beyond their self-control.</p><p><em>It is good for them if they live as I do-&nbsp;</em>Adam alone was "not good". Adam and Eve together are described as "very good" (<em><a href='B:10 1:31'>Gen 1:31</a></em>). Paul seems to have this in mind when he says three times that "it is good" to be single (<em><a href='B:530 7:1'>1Co 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:8'>1Co 7:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:26'>1Co 7:26</a></em>). But what's the point of this paradox? Perhaps Paul's point is: 'In the old, natural creation, it wasn't good that a man should be alone. But now, in the new creation, it's good that a man does try to live a single life, because as Adam married Eve, so we are now married to Christ'. Or it may be that attention is being drawn to the fact that God’s provision of Eve was&nbsp;the first of God’s countless concessions to human need. It was God’s intention, ideally, that Adam be single, therefore he was potentially "good" in his single state. But he couldn't handle it, therefore God made him a partner. And therefore Paul says that to live the single life is "good". But in the same way as God made a concession to Adam, so He does to believers now; "but if they cannot contain, let them marry". Whether we agree this makes marriage a concession to human&nbsp; need or not, the fact is that surely single believers should at least&nbsp;<em>consider</em>&nbsp;the single life. Likewise Paul's invitation to follow his example of being single in order to devote himself to his&nbsp;Lord must be taken as seriously as his other invitations to follow his example (e.g. <em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:1'>1Co 11:1</a></em>). He knew that he was (in the words of Robert Roberts) "a Christ-appointed model"; the record of his life is framed to give the picture of the ideal believer. &nbsp;</p><p>According to :10, this verse 8 is part of Paul's repeating of the Lord's teaching about marriage. But where did He specifically speak about singleness? Surely it was when He spoke about men making themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake (<em><a href='B:470 19:12'>Mat 19:12</a></em>). The disciples' comment "It is not good to marry" is picked up by Paul when he says it is "good" to be single unto the Lord. The Lord's response to "It is not good to marry" was that "All men cannot receive this saying, saving they to whom it is given". The Lord Himself made concessions about marriage, and so Paul did the same.</p><p>The triple description of the single life as "good" (<em><a href='B:530 7:1'>1Co 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:8'>1Co 7:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:26'>1Co 7:26</a></em>) uses a Greek word which can mean 'beautiful'. Yet many a lonely, longing sister might not see anything 'beautiful' about her singleness; neither would she go along with <em><a href='B:530 7:34'>1Co 7:34</a></em>, which says that the unmarried woman has the advantage that she can single-mindedly give herself to the things of the Lord Jesus. It may seem to her that she would serve the Lord much better if she were married. And probably so. This raises the possibility that by "the unmarried" Paul may not mean 'the single ones in the ecclesia'. He may be referring to those who had consciously decided to be single, but used the church prostitutes at times. Likewise "the widows" doesn't have to mean 'all those in the ecclesias who have lost partners'. It could mean those widows who had devoted themselves to the Lord Jesus rather than seeking another partner, after the pattern of widows devoting themselves to the temple (cp. <em><a href='B:490 2:37'>Luk 2:37</a></em>):&nbsp; The fact he recommends some younger widows to remarry (<em><a href='B:610 5:14'>1Ti 5:14</a></em>) is proof enough that "widows" doesn't mean 'all widows'. It may be that single and widowed brethren and sisters made open statements of their decision to devote themselves to the Lord Jesus, and so he would be using "unmarried and widows" as technical terms for those who were proclaiming celibacy to the Lord Jesus, and yet it seems were tempted to use the church prostitutes at times:&nbsp; <em><a href='B:610 5:9'>1Ti 5:9</a></em> suggests there was a specific "number" of widows in the Ephesus ecclesia who were financially supported by the ecclesia:&nbsp;</p><p>"Live as I do" translates a word which better means to remain or abide. This would connect with the teaching in :20 "Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:9'>1Co 7:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if they do not have self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn-&nbsp;</em>There is a purposeful ambiguity in Paul's comment that it is better to marry than to burn due to unlawful passions (<em><a href='B:530 7:9'>1Co 7:9</a></em>). Is he referring to the burning 'fire' of judgment (e.g. <em><a href='B:470 13:40'>Mat 13:40</a></em>), or of burning in lust (cp. <em><a href='B:520 1:27'>Rom 1:27</a></em>)? Surely he intends reference to both, in that burning in lust is effectively condemning yourself, kindling the fire of condemnation yourself. David burnt in lust, and was then smitten with a disease which he describes as his loins being filled with burning (<em><a href='B:230 38:7'>Psa 38:7</a></em> RV). Or consider the Jonah type. He was disobedient and left the presence of the Lord of his own volition, and was therefore cast forth from the ship to the dark waters- in this little type of judgment, he condemned himself. The rejected are told to depart, and yet in another sense they are cast away (<em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>). Sin is therefore its own judgment; in that sense, judgment is upon us right now, and "we make the answer now".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:10'>1Co 7:10</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 9:14'>1Co 9:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>.<br/><em>But to the married I give this instruction; not I, but the Lord-&nbsp;</em>I take this to mean that Paul at this point is repeating the recorded teaching of the Lord Jesus, rather than sharing things separately revealed to him- he begins doing that at :12. We note his deep connection with the Lord Jesus and how saturated his thinking was by the Gospels; I have elsewhere listed all his allusions to the Gospel records, and in the whole Pauline corpus he is alluding to them at least once every three verses. But there is another option in interpretation here. <em><a href='B:550 2:20'>Gal 2:20</a></em> and <em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em> show Paul using the phrase “yet not I but..." to differentiate between his natural and spiritual self. Perhaps he does the same in the only other occurrence of the phrase here in <em><a href='B:530 7:10'>1Co 7:10</a></em>: “And unto the married I command,&nbsp;<em>yet not I</em>&nbsp;the natural Paul, but the Lord the man Christ Jesus in the spiritual Paul, Let not the wife depart from her husband”. See on <em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>That the wife should not leave her husband-&nbsp;</em>The context so far has been of Paul warning the Corinthians against using church prostitutes and abandoning their marital partners under the guise of wanting to devote themselves completely to the Lord. We see here a window into how the flesh reasons- even marital breakup can be justified by the flesh as a path to greater spiritual service. "Leave" is the same word used by the Lord in teaching that man should not "put asunder" what God has joined together in marriage (<em><a href='B:470 19:6'>Mat 19:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:9'>Mar 10:9</a></em>). The context of those passages clearly places the 'putting asunder' in parallel with divorce.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:11'>1Co 7:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But should she depart-&nbsp;</em>This is a classic case of an ideal being stated, but a less than ideal situation being accepted. This theme is found throughout Corinthians, and it is hard for legalistic or literalistic minds to accept. Although God joins together man and wife, He allows His work to be undone in that He concedes to separation, even when there has been no adultery (<em><a href='B:530 7:11'>1Co 7:11</a></em>). <em><a href='B:240 21:9'>Pro 21:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:240 25:24'>Pro 25:24</a></em> almost seem to encourage it, by saying that it is better for a spiritual man to dwell in a corner of the housetop than to share a house in common (LKK&nbsp;<em>koinos</em>) with his contentious wife. The same word occurs in <em><a href='B:460 2:14'>Mal 2:14</a></em> LXX in describing a man’s wife as his “companion” (<em>koinonos</em>). Throughout the Spirit's teaching concerning marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, there is constantly this feature of setting an ideal standard, but accepting a lower one. This is demonstrated by the several occurrences of the word "But..." in the passage:<br/>- It is better not to marry: "<em>But and if</em>&nbsp;thou marry, thou hast not sinned" (v:28):&nbsp;<br/>- The same "but and if" occurs in vv. 10,11: "Let not the wife depart from her husband:&nbsp;<em>but and if</em>&nbsp;she depart...". Separation is, therefore, tolerated by God as a concession to human weakness, even though it is a way of life which inevitably involves an ongoing breach of commandments:&nbsp;<br/>- It is better for widows not to remarry; but if they do, this is acceptable (<em><a href='B:530 7:39-40'>1Co 7:39-40</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 5:11'>1Ti 5:11</a></em>)<br/>- This same 'two standards' principle is seen elsewhere within 1Cor. Meat offered to idols was just ordinary meat, but Paul. like God, makes concessions for those with a weak conscience concerning this (1 Corinthians 8). See on <em><a href='B:530 9:12'>1Co 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:28'>1Co 14:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:31'>1Co 12:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>Let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband,&nbsp;and the husband should not leave his wife</em>- To be an unmarried woman was very difficult in first century society. Paul is asking a lot here. The command to be "reconciled" indicates that Paul saw right through the argument being presented- that due to a desire to serve the Lord on a higher level, believers were refusing to have sex with their partners or even leaving or divorcing them. And, as is clear from chapter 6 and the talk of&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>&nbsp;in this chapter 7, they were using church prostitutes to meet their sexual needs. But Paul perceived that the real problem was the usual raft of human issues which come between marital partners, and their lack of reconciliation was their real reason for ending the relationship. The word for 'reconcile' is used almost exclusively in Corinthians, and Paul will later write of how "the ministry of reconciliation" is fundamental to the Gospel. We are reconciled to God in Christ, we must seek to reconcile others, and the Corinthians needed to be reconciled to God (<em><a href='B:540 5:18-20'>2Co 5:18-20</a></em>). We can assume that their lack of reconciliation with God was underlying their lack of reconciliation with each other, both within their marriages and within the church as a whole. It is simply so that division is a work of the flesh. Division and lack of reconciliation, both between believers and within marriages, can be so easily spiritually justified- apparently; but Paul is insisting that reconciliation with God will have its fruit in reconciliation with each other, and will come to full term in "the unity of the Spirit". But they refused to allow the Spirit to work (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>) and so they lacked that unity of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:12'>1Co 7:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But to the rest speak I, not the Lord-&nbsp;</em>See on :10. There are several indications that Paul expected his readers to understand that the majority of what he was saying was basically a reflection of the words of the Lord Jesus. He hasn't earlier said: 'Now I'm going to remind you of the words of the Lord Jesus'. He takes it as understood that as usual, his reasoning has been a reflection of the words of Jesus (in the context, <em><a href='B:530 7:11'>1Co 7:11</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:9'>Mar 10:9</a></em>; "put asunder" is s:w. "depart"). But now he says that he is going to go beyond Christ's words (as in <em><a href='B:530 7:25'>1Co 7:25</a></em>). This doesn't mean he wasn't inspired; it means that he is drawing their attention to the fact that he is doing something unusual for him, i:e. to give teaching which is not an allusion or repetition of that of the Lord Jesus. My point is that the implication of this is that he expected his readers to take as read that he normally was only repeating the thinking of Christ. Likewise in <em><a href='B:540 11:17'>2Co 11:17</a></em>: “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord” (i:e. as I normally would). Every few verses, even according to our limited analysis, he was making a noticeable allusion to the Gospels. When he says that he is speaking to the Thessalonians "by (in) the word of the Lord" Jesus (<em><a href='B:590 4:15'>1Th 4:15</a></em>), this doesn't mean that what he was about to say was more inspired than anything else. What he meant was that he was specifically repeating the teaching of Christ (which he does through a series of extended allusions to Matthew 24, 25). "To the rest" would be appropriate language to use if Paul were sitting down replying to a letter from Corinth which lists various categories and asks his opinion about them.</p><p><em>If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her-&nbsp;</em>It is probably true that in every marriage, the thought arises as to what life would be like if it were to end. The problem was that believers in their low moments were justifying breaking up their relationships in the name of higher spiritual service. And Paul is most clearly arguing against all such reasoning. Most women in first century society automatically followed the religion of their husbands; but we see here an indication of the deeply personal nature of Christian commitment. It was far from automatic that marital partners would also accept the faith of their partners. "Leave her" translates a different Greek term to that used about the believing woman not 'leaving' her unbelieving partner in :13. Here in :12 we have a formal term for divorce. It would have been harder for a woman to divorce her husband, but she could leave or run away from him- and that is the term used in :13. Not being 'together', leaving each other, is therefore parallel to divorce. Documentary evidence for marital status is a concept only of recent times. And in any case, the essence of marriage is being together, not leaving each other but cleaving to each other.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:13'>1Co 7:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the woman that has an unbelieving husband and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :12, the stress of Christianity on&nbsp;<em>individual</em>&nbsp;conversion and responsibility meant that as Jesus had predicted, families were divided when one accepted Him. 1 Corinthians 7 shows that there were times when a wife accepted Christianity but her husband didn’t. Yet society expected her to treat him as her head in all religious matters. Plutarch taught that “it is becoming for a wife to worship and know only the gods that her husband believes in, and to shut the front door tightly upon all queer rituals and superstitions. For with no god do stealthy and secret rites performed by a woman find any favour”. These comments were very relevant to the many sisters who must have discreetly broken bread alone or in small groups. One can imagine all the social and domestic conflicts that Christianity created. This is why the movement was so slandered. And it explains the interpersonal conflicts and tensions caused by true Christian commitment today. See on :12 for the difference between 'leaving' and 'putting away'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:14'>1Co 7:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother. Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy-&nbsp;</em>Those who come to the Faith already married have their marriage "sanctified" by God- if God did not do this, their children would be "unclean; but now are they holy". This connects back to Paul's opening statements in 1 Corinthians 1 that all in Christ are "sanctified"; but he has argued that the Corinthians were not appreciating nor acting according to the status they had potentially been given. And here again, because they didn’t really believe or feel their own sanctification, they failed to see that their marriages were also sanctified. Every part of their lives was sanctified- including in the case of marriage to unbelievers, and including their children. The implication is that God does not see marriage in the world in the same way as He sees marriage between His children. The implication of <em><a href='B:530 7:14'>1Co 7:14</a></em> seems to be that if an unbeliever has a relationship with an unbeliever, the resulting children are "unclean", not sanctified, because the parent was not sanctified by being in Christ. "Now<em>&nbsp;are</em>&nbsp;they holy" is another example of Paul recognizing that they were in status sanctified before God, even if they failed to appreciate that as they should. Just as the Corinthians were sanctified by status but this was no guarantee of their salvation ultimately, so it would be unwise to argue that the children of believers are sanctified in the sense of being saved eternally. And in any case, surely having a believing parent doesn't mean that their children shall be saved in any case regardless of their personal faith. If we insist on seeing a parallel between sanctification and final salvation, surely we must draw a line at when "their children" are no longer covered by the believing parent when they come to maturity. But this question is not addressed here because quite simply the issue of salvation is not in view at all.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:15'>1Co 7:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Yet if the unbelieving departs, let him depart. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases-&nbsp;</em>The 'letting' presumably speaks of agreeing to the separation and not trying to stop it. The metaphor of "bondage" means just that- it is the language of slavery. It may not really refer to the 'marriage bond'; that is just a similarity in the English words for 'bond' and 'bondage'. The believing woman is not to accept effective religious and psychological slavery to an unbelieving husband.</p><p><em>But God has called us to peace-&nbsp;</em>"Peace" is elsewhere translated 'to set at one again' (<em><a href='B:510 7:26'>Act 7:26</a></em>) and connects with the call to 'be reconciled' in :11. We have been called to live at one with others around us, believers or unbelievers. The woman should not automatically agree with the departure of her unbelieving partner but should realize that God’s calling or intention is for reconciliation. But if that is not possible, then He doesn't want us to live in slavery to a situation which is spiritually untenable. Again we see here the acceptance of a less than ideal situation. God has called the beliving woman to peace with her unbelieving partner, but if due to the positions of another that is just not going to happen, then the Lord understands that. The only other reference to being called to peace is in <em><a href='B:580 3:15'>Col 3:15</a></em>: "And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts- to this you were also called in one body; and be thankful". The idea may therefore be that throughout all the trauma of marital break up, the sister was to remember that the peace of Christ was to rule in her heart, for this is the psychological position she has been called to.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:16'>1Co 7:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For how do you know, O wife, whether you shall save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you shall save your wife?-&nbsp;</em>The thought seems to be that by hanging in there and seeking reconciliation (see on :15), the believing partner has the chance to save their partner:We note that salvation is partially predicated upon third parties. We can save others, we can cause their stumbling also:We also see here a balance regarding the interpretation of <em><a href='B:560 5:23'>Eph 5:23</a></em> where the husband is presented as the saviour of the wife. This is true, but it can also be that the wife saves the husband.<em><br/></em>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:17'>1Co 7:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Only as the Lord has distributed to each man, as God has called each, so let him walk-&nbsp;</em>Paul's argument is that it would be wrong to justify ending a marital relationship under the excuse that one is seeking a higher spiritual experience, and all the more wrong to then use church prostitutes. The immediate context here speaks of accepting our marital situation where possible and seeking to reconcile and live at peace with the partner, whether they are believers or unbelievers. The distribution or calling in view therefore refers both to marital status, and to the nature of our marriage. Those situations which the Corinthians were tempted to wriggle out of were in fact gifts from God- each therefore has "his own gift from God" (:7). This is not the same as saying that our situation must be glumly accepted at all costs; rather is it an elevation of 'the ties that bind' and seeing them as gifts from God. Paul began in chapter 1 by saying that every believer has been given gifts at the point of baptism. Here he is saying that those gifts may not necessarily only refer to talents or characteristics, but also to life situations. He uses the same word to speak of the gift to him of a ministry to preach to the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:540 10:13'>2Co 10:13</a></em>). He uses a related word in speaking of how each believer is a different part of the Lord's body (<em><a href='B:530 12:27'>1Co 12:27</a></em>). We are to run with what we were given- to walk according to our calling, as he puts it here. The 'calling' again is that spoken of in chapter 1; it is not simply a calling to the Kingdom, but a calling to a unique path to that end, which includes marital situation and the nature of the marriages we have.</p><p><em>And so ordain I in all the churches-&nbsp;</em>Understanding Corinth ecclesia as a series of house churches explains Paul’s comment to the Corinthians that he ordained his guidelines to be practiced in all the ecclesias- i:e. the house churches that comprised the body of Christ in Corinth. He gives some guidelines for behaviour that appear to contradict each other until we perceive the difference between the commands to house groups, and commands about the ‘gathering together’ for special breaking of bread services. The role of women is a classic example. <em><a href='B:530 14:34'>1Co 14:34</a></em> says that women should keep silent ‘in ecclesia’ AV “churches” is a mistranslation- i:e. a sister shouldn’t teach at those special breaking of bread meetings when the house churches ‘came together’ (<em><a href='B:530 11:17-18'>1Co 11:17-18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>). And yet within the house groups, it’s apparent from other New Testament accounts and from what Paul himself writes, that sisters did teach there (<em><a href='B:530 11:5'>1Co 11:5</a></em>). Thus in the house church of Philip, there were four women who ‘prophesied’, i:e. spoke forth the word of God to others (<em><a href='B:510 21:8-9'>Act 21:8-9</a></em>). This to me is the only way to make sense of Corinthians- otherwise Paul appears to be contradicting himself.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:18'>1Co 7:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Was anyone called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised-&nbsp;</em>It was not possible for the circumcised to become uncircumcised. But Paul uses this example in order to underline the extent to which he so strongly feels that we should retain the position we were in when baptized. He sees that position, whether it be our marital status or the nature of our marriage, or our social situation as slaves, as all part of the gift of the Spirit we received. Those things are gifts, intended for us to use in our path towards eternal life at the end of the process. "Every man hath his proper (Gk:&nbsp;<em>idios</em>, his very personal) gift of God...". The ideas are again linked in <em><a href='B:520 11:29'>Rom 11:29</a></em>: "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance". This idea of us each being given a gift at the time of our conversion goes back to the parable of <em><a href='B:490 19:13'>Luk 19:13</a></em>, where each of us, Christ's servants, are given a gift to work with. The goods of the Father are divided between the sons, for them to use as they think best (<em><a href='B:490 15:12'>Luk 15:12</a></em>). "The Kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who&nbsp;<em>called&nbsp;</em>his own servants, and&nbsp;<em>delivered</em>&nbsp;unto them his goods" (<em><a href='B:470 25:14'>Mat 25:14</a></em>). Note how the&nbsp;<em>calling</em>&nbsp;of the servants and the giving them the gifts / goods are connected. The idea of called servants is alluded to later, in <em><a href='B:530 7:22'>1Co 7:22</a></em>. We have each been given "gifts" at our conversion. Our 'calling' is related to our situation at the time of our conversion. There is a parallel between God distributing gifts to each of us, and Him calling us (<em><a href='B:530 7:17'>1Co 7:17</a></em>). This is to be expected from the allusion back to the parables; the gifts are given to each of us at our conversion or 'calling'. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:19'>1Co 7:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing- but the keeping of the commandments of God is all important-</em>&nbsp;Paul is clearly attacking a Judaist influence at Corinth. As we noted in expounding Titus, Jewish legalism was actually attractive to immoral Gentile Christians- because they felt freed up to commit immorality because they were legalistically obedient to some Jewish laws. The argument was that circumcision was a commandment of God and so it should be kept. Paul is drawing a sharp contrast between circumcision and keeping commandments. The real essence of keeping all Divine commandments was to believe in Jesus as Lord, and to live in love (<em><a href='B:690 3:23'>1Jn 3:23</a></em>). This would preclude breaking up marital relationships and the usage of prostitutes.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:20'>1Co 7:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called</em>- As noted on :18, our calling is personal and individually tailored to each of us. The position we were in baptism was God’s purpose for us and part of the intended journey and spiritual process ahead for us.</p><p>So Paul wrote that slaves should abide in the callings they had when called, and not unduly seek freedom. This has huge implications when we consider the plight of female slaves, amongst whom the Gospel spread so significantly in the first century. They were the sexual property of their owners, who would personally use them and sub-let them as he wished. This was all part and parcel of being a female slave. For those women / sisters, the moral demands of the New Testament were even harder to follow then they are now. Yet nowhere do we read of Paul insisting that those women refuse their ‘duties’; he teaches that they should abide in that position, and try as best they can to live by Christian principles. That appears to me to be a concession to weakness and to the huge difficulty those women faced. If God has so repeatedly made concessions to human weakness, allowing us to live below the Biblical ideal of marriage, then we must in some way respond to this in our dealings with our brethren. Somehow we must do this without infringing the need to uphold the Truth of God’s commandments.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:21'>1Co 7:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Were you called while a slave? Do not worry, but if you can become free, do so</em>- Gk. 'use it'. Our marital status at the time of conversion is being spoken of as our calling, as what we were given, one of the talents given to us, in the language of the parable. This thought alone should make whatever situation we are in seem less of a burden; it's part of the gifts, the talents, we were given at baptism. It's for us to work with it. And the same applies, Paul reasons, if you were called to the Truth as a slave. Don't fret about it, it's one of those precious talents of the parable; although naturally in that context, "if thou mayest be made free,&nbsp;<em>use it</em>" (<em><a href='B:530 7:21'>1Co 7:21</a></em> AV)- note the allusion to&nbsp;<em>using</em>&nbsp;the talents in the parable. We are inevitably tied down with the things of this life; but if we can be made free, to serve God directly, as usefully as possible, then surely we should seek to do this. Take early retirement. You can chose to remain at work, and of course, you can glorify God. But you can devote your life and free time to the work of the Gospel, and bring dozens to the knowledge of Christ who wouldn’t otherwise have had it. I’d say, and I interpret Paul to say likewise: “If you may be made free, then use it rather”.</p><p>We can imagine a group of believing women eagerly listening to Paul’s latest letter being read out in the house church. They heard of how they had been bought with the price of Christ’s blood, that now they were slaves of the Father and Son, that their bodies were truly not their own but&nbsp;<em>his.</em> And they would’ve heard how Paul advised them not to be like other slaves, always dreaming of somehow getting free, but to be content with their situation in which they had been called, to live for the daily joy of being Christ’s slave. They were no longer part of the ‘household’ of their master.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:22'>1Co 7:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he that was called in the Lord being a slave, is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he that was called being free, is Christ's slave-&nbsp;</em>This would have been so liberating for the slaves whose very bodies belonged to their masters. They had been set free. Such freedom or manumission required a large price to be paid, or an extraordinary grace to be shown. And these are all appropriate to the grand metaphor of 'redemption' which is such a major Biblical theme. Many today feel in slavery to family situations, minimum wage employment, or employers who buy the souls of their employees- the school teacher who marks books up to midnight every evening. But we will only feel the freedom if we see life from a spiritual perspective, perceiving the exalted status we have in Christ. And this was what the Corinthians were failing to perceive, as Paul explains in his opening chapters to them.</p><p>Although the majority of Corinth ecclesia were poor, there were still some in good standing enough to be invited out to banquets in the course of their business obligations (<em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:27'>1Co 10:27</a></em>); and here in chapter 7 we see that some were wealthy enough to consider the economic luxury of divorce. The slave at conversion becomes “the Lord’s freedman” and “the free person Christ’s slave” (<em><a href='B:530 7:22'>1Co 7:22</a></em>). Thus this extraordinary unity between social classes was made possible through being “in Christ”.</p><p>It is unfortunate that most English (and other) translations mask the real force of the Greek words translated 'servant'; for they really mean 'bond-slave', a slave totally owned by his master, totally obedient, totally dedicated to his service. This is the logic brought out in Romans 6 : that before baptism, we were slaves of sin and self. After baptism, we changed masters. We didn’t become free, but we became slaves of the Lord Jesus. "He that is called, being free, is the Lord's servant / bond slave" (<em><a href='B:530 7:22'>1Co 7:22</a></em>). We cannot serve two masters; we are solely his. We are not only slaves, we are slaves whom the Master has come to know as His friends (<em><a href='B:500 15:15'>Joh 15:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 15:20'>Joh 15:20</a></em>). It is a great NT theme that we are the bond slaves of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You were bought with a price. Become not slaves of men</em>- The price paid to buy us out of slavery was the blood of the Lord Jesus. To become slaves again afterwards is therefore an awful ingratitude to Him. We can become slaves by entering into relationships or employment situations which effectively rob us of our mental freedom to serve Him. The metaphor suggests we were bought out of one slavery in order to become freewill slaves of Him who bought us out of our hopeless situation. Paul surely had this metaphor in view earlier in the chapter when he speaks of a believer not being 'in bondage' (:15), not remaining with an unbelieving partner who wants to end the relationship just because they may provide financial security etc. The same argument was deployed in <em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>: "For you were bought with a price. Glorify God therefore in your body and spirit, for they are God’s". Here in chapter 7 Paul is demonstrating some practical outworkings of this- in not becoming slaves of men, and managing our personal relationships in a way that enables us to remain God’s slaves.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:24'>1Co 7:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Brothers, let each man, wherein he was called, therein stay with God</em>- This appears to be a repeat of the teaching in :20. But Paul here appears to specifically address males, whereas in this whole section he is careful to address the needs of both genders. Perhaps he is here alluding to one of the specific questions the Corinthians had written to him (:1).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:25'>1Co 7:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now concerning virgins-&nbsp;</em>"Virgins" is clearly a technical term referring to some specific group in the church which we cannot conclusively define. But verses 26-28 appear to be directed specifically to the needs of male believers, as is the preceding :24 (see note there). Perhaps this advice is therefore being given to the fathers of the virgins they intended to marry; although this interpretation becomes problematic in :37 where a man is to not marry his virgin if he himself feels no "necessity". Likewise :28 speaks of a "virgin" woman having the choice to marry or not. However I have argued throughout (especially on chapter 6) that the practices of the surrounding religions had entered the church, and the use of religious prostitutes had done likewise. The virgins in view may refer to the church prostitutes, called "virgins" in the religious cults. Paul encountered the same situation in the church at Ephesus- see my notes on 1 Timothy. He is seeking to reform the situation, and there he advised that those women marry; and he is saying here in Corinth that they should either be celibate, or marry. But he notes that if these virgins marry, the marriage will have "trouble in the flesh" (:28). A woman who had slept with many of the male members of the church was not going to have an easy marriage if she married one of them and remained in the church. This makes to me the best sense of saying that marrying a 'virgin' will bring "trouble in the flesh"; for marriage does not automatically bring trouble in the flesh but in fact very often it results in blessing in the flesh.</p><p><em>I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give my judgment, as one that has obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy-&nbsp;</em>The Lord Jesus had not revealed anything specific to Paul in answer to the question, but He had delegated to Paul the freedom to use his own spiritual reasoning to come up with an answer, and to confirm that opinion as being his. The fact the answer is recorded here as inspired scripture is an indicator that the Lord accepted Paul's opinion as correct and therefore inspired by His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:26'>1Co 7:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I think therefore that it is good by reason of the present distress that is upon us, that a man should remain as he is-&nbsp;</em>"It is good by reason of the present distress" uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:490 21:23'>Luk 21:23</a></em> concerning the distress of the last days. Some of us have no hesitation in proclaiming that the time of "distress" of Luke 21 is upon us. But if it is, then we need to adjust our marriage attitudes accordingly. But the distress may not refer to Paul's sense that they were living in the last days and would soon face persecution. It could also refer to the distress of the particular situation in the Corinthian church, with brethren using some women in the church as prostitutes. The Greek for "distress" means necessity, and the same word is used in :37 about the man who feels no "necessity" to marry. The present necessity may therefore refer here as it does in :37 to the necessity felt for sexual relations and marriage. Paul would then be saying that despite the necessity that is felt by us all, it is better for a man to remain in the marital situation he is in. And it indeed could be that Paul has in view the expectation of persecution and the imminent return of the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:27'>1Co 7:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife-&nbsp;</em>The metaphor of binding connects back to how a woman is spoken of as being in bondage to her husband (:15). Paul is indeed emphasizing the existence of 'ties that bind', and is addressing the natural human desire to break free of them. That basic human tendency was being justified in Corinth on the basis of supposed spiritual devotion, with the use of church prostitutes if required- and Paul is arguing strongly against that. The reference to binding and loosing recalls the Lord's repeated teaching that what we bind or loose on earth is likewise bound or loosed in Heaven (<em><a href='B:470 16:19'>Mat 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:18'>Mat 18:18</a></em>). It may be that the connection is to warn and also encourage that whatever decisions we take about relationships is as it were accepted by God- and we therefore have the greater responsibility. And we are to bear in mind Paul's observation that a woman is bound by law to her husband until death (<em><a href='B:520 7:2'>Rom 7:2</a></em>); as well as the clear allusion to the idea of God joining or binding together two people in marriage. To loose that connection, that binding, is to go against God’s intention and as it were undo His work.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:28'>1Co 7:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But should you marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh, and I would spare you-&nbsp;</em>See the discussion of "virgins" on :25. The only one of the alternatives there suggested which consistently makes sense throughout this section on "virgins" is the idea that this is a technical term referring to cult prostitutes, in fact, church prostitutes. I noted on 1 Timothy 3-6 that such were known in the Ephesian church, and we must give full weight to the Lord's reference to a woman in the Thyatiran church teaching others to commit prostitution in that church (<em><a href='B:730 2:20'>Rev 2:20</a></em>):As noted on :<em>2</em>5, Paul is calling these sisters to repentance, and the brothers who were using them. He is suggesting they do not marry, but if they do then they can, but he suspects that a former prostitute marrying one of her clients is going to be a troublesome relationship in the flesh:Which seems a fair enough practical observation on a psychological and sociological level.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:29'>1Co 7:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But this I say brothers, because the time is shortened, that from this time forward both those that have wives may be as though they had none</em>- The reference to the shortness of the time suggests that Paul reasoned as if the Lord's coming was imminent. His teaching about singleness could therefore be understood as for one place and at one time; although we are to indeed live our whole lives as if the Lord's coming is imminent. I discussed on :26 the possibility that "the present distress" has a similar reference. Paul has just been arguing that the married state should be continued; but on the other hand, he is now going on to point out that what goes along with married life and domestic issues can easily become an obsession that blunts our awareness that we are to be living as if the Lord's coming is imminent. Our personal relationship with the Lord and eagerness for His coming is to take emotional and psychological precedence in our hearts above literally all else, including our marital status.</p><p>The Olivet prophecy spoke of the time being shortened for the elect’s sake. And it seems this happened- for <em><a href='B:530 7:29'>1Co 7:29</a></em> says that “the time is shortened”. Perhaps this is why it was intended that there be 40 years from AD33 the crucifixion to the destruction of the temple; but this period was “shortened” by at least 3 years “for the elect’s sake”. And the situation in the 1st century is evidently typical of ours today in these last days. They were to pray that their flight be not on the Sabbath or in the Winter, i:e. that the abomination that made desolate would not be set up at those times (<em><a href='B:470 24:20'>Mat 24:20</a></em>). Clearly prayer affected the exact chronology of events and thereby the fulfilment of prophecy.</p><p>"As though they had none" may be alluding to Abraham and Isaac in time of persecution.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:30'>1Co 7:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Those that weep, as though they wept not, those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not, and those that buy, as though they possessed not-&nbsp;</em>The weeping may refer in this marital context to those weeping during the process of bereavement, marital breakup or in desperation at their single state; the rejoicing may refer to those rejoicing in marriage, and the buying to paying a bride price. If indeed the talk about 'giving virgins' refers to fathers giving their daughters away in marriage, then 'buying' would be appropriate to men getting married. But buying, selling and giving in marriage is the Lord's language for the world of Noah's day who represented the world's state on the eve of the Lord's return (<em><a href='B:470 24:38-39'>Mat 24:38-39</a></em>). There was nothing intrinsically immoral in anything they were doing; the issue was that they became obsessed with these matters of daily life and ignored their relationship with God.</p><p>In the context of writing about the approaching end of the age, Paul commented that because “the form of this world is passing away”, therefore those who buy anything should “be as though they had no goods, and those who deal with this world as though they had no dealings with it”. This was taught millennia ago by the Mosaic law of Jubilee- that whatever land you bought wasn’t really yours, because the land is God’s. And again, we are not to be “anxious”, because “the Lord is at hand” (<em><a href='B:570 4:5'>Phi 4:5</a></em>). And there’s nothing like managing our “wealth”, however small it may be, to make us “anxious”. Paul’s not saying we shouldn’t buy, sell or ‘deal with this world’. He’s saying we should do so&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;we’re not really doing so, as if this is all an act, a sleepwalk, something we do but our heart isn’t in it. See on <em><a href='B:660 5:3'>Jas 5:3</a></em>. We should consider what we buy as not really being possessed by us. Paul practised what he preached: although he evidently had some financial resources (<em><a href='B:510 24:26'>Act 24:26</a></em>), he acted and felt as if he possessed absolutely nothing (<em><a href='B:540 6:10'>2Co 6:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:31'>1Co 7:31</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 9:18'>1Co 9:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>And those that use the world, as not using it to the full. For the fashion of this world passes away</em>- Marriage and all that goes with it is a using of the world. But we are not to be obsessed with these matters of human existence, learning the lesson from the world of Noah's day. We are not to use the Lord's concessions to our humanity "to the full" in becoming obsessed with them. "The fashion of this world", the external condition Gk:, shall pass away. Whilst essential relationships between persons shall eternally remain, all else, including marriage, shall pass away. And we are to set our hearts on those things which are eternal. The present tense "is passing away" reflects Paul's sense of the closeness of the Lord's coming; and John uses the same words in saying that this world with all its desires, including for marital relationships, passes away (<em><a href='B:690 2:17'>1Jn 2:17</a></em>). The world and all in it has the semblance of permanence; but this too shall pass. Truly the things that are seen are temporal, and only the unseen things are eternal (<em><a href='B:540 4:18'>2Co 4:18</a></em>).</p><p>The GNB is powerful here: "What I mean, my friends, is this: there is not much time left, and from now on married people should live as though they were not married; those who weep, as though they were not sad; those who laugh, as though they were not happy; those who buy, as though they did not own what they bought; those who deal in material goods, as though they were not fully occupied with them" (1 Cor. 7:29-31). The Greek word for "fashion" 'passing away' is the language of the theatre, 'the scenery', whereby scenes and stage props and background are changed to presents a totally different appearance. This world is just a stage at the theatre, with the props and scenery just passing away and not the actual reality that they represent. Paul has the same image in 1 Cor. 4:9 "we are made a spectacle [on a stage] to the world, both to angels and men". The idea is as in Ps. 73:20 GNB "They are like a dream that goes away in the morning; when you rouse yourself, O Lord, they disappear". "The morning" is the day when the Lord Jesus shall arise as the dawn (Mal. 4:2). All of human experience will then be revealed as a momentary dream, their "image" (AV) will change. We must realize that our current experience, of unfairness and injustice, is in fact not reality. It is a dream, a fantasy world. The reality is life with God and His eternal Kingdom. Ps. 39:6 has the same idea: "Surely every man walks like a shadow", like an image that is not the reality.  The call of true Christianity is to be a radical realist, to live life as it truly is and as it will eternally be.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:32'>1Co 7:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I would have you to be free of worries-&nbsp;</em>Using the same word as in the parable of the sower, which warns that "cares of this world" choke spiritual growth (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>); and we note Paul has just spoken of marriage as being one of the things of "this world". The same word is used several times by the Lord in urging us to live a life free of care- and Paul saw the danger of domestic life becoming an obsession which led us to disobey that keynote teaching of Christianity.</p><p><em>He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord-&nbsp;</em>This is not true for all unmarried people, indeed most young single people are 'careful' for the things related to finding a partner. So I suggest that as with "virgins", Paul is using a technical term, in this case for those who have vowed to remain single for the Lord's service and who therefore don't concern themselves with domestic and romantic matters. And this seems to be what Paul wishes for them. But they are not achieve it through using church prostitutes to relieve their human desires.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:33'>1Co 7:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife-&nbsp;</em>Paul seems to be stating the exaggerated case to make a point; for not literally all married believers are divided between their partner and the Lord. This surely is the whole point of Christian marriage; to love and relate to our partners as service and love towards the Lord. So perhaps as in <em><a href='B:530 14:1-4'>1Co 14:1-4</a></em> and elsewhere, Paul is not making a global statement but is rather describing how things are in practice on the ground in the Corinthian church. The married were divided between care for their partners, and devotion to the Lord Jesus. But that was not how things should have been. Paul understood 'pleasing' in two senses. On one hand, he did not please men (<em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:4'>1Th 2:4</a></em>); on another hand, he pleased all men in all things in his efforts to bring them to Christ (<em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>). The same word is used. We can do what is spiritually nice / good / pleasurable for others- but without seeking to please them "in the flesh", as men pleasers. So here in <em><a href='B:530 7:33'>1Co 7:33</a></em> he seems to mean that the married were pleasing their partners "in the flesh", rather than in the Spirit. And this was the whole problem at Corinth, as introduced in the very first chapter; they were of the flesh and not the spirit. I would therefore conclude that this verse 33 is a lament over how things were in their Corinthian marriages, rather than a global statement about the nature of marriage.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:34'>1Co 7:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And is divided-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :33, such division is not inevitable for the married believer, and I gave reasons to think that Paul is lamenting the situation in Corinth rather than making global statements about how all married believers are in their hearts.</p><p><em>Also the woman that is unmarried or betrothed is anxious about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit-&nbsp;</em>The Greek translated "betrothed" is the word for "virgin" used earlier. Paul is saying that this is how a "virgin" should be if indeed she had undertaken not to marry; but instead, the "virgins" at Corinth as in Ephesus (see notes on 1 Timothy 3) had indeed promised to remain single, as did the cultic virgins of the shrines, but they were being used as church prostitutes. Genuine devotion to the Lord required a holiness of body and spirit which a prostitute could not have. It was in this very context of church prostitution that Paul had appealed for a glorifying of God in body and spirit, seeing they were the temple of the Holy Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>). This is a strong connection, and it confirms us in understanding the unmarried and "virgin" as technical terms referring to those functioning as church prostitutes.</p><p>He encourages these particular unmarried women to stay single so that they can devote themselves to spiritual matters. In the surrounding Jewish culture, the unmarried woman was seen as a reproach. In the local Greco-Roman culture, the unmarried woman would have been perceived as an immoral woman, or one morally disgraced. Regardless of the surrounding perceptions, Paul spoke forth the Spirit’s guidance.</p><p><em>But she that is married is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband-&nbsp;</em>Again, this is far from a global description of every married woman. It is rather a description of how things were in Corinth. See on 'pleasing' on :33.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:35'>1Co 7:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And this I say for your own profit-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'coming together'. The way to helpful unity within the church was to take Paul's advice. Using some sisters as church prostitutes, walking away from marital intimacy etc:, was all sure to provoke a situation where the church was not functioning as intended.</p><p><em>Not that I may cast a snare upon you, but so you may do what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction</em>- There is an allusion here to Mary and Martha. "Serve" literally means 'to sit beside'; it isn't the usual word for 'service'. The allusion would be to Mary sitting at the Lord's feet. And "distraction" translates the word which is only found elsewhere in the NT in <em><a href='B:490 10:40'>Luk 10:40</a></em>, where Martha is cumbered or distracted with her domestic matters. Martha's distraction by domestic matters is being held up as a warning; there was nothing wrong in preparing food, it was the obsessive focus upon it which was wrong. We note in passing how saturated Paul was with the Gospel records. We who live in an age of such convenient access to them ought to be likewise if we are truly Christ-centred.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:36'>1Co 7:36</a></em><em>&nbsp;But if anyone thinks that he behaves himself inappropriately toward his betrothed, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will. He sins not. Let them marry-&nbsp;</em>I have suggested earlier that the "virgin" (NEV "betrothed"- which is an interpretation rather than translation refers to church prostitutes. But "his" virgin would suggest that the Corinthians were asking about male believers who regularly used the same woman, and she was now ageing. Paul considers that it would not be wrong for the brother to marry the woman in this case. The grammar here makes it very difficult to read the male in view as the father of the "virgin"; for he is to marry her.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:37'>1Co 7:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he that stands steadfast in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desires under control, and has determined this in his heart, to remain betrothed; he shall do well-&nbsp;</em>"To remain betrothed" is literally as in AV "to keep his virgin". "Keep" can mean to financially keep. Perhaps the brother in view considered that despite having used the sister as a church prostitute repeatedly over a period of time, he would not marry her but would financially support her in her old age. The idea of remaining perpetually betrothed doesn't really make sense nor does it seem appropriate. And if we read this as referring to the father of an unmarried young virgin refusing to give her in marriage, then it would not be appropriate to write that his decision was because of his personal control of his sexual desires. The idea that the "virgin" refers to a believing woman who had formerly been used as a church prostitute seems to me the only approach which is workable in all the references to "virgin" here in this passage.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:38'>1Co 7:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better-&nbsp;</em>By speaking of marriage as 'doing well', Paul clearly is not against marriage. But he sees different levels of response to Divine principles- one choice may be "better" than another. And this is how things are with so many issues of spiritual life; and if we love the Lord we will seek to serve Him on the highest level we can. The choice of levels is surely to elicit in us the desire at least to serve on the highest level.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:39'>1Co 7:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>A wife is bound for as long as her husband lives; but if the husband dies she is free to be married to whoever she chooses-&nbsp;</em>Paul in this chapter has spoken of marriage in the same language as slavery, because he sees both of those institutions as examples of the 'ties that bind' which a believer finds themselves in, or not in, at baptism. And the status is to be seen as a gift from God. This verse is it seems another answer to a specific question about widows. "Whoever she chooses" was a radical thing to say in first century society, where marriage was thought appropriate only between those of the same ethnic or social background. But the new community in Christ featured radical bonding between all groups. There was also doubtless the expectation that elderly widows should remain single in respect to their deceased husbands, and again Paul cuts right across such traditions:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul’s teaching that remarriage could only take place after the death of the first partner (<em><a href='B:530 7:39'>1Co 7:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:1-8'>Rom 7:1-8</a></em>) actually elevated the status of women compared to what it was in the local culture. He can hardly be accused of being a woman hater, in the light of this; nor is he giving commandments regarding the place of women which only fitted in with the local culture. Immorality, particularly in terms of temple prostitution, was so widespread that it is hard for us to appreciate the radicalness of Paul’s insistence on absolute faithfulness to one’s partner.</p><p><em>But only in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>This is alluding back to the command to Zelophehad's daughters to marry "whom they think best", but only "in" their tribe, otherwise they would lose the inheritance (<em><a href='B:40 36:6-7'>Num 36:6-7</a></em>). The implication is that those who do not marry "in the Lord" will likewise lose their promised inheritance. And this rather strange allusion indicates one more thing: the extent of the seriousness of marriage out of the Faith is only evident to those who search Scripture deeply. As man and woman within Israel were joint heirs of the inheritance, so man and wife are&nbsp; joint heirs of the inheritance of the Kingdom&nbsp; (<em><a href='B:670 3:7'>1Pe 3:7</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 7:40'>1Co 7:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I am certain that I also have the Spirit of God-&nbsp;</em>We noted earlier that Paul says that his judgment was confirmed by the Spirit. He was free to make his judgment on matters that were without direct guidance from the Lord's own recorded teaching; but his judgment was confirmed by the Lord.</p><p>That Paul should encourage single converts to remain single unto the Lord Jesus may seem a tall order, especially as he is making this challenge to a church who were so seriously immature. But consider the expectations on the early converts:<br/>- Converts joyfully selling all their lands and property, pooling the money, and dividing it among the poorer members. Yet we can scarcely raise the money to pay for poorer brethren to attend a Bible School.<br/>- Husbands and wives regularly abstaining from sex so they could the more intensely pray and fast for a&nbsp; period of several days. Surveys of Christian prayer habits reveal that on average we spend around 10 minutes / day praying. And scarcely any fast:&nbsp;<br/>- Elders who spent so much time in prayer that they had to ask others to do some practical work for them so they could continue to give the same amount of time to prayer (<em><a href='B:510 6:2-4'>Act 6:2-4</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/>- Young brethren, "the messenger of the churches", who spent their lives full time running errands in dangerous situations throughout the known world.<br/>-&nbsp; Over zealous brethren (in Thessalonica) who packed up their jobs because they were so sure the second coming was imminent:&nbsp;<br/>- The expectation that the Gospel of Mark (at least) was to be memorized by all converts. Most Christians can scarcely quote more than 50 Bible verses- after generations of Bible study in our community.<br/>- The assumption that all believers would make converts (<em><a href='B:530 3:10-15'>1Co 3:10-15</a></em>):&nbsp;<br/>- Believers were regularly persecuted, tortured, imprisoned and forced to migrate long distances&nbsp; unless they made what some today would consider only a tokenistic denial of their faith:&nbsp;</p><p>We have somehow hived off the first century church in our mind, as if to say to ourselves: 'Well, that was them, but we're in a totally different spiritual environment'. The same mind-set occurs when we consider the zeal of earlier believers. There is no doubt that the more we read the New Testament, the more we will see that the level of intended commitment required was high indeed. The fact many failed to rise up to it doesn't affect this. That single converts were expected to remain single would not therefore have appeared so strange, once the spiritual context of the New Testament church is perceived.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:1'>1Co 8:1</a></em><em>&nbsp;Now concerning things sacrificed to idols. We know that we all have knowledge; yet knowledge puffs up, but love builds up-&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>Paul’s whole position about meat offered to idols reflects the fact that he recognised that there would be some believers who still could not escape the sense that the idol is really something to be feared, that in some sense it is alive and accepting the sacrifice offered to it, even though the believer in the other half of his brain knew full well that idols are nothing and there is only one true God. We&nbsp;<em>all know this</em>, Paul reasons, and yet some still can’t escape their sense that the idol is there, and that if they eat meat offered to it they are fellowshipping with it, even though it doesn’t exist:&nbsp; Our tendency would be to be hard on such a person, insisting that they cannot worship the true God and yet also have this sense of the idol. And yet Paul knew that there is a dualism within each of us; we can still have a sense of the false even whilst we believe the true. And the Lord is more gracious than many of us seem to be to this feature of our nature.</p><p>It is hard to piece together what was really going on in the politics of the early church, because Paul seems to have submitted to their wishes apart from where essential principle was concerned. Luke in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 make the record sound so positive- as if the conference in Jerusalem solved all the problems, even though it is clear that it didn’t, and the Gentile believers were still classed as second rate. It was after this that Paul wrote here: “As touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth” (AV). This sounds like an allusion to the agreements hammered out at Jerusalem-‘we all know what was agreed’, Paul seems to be saying. There was nothing wrong in itself with the compromises agreed. But it was love that edifies, not a legalistic use of those decrees as ‘knowledge’. It all sounds as if there was joy at the conversion of the Gentiles, even though there was “much disputing” about it. And yet it is observable that the whole Acts record doesn’t reflect the spirit of controversy and struggle against apostasy which the epistles so insistently reflect. Paul didn’t protest being told not to teach Jews by his brethren- but he got on and did so. It was not knowledge of intellectual truth alone which justifies a person- for we know so pitifully little anyway (:2). It is doing what is best for the building up of others, in the spirit of love. Those who so love the idea of 'saving truth' need to remember this; for truth, no matter how pure, will not save of itself. As Fred Pearce remarked many years ago, "It is not an inspired Bible which will save you, but faith in the blood of Christ and God’s grace".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:2'>1Co 8:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone thinks that he knows anything, he does not know anything as he ought to know-&nbsp;</em>This sounds like another of the allusions to Job (here to <em><a href='B:220 26:14'>Job 26:14</a></em>) in the New Testament- particularly once it is realized that 1Corinthians has several other Job allusions. "Thinks" is literally to show, to account, to have reputation. We<em>&nbsp;all</em>have knowledge (:1)- not just some would be leader who says he has it. And anyway, it's not about knowledge- it's about whether God knows&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;in that we are in relationship with Him because we love Him (:3). This is the&nbsp;<em>knowledge</em>&nbsp;required:, and it was this knowledge which was lacking in those who thought that their academic knowledge was what ought to make them be held in high repute. This is the force of the person thinking / showing / reputing that he 'had knowledge'. "As he ought to know" is an aorist really meaning 'as he ought to come to know'. It is the knowing of relationship which is in view, the process of knowing- and this is developed in the next verse. Their knowledge was just facts; <em><a href='B:290 28:13'>Isa 28:13</a></em> speaks exactly to this problem by rebuking Israel for having no relationship with God but rather just treating His word as "line upon line, here a little and there a little... precept concept upon concept". And this is how so much Bible study has been for many. They have glorified it in itself, and have apparently not come to spiritual relationship with God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:3'>1Co 8:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if anyone loves God-&nbsp;</em>This alludes to the first commandment, to love God; and the Lord assures us that this still stands for His people today. The idea of loving God was used in a similar context earlier, in <em><a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a></em>, in arguing that human knowledge and learning will not lead us to real faith and relationship with God; but the spiritually minded "love God" and so have His Son revealed to them by the Spirit.</p><p><em>The same is known by Him-&nbsp;</em>See on :2. Here we have the same tension between love and knowledge which was introduced in :1. But there is a nuance; for God to know&nbsp;<em>us&nbsp;</em>means that He is in relationship with us, and we on our part love Him. It is for us to love Him; it is for Him to know us. This stands as a caveat to our rightful emphasis upon the need to correctly know doctrine about God. Isaac Newton remarked that he was only gathering pebbles on the shore of the ocean of truth. Truly "How little a portion is heard of Him" (<em><a href='B:220 26:14'>Job 26:14</a></em>). In other words, we will never know God to perfection in this life; but what we can be sure of and rejoice in is that&nbsp;<em>He knows us</em>. Paul almost implies that we can easily forget this wondrous fact, because of our obsession with wanting to fully know about&nbsp;<em>Him</em>. It was this emphasis upon relationship with God which had been missed by the Corinthians, for they did not have the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>) and were therefore left with only technical knowledge of Him. And that can be so with those who pride themselves on being 'Bible students' and yet resist the entrance and leading of the Spirit, and despise the idea of 'relationship with God' as being nebulous and not really what they think their religion is all about.</p><p>Paul will later remark that the Corinthians are living in sin because they do not have the knowledge of God (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>). "The knowledge of God" is an ambiguous genitive, meaning both 'our knowing about God' and 'God’s knowing of us'. It is mutual relationship which is the intention of Christianity and the person of the Lord Jesus, through whom this "knowledge of God" is mediated.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:4'>1Co 8:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol has real existence and there is no God but one</em>- "We know" must be read in the context of what has been noted on 'knowledge' in :1-3. The technical knowledge was that there is one God and therefore idols have no real existence as gods. But Paul is going to go on to reason about how that knowledge should be used in love in practice. 'Idol' and 'God' are placed in antithesis because idols were seen as the representations of living gods behind them, somewhere out in the cosmos. The implications of there being one God is that such beings have no real existence. Note that Paul has just alluded to the commandment to love God (:3), and here he alludes to the commandment that "God is one". The Lord Jesus likewise quoted those two commandments as being effectively one commandment (<em><a href='B:480 12:31'>Mar 12:31</a></em>). Paul had truly meditated upon the Lord's teaching and absorbed it to such an extent that it is everywhere part of his own reasoning and logical process. In this alone he sets us a great example. Eating was understood in first century religious terms as an act of fellowship with others. Hence the anger with the Lord for breaking His bread and sharing His table with anyone whom He could urge to sit down with Him. To eat food sacrificed to idols was felt to be a sign of fellowship with the god whom that idol represented. The food was freighted with such significance in the eyes of those who lived in that worldview. But belief in one God meant that this was not to be the mindset of Christians.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:5'>1Co 8:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For though there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :4, the idols were "those called gods" in that they represented them. The location of the supposed gods represented varied- some were thought to be on earth, others "in heaven". Those entities supposed to be represented by the idols were 'gods' and 'lords'. These were two different categories; and the difference is reflected in the next verse, which states that we have only one God, the Father, and one Lord- Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:6'>1Co 8:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To us there is only one God-&nbsp;</em>See on :5. The denarius of Tiberius which Jesus used bore the words:&nbsp;<em>Tiberius CAESAR DIVI AUGusti Filius AUGUSTUS Pontifex Maximus</em>. Caesar was to be seen as the Son of God. The Lord Jesus was the&nbsp;<em>only, and&nbsp; begotten&nbsp;</em>Son of God. The implication is that no other ‘son of God’ was&nbsp;<em>begotten</em>&nbsp;as Jesus was- He was the&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;Son of God, the one and only (<em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:18'>Joh 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:16'>Joh 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:18'>Joh 3:18</a></em>). Caesar was to be worshipped as God (see L:R. Taylor,&nbsp;<em>The Divinity Of The Roman Emperor</em>). Julius Caesar was known as Divus Julius after his death; indeed, many of the Caesars were held to have ‘resurrected’ to heaven and been granted Divine status. “To&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;and this is the emphasis there is only one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (<em><a href='B:530 8:4-6'>1Co 8:4-6</a></em>) takes on a vital radicality in the light of this. As does NT teaching about His resurrection and subsequent Divine glorification. &nbsp;</p><p><em>The Father, of whom are all things and we are everything to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, for the sake of whom are all things, and we exist for His sake-&nbsp;</em>"All things" have one source; whereas the pagans considered that the various gods were each responsible for different aspects of life. Earlier in this section, Paul has spoken of how we know God and He knows us. This idea of relationship is continued here; we are for His sake, and He is for our sake. All things are of Him, and we are all things "everything" to Him. His focus upon us His people is challenging indeed. All things are for our sakes (<em><a href='B:540 4:15'>2Co 4:15</a></em>). We are all things to Him. This gives a window onto the question of other creations, both now and within infinite time and space. Even the Angels are for our sakes, and are in that sense inferior to us in ultimate terms, according to the reasoning of Hebrews 1, 2. The focus of the Father is in His only begotten Son, and thereby upon all who are in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>However there is not in all men that knowledge, but some being used until now to the idol, eat things sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled-&nbsp;</em>This is a description of how things were in reality within the "all men" of the Corinthian church. Not all had the knowledge; yet in :1 Paul says that they did all have knowledge. He is again playing on the difference between theoretical knowledge, and the spiritual knowing of relationship. Indeed he opened the letter in chapter 1 by doing the same; likewise, they all had the Spirit, and yet they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). They knew God on one hand, but on another they had not the knowledge of God in real spiritual terms (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>). It was because of this lack of knowledge as it was meant to be, that their conscience was defiled. They thought the gods really existed, because their 'knowledge' that God is one didn’t translate into knowledge as knowledge is meant to be. When they ate the food offered to idols, they did so as a real act of fellowship with those supposed gods; the act of eating their food was understood by them in their conscience as meaning that those gods existed, and they were in fellowship with them. Despite this 'weakness', Paul speaks so often of the need to care for the "weak" (s:w:) and retain them within the Lord's body, and to become weak that we might save these weak ones (<em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:22'>1Co 12:22</a></em>). Without doubt, Paul's approach was to preach the Gospel, get people baptized into Christ whether by his hands or others, and then tolerate their weakness of understanding and moral behaviour whilst making every effort to teach them further and correct them. This is in sharp contrast to the attitude of many today.</p><p>When dealing with the problem of fornication, Paul doesn’t directly appeal to any legal code, not even the ten commandments, nor the agreement at the Council of Jerusalem, because he was appealing for life to be lived according to the spirit rather than any law. Likewise when writing about meat offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8, he could so easily have appealed to the agreements made at the Council as recorded in Acts 15. But he doesn’t. For love’s sake he appeals. He asks them “judge ye what I say”, he seeks for them to live a way of life, rather than obey isolated commandments as a burden to be borne. It is simply so that brethren and sisters, men and women, prefer simple yes / no commandments rather than an appeal to a way of life. In those communities and fellowships where everything is reduced to a mere allowed / not allowed, there tends to be less internal division than if it is taught that life must be lived by principles. Paul was smart enough to know this, especially with his background in legalism. And yet he chose not to lay the law down with Corinth; instead he appealed to a spirit of life, even though he must have foreseen the strife that would come of it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:8'>1Co 8:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But food will not commend us to God. Neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. Nor, if we eat, are we the better</em>- The earlier section in this chapter has spoken of how the critical issue is relationship with God and not technical knowledge. Attitudes to food likewise will not commend us to God. The issue is not about whether to eat idol food or not- Paul will go on to explain that the question is all about love. He introduced the whole section by contrasting knowledge which puffs up with the love which builds up (<em><a href='B:530 8:1'>1Co 8:1</a></em>); and that building up is of others through our sensitivities to them and their weaknesses. Note how Paul uses the same word for "commend" in saying that we shall be 'presented' without fault to God at the last day (<em><a href='B:540 4:14'>2Co 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>). That spotless presentation is by grace; it's nothing to do with whether we were ritually defiled or not by food. That itself is a mere technicality.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But take heed, lest by any means this freedom of yours becomes a stumblingblock to the weak</em>- It wasn't a question of who was technically right or wrong on the issue of idol food. It was a question of having the love which builds up others, by not being a stumbling block to them; rather than who had the technical knowledge. This is one of several passages which warn us not to make the weak to stumble. But none of those passages actually says that we can know&nbsp;<em>who&nbsp;</em>is weak. What they are saying is that in God’s eyes, there are weak members amongst every group of believers, and therefore we should watch our behaviour, because it will have an effect upon whoever is weak. But this doesn't mean that&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;actually know who&nbsp; the weak ones are. Because we don't know who is especially weak we must always be careful in our behaviour,&nbsp;<em>whoever</em>&nbsp;we are with. Indeed we have to adopt the perspective that in a sense we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;weak:&nbsp;To understand <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>, we must understand what it means to be weak. The Greek word translated "weak" here usually means one of two things: physical illness, or spiritual weakness. Sometimes these two senses are combined (e.g. when James speaks of praying for the "sick" brother, or when Jesus talks of how pleased he was that brethren had visited the "sick" brother in <em><a href='B:470 25:36'>Mat 25:36</a></em>). Paul&nbsp; often uses the word in his letters to Corinth. He says that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;weak because of our natures (<em><a href='B:530 15:43'>1Co 15:43</a></em>), and that Christ died on account of the fact that we are weak (<em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em> Gk:). Because of this, Paul reasons, we're all weak, because Christ died for every one of us. He therefore says that to sin against a weak brother is to sin against Christ; because Christ has associated himself with our spiritual weakness, in order to save us from it (<em><a href='B:530 8:12'>1Co 8:12</a></em>). Thus he says that when we visit a weak brother (spiritually? it's the same word), we visit&nbsp;<em>Him</em>. He so closely associates himself with the weak brother. Christ on the cross carried the sins of "the weak" (i:e. all of us), and thereby left us an example of how we should behave towards the "weak". In this context, Paul says that we should likewise love our neighbour (in the ecclesia; <em><a href='B:520 15:1-4'>Rom 15:1-4</a></em>). What he seems to be saying is that we should understand that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;weak, and therefore try to help each other, in the same spirit as Christ died for the weakness of each of us. If we recognize that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;weak, we'll avoid two common mistakes: 1) Thinking that some brethren aren't weak and should therefore be followed blindly; and 2) Thinking that some believers are "weak" whilst the rest of us are "strong":&nbsp;Paul didn’t want the Corinth ecclesia to think he was wagging the finger at them and implying: 'You lot are so weak, but I'm strong'. Several times he speaks of his own weakness, and he glories in the fact that although he is so (spiritually) weak, God works through him so mightily; indeed, he comes to the conclusion that God’s strength is perfectly expressed through his spiritual weaknesses (<em><a href='B:540 11:30'>2Co 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:5'>2Co 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:9-10'>2Co 12:9-10</a></em>). He says that he preached to Corinth in the first place in (spiritual) "weakness" (<em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em>)-&nbsp; because it seems that when he first got to Corinth, he wasn't spiritually strong enough to grasp the nettle of witnessing to the city as he should have done (<em><a href='B:510 18:9-10'>Act 18:9-10</a></em>). Having admitted to Corinth that he himself was weak, he can say that whenever one of them is weak, he feels weak too; in other words he's saying that he can totally empathize (not just sympathize) with a weak brother's feelings (<em><a href='B:540 11:29'>2Co 11:29</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:3'>1Co 11:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>For if a man sees you who have knowledge dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be encouraged to eat things sacrificed to idols?-&nbsp;</em>Paul may mean this as a hypothetical case; the believer who knows for sure there is only one God could sit and eat at an idol sacrifice<em>,&nbsp;</em>seeing the food as just food and nothing else; and do nothing technically wrong. But by doing so, he would encourage the weaker brother to eat just the same food but as an act of fellowship with the false gods of paganism. But it might also be that the Corinthians were so weak that despite their knowledge of the one God and rejection of the existence of other gods, they still ate in the idol's temple. Interestingly, Paul doesn't criticize them for doing this itself; rather he reasons more subtly that by doing so, they were leading weaker Christians into sin. Later on he will argue that one cannot eat at the Lord's table and at the table of idols: "You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons" (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>). But at this point in <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>, Paul is saying that one can literally eat food there, if this is not a participation, an active fellowshipping, with the idol. But externally, eating food at the idol's table looked as if they were partaking with the idol / demon. Paul recognized that two men can do the same thing externally and yet understand it quite differently in their hearts. But the problem is that the external behaviour can lead the weaker brother into sin in their heart, or as Paul has put it, "their conscience is defiled".</p><p>Our example- and let’s not forget, we all set an example of one sort or another- will either edify others towards righteousness, or "encourage" AV “embolden” our weaker brother to sin (<em><a href='B:530 8:1'>1Co 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>). We ‘edify’ others in only one of two directions; this is the point behind Paul using the same Greek word in both verses.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:11'>1Co 8:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For through your knowledge he that is weak perishes, the brother for whose sake Christ died-&nbsp;</em>This has been the whole theme of the section- knowledge as knowledge alone puffs up, but love builds up. Indeed, possession of knowledge, of 'truth' in this sense, can actually destroy others when that truth is used irresponsibly. And we likewise have all seen this kind of thing happen in conservative church life. We can build others up and we can also cause them to "perish", and thus the death of Christ is made in vain for that brother- thanks to our selfish attitude to the truths we possess by grace. Knowledge or truth of itself cannot just be insisted upon in a vacuum. We are not to shrug and say that "Well that's their fault, his problem, her lack of faith" because an individual weaker in faith and understanding is made to stumble by our indulgence in "truth". This is like the weak Corinthians who believed in 'gods out there' behind the idols being led to worship them- all by observing their 'stronger' brethren flaunting the truth / knowledge they held, in their freedom to eat idol food.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:12'>1Co 8:12</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>And thus, sinning against the believers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ-&nbsp;</em>Christ is His body; to persecute His brethren is to persecute Him, to sin against them is to sin against Him. Paul had learnt this principle through reflection on his own sins against Christ insofar as He sinned against His brethren by persecuting them. Even the very weakest, those who still felt the gods existed, are called "believers" and are seen as members of the body of Christ, and as members to whom the Lord Jesus is particularly sensitive. Clearly the scope of acceptance into the body of Christ which is achieved by baptism is far wider than many think. Likewise the tolerance is far broader; for our inclination would be to tell those who believe in pagan gods to get out of the church. But Paul doesn't take that approach, indeed in chapter 12 he will argue that the presence of these "weak" within the body is the more necessary for us who consider ourselves strong. The word for "wounding" is used about the servant "beating" the fellow servant (<em><a href='B:470 24:49'>Mat 24:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:45'>Luk 12:45</a></em>). This 'beating' can be done through selfishly indulging in our own truth and knowledge in a way which spiritually damages others. This is the way God looks upon the commonly held idea that "It's OK in&nbsp;<em>my&nbsp;</em>conscience". That is not quite the point, as Paul will later develop in chapter 10. The parable of the fellow servant refers specifically to the situation at the Lord's coming. Paul's vision of the latter day ecclesia was therefore that materialistic elders would act with no thought as to their effect on the consciences of the flock, and thereby many would stumble.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 8:13'>1Co 8:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh again, so that I do not cause my brother to stumble-&nbsp;</em>The eating of food referred to is specifically eating food offered to idols, perhaps even more specifically- eating it in the idol temple itself (:10). Paul is obviously aware here of the Lord's strict words for those who make their brother stumble. They shall be treated as Babylon, and cast into the depths of the sea. To not make others stumble must therefore be a paramount consideration. A closed table approach, ever censuring others for their failures and barring them from the Lord's table, seems to me a sure way to make others stumble- and it has done so in so many cases. We must give more weight to the Lord's words and to Paul's teaching here. It's not about me, my conscience, my knowledge, my truth. It's all about attitudes to the weak and not making them stumble.</p><p>The AV and some MSS add that Paul would not eat food "while the world standeth"- This could be hyperbole concerning how serious he was, or he could be saying he would not eat such food until the Jewish Law, which was intrinsically part of the Jewish world, was fully done away with in AD70. <em><a href='B:580 2:22'>Col 2:22</a></em> says that the using of the (Mosaic) laws "are to perish" - in the future, i:e. AD70.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my works in the Lord?</em>- The preceding chapter has spoken of how although we are 'free' to eat idol food, we should not do so for the sake of the weaker others. Now Paul starts to appropriate those principles to himself on a more personal level. Just as their liberty / freedom could cause others to stumble (<em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>), so Paul too is "free" but he doesn't use that freedom, nor his authority, in a way which might make them stumble. He had authority / power over them- he had seen Jesus, been commissioned by Him as an apostle, and although he had not baptized many of them, they were his spiritual children and the result of his work for them. But he likewise would not use that power in a way which was harmful for them spiritually- as he has been expounding in chapter 8. This principle of not abusing power, knowledge and truth needs to be programmatic in our lives.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:2'>1Co 9:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>Paul repeatedly speaks of his authority over the Corinthians because he has been the source of their conversion to Christ. He claims to be their spiritual father, and they were his "work" in the Lord (:1) and the proof in fact that he is an apostle to them. And yet he is clear in chapter 1 that he baptized very few of them. We could infer from this that he had preached to them and taught them, but had been careful to get others to perform the baptisms. We could also infer that since he had left Corinth, there had been relatively few baptisms by anyone else; unless we are to understand the entire correspondence as being addressed only to those within the church whom he counted as 'his work'. But that seems unlikely and there is no hint of that being the case. The "others" who didn’t count Paul as an apostle would presumably be other purportedly Christian teachers who had visited Corinth and sought to poison them against Paul by claiming he was not in fact an apostle. This would presumably refer to the Jewish satan, an organized attempt to undo and discredit Paul's work in every church he founded. And this would explain the hints we have that Corinth had been troubled by Judaizers. Paul claims the very fact the Corinthians were his converts was evidence enough that he had been 'sent' to them and was indeed therefore their 'sent one' or apostle. Whilst we are not apostles in the sense that Paul specifically was, it remains true that those who bring others to Christ have some authority over them and should be afforded appropriate respect throughout their spiritual journey.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:3'>1Co 9:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>My defence to them that examine me is this</em>- This is language from the courtroom. The Corinthians had written to Paul and he is replying; and they had included the criticisms which had been made of Paul. Yet Paul almost revels in such legal language elserwhere, especially in his letter to the Romans. His idea is that because we have appeared before God’s throne and been justified, leaving no outstanding accusation against us, we are free from accusation altogether. And yet he here does make a response to the criticisms. Whether or not to respond to criticism is always a hard choice. Paul's major argument was quite simply that he had brought the Corinthians to Christ. To argue about whether he had been sent to them as an apostle was academic. We likewise should seek to answer criticism by appealing to mega principles, rather than arguing about details. The fruit of a person's life work in the Lord is what is important, and not carping criticisms rooted in personality issues.</p><p>It was the Jews and their “false brethren” who infiltrated the ecclesias (<em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em>), and who were responsible for the deaths of many of the first century apostles and prophets. This suggests that the circumcision party within the ecclesias was linked with the Roman and Jewish authorities, and therefore ‘satan’ is a term used for them all. It got beyond dirty politics in the church. This would explain why Paul uses legal language in describing his conflicts with the Judaizing element in Corinth: “My defence&nbsp;<em>apologia</em>, a technical legal term to those in the ecclesia who examine me another legal term,&nbsp;<em>anakrinein</em>…” (<em><a href='B:530 9:3'>1Co 9:3</a></em>). The false teachers were taking the likes of Paul before the civil authorities- they were hand in glove. Revelation 17, 18 describes ‘Babylon’ as the system which was responsible for these deaths. Whatever other interpretation we may give these chapters (and I would agree there is a strong similarity with the evils of the Roman Catholic church), it cannot be denied that they are full of reference to Old Testament passages concerning Jerusalem, the Jews, and the temple, which became a spiritual Babylon. I suggest that it was from within the Jerusalem ecclesia, linked up as it was with the temple system and Roman authorities, that there came much of the persecution of the early church. And this is why ‘Babylon’ in its first century application refers to these things:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:4'>1Co 9:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Have we no right to eat and to drink?</em>- Paul had authority to ask the Corinthians to provide him with food and drink, basic sustenance. But "we did not use this right" (:12). He had the right- but didn’t use it. It seems he was put in a position where he had to be wrong; if he didn’t claim basic sustenance, then apparently he was not an apostle, because in first century terms, a teacher had authority to require his keep from his converts. And if he didn’t ask for it- then he was not really a legitimate teacher. And yet if Paul had made use of this right, he would have been accused of profiteering. This idea of having the possibility of using concessions but choosing not to is of course exactly what he has just been talking about in the context of marriage and eating idol meat.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:5'>1Co 9:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Have we no right to lead a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?-&nbsp;</em>Singleness was not respected in first century society. A religious leader ought to be married- As with the matter of asking for material support, whatever Paul did in the marital area was likewise going to be criticized. He has explained in chapter 7 that marriage is permissible, but he invites single converts to try following his own example of singleness in order to do the Lord's work. But religious leaders were expected to be married. We can quite imagine the likely gossip this created- that perhaps Paul was gay, or a womanizer with multiple casual relationships. If indeed as a Sanhedrin member, Paul had once been married, we can imagine how that fact would be distorted. He indeed had the "right" to be married to a believer, and to lead her with him around his missionary circuits. As, he says, Peter and the other apostles did. We note he mentions Peter separately, a reflection of the huge respect he had for him. Indeed in the commentary on Acts I have suggested Paul was almost obsessed with Peter and pretended to him. The respect of the intellectual Jerusalem rabbi for illiterate fisherman Peter is quite the lesson in respect within the body of Christ. We note too that the Lord's brothers, who were once so against Him, became leading missionaries in the early church. Paul had a "right" or "power" (<em>exousia</em>) to be married; but he did not use that power / right, just as he has been explaining in previous chapters that we are not to use power or knowledge just because we have it, but should seek above all the building up of others to God’s glory. And that is the principle we are to take away from this.</p><p>“To lead a wife” is literally, to lead around. See on <em><a href='B:510 9:43'>Act 9:43</a></em>. It is perhaps significant, given the theme of ‘following’ in the records of Peter, that he became well known for ‘leading about’ his wife, as if she followed him everywhere. Peter translated the principles of following Christ into domestic life. There was a time when he may well have ‘forsaken’ his wife in order to follow Christ (<em><a href='B:470 19:27-29'>Mat 19:27-29</a></em>). But further down that path of following he came to see that as he was to follow his Lord to the end, so he was to be as the self-crucifying Christ to her, and lead her in her following of him that she might follow Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:6'>1Co 9:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or are Barnabas and I the only ones who have a right not to have to work for a living?-&nbsp;</em>Paul likewise did not&nbsp;<em>have&nbsp;</em>to work as a tentmaker. But he did; he chose a higher level for the sake of others. The point was that other apostles made use of such a concession; but the fact Paul didn’t laid him open to criticism. But whichever way, he was going to be condemned by his critics.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:7'>1Co 9:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What soldier ever serves at his own expense?-&nbsp;</em>Paulused the metaphor of soldiery in explaining to Timothy the discipline required in missionary work. He saw his work for the converts as having fought for them, risking his life to liberate them in Christ. He could be implying that he in his case had done this work "t his own expense"; for clearly Paul at times did have access to funds. He lived in his own hired house in Rome, and was thought wealthy enough to possibly pay a bribe for his early release from prison in Jerusalem. And yet perhaps Paul is overstating his case here, as he does at times; for in <em><a href='B:540 11:8'>2Co 11:8</a></em> he admits he took material help from other churches whilst ministering at Corinth, so as not to ask them for money.</p><p><em>Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who feeds a flock and does not drink the milk of the flock?-&nbsp;</em>Although he had not baptized many of them, Paul saw the Corinthian church as a vineyard he had planted. They were a flock he had fed; and so he could have legitimately asked for something material from them in return. The One who planted a vineyard and got no fruit alludes to the parable of the wicked husbandmen. God’s hopefulness and fruitless care for Israel was reflected in Paul's for the Corinthians. The metaphor of drinking milk from a flock is slightly strange in that it suggests the Corinthians were a flock of cows or possibly goats- and not sheep. For a shepherd doesn't drink milk from his sheep.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:8'>1Co 9:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do I speak these things after the manner of men? Or did not the law say the same?<br/>-&nbsp;</em>See on <em><a href='B:50 25:4'>Deu 25:4</a></em>. At first blush it might seem strange to appeal to the immoral, Gentile Corinthians on the basis of an argument from the Jewish law. But I have mentioned elsewhere that there was a Judaistic element at work in Corinth; as noted on Titus, immoral Gentile Christians were attracted to the Judaistic arguments because they felt legalistic obedience to a few laws justified their immorality in other areas. To this day, this is the outcome of legalism in the churches.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:9'>1Co 9:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it is written in the law of Moses: You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn. Is it for the oxen that God cares-&nbsp;</em>In another figure, Paul likens himself to a lowly ox treading out corn, and being allowed to eat a bit of it. The argument seems to be that this commandment was not given because God cares for oxen, but for the sake of teaching us a principle. But often Paul uses a grammatical device whereby he argues 'Not so much A, but B'. Such a device is common in several other languages. God is clearly not insensitive to animals, as so many cases in the Old Testament demonstrate. So surely we are to read this as meaning that this command about not muzzling the ox was not primarily for the sake of the oxen, but even more importantly for the sake of teaching us a lesson. The treading out of corn connects with the metaphor of judgment day in <em><a href='B:470 3:12'>Mat 3:12</a></em>, where we read that the "floor", literally 'the treading place' will be winnowed by the Lord Jesus in judgment. The fruit of Paul's labours for Corinth would be tested by the winnowing of what he had trodden out. He saw his work as preparing them for judgment, making them true grain, separating them from the husks.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:10'>1Co 9:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Or did He say it entirely for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written. Because he that ploughs ought to plough in hope, and he that threshes, hopes to partake in the harvest-&nbsp;</em>The context of this argument, both in :11 and the preceding verses, is that Paul would be justified in receiving material compensation for his work. But he elevates that argument to a higher level here. He says that the benefit he ultimately hopes to get out of this is that if his treading out leads to their acceptance at the day of judgment, then he will share in the harvest. He too will as it were eat the trodden out corn. Elsewhere Paul says the same- that his reward in the Kingdom will be a function of whether his brethren are there too.</p><p>"He that ploughs" doesn't refer to a ploughman, as some paraphrase Bible versions wrongly claim. The allusion continues to the ox, who ploughs. "He that threshes" likewise refers to the ox, because the same word is used in :9 about the ox treading out the corn. Paul saw all his missionary activity with the Corinthians as the work of the humble ox, up and down the fields, back and forth threshing out the corn. The repetitious nature of teaching Biblical principles so familiar to us, patiently bearing with the same questions- all this humble work is what will lead folks to the life eternal. The parallel likes to imagine that the ox ploughs up the fields looking forward to the time when the crop sown will bear grain which he shall thresh, and get a few mouthfuls of that harvest by God’s grace in allowing him an unmuzzled mouth. Breaking up the fields to receive the seed of God’s word is indeed hard and thankless work. Paul was far from the modern 'evangelist' doing acrobatics from a stage to impress an audience. Such work is hard, and will only have any reward or true recognition when the harvest has been winnowed at the Lord's return.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:11'>1Co 9:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If we sowed to you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your material things?-&nbsp;</em>Paul slightly changes the metaphor here, likening himself to the sower. Clearly the sower parable was in his mind, with its purposeful ambiguity as to whether the sower is the Lord Jesus personally, or all those in Him who sow His word. According to Paul's principle of <em><a href='B:550 6:8'>Gal 6:8</a></em>, sowing to the spirit will lead to a spiritual harvest; and a material or fleshly harvest from sowing to the flesh. But here he seems to be saying that he does indeed sow to the spirit and hopes for a spiritual harvest, but seeing the flesh / material is far less than the spiritual, he sees no reason why before that spiritual harvest comes, he shouldn't receive some material harvest from them too.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:12'>1Co 9:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If others have this rightful claim over you, do we not have more?-&nbsp;</em>Clearly the Corinthians were under the influence of other teachers, probably Judaists, who claimed the right to material support from the Corinthians. Or it could be that the "others" refer to the other apostles who had visited Corinth (:5) and who had asked for material support. But as the one who had led them to Christ, Paul felt he had more rightful claim than anyone else.</p><p><em>Nevertheless we did not use this right, but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ-&nbsp;</em>Paul will soon use the very same phrase "bear all things" in saying that love bears all things (<em><a href='B:530 13:7'>1Co 13:7</a></em>). Love is therefore no mere emotion or passing clutch at the heart. Love involved a carefully thought out policy, looking ahead to how asking for money would hinder the Gospel in this case. The idea of 'hindrance' is fairly common in the NT, and it is individuals who are hindered, or the spread of the Gospel. So we must interpret "the Gospel of Christ" here as referring to the spiritual progress of those who had accepted it; or to the spreading of that Gospel. For the Gospel is in itself an imperative to spread it. And Paul saw here, in contrast to many evangelists today, that asking for money can in some ways and contexts actually hinder the Gospel's work. Clearly enough, the spread and progress of the Gospel, both to unbelievers and within those who have accepted it, depends upon us to some degree. We, or other people and attitudes, can hinder it. God will not just brush past our dysfunctions. So much has been delegated to us, and we are to act appropriately:&nbsp;&nbsp;<em><br/></em><br/>It seems that "the Gospel" is put by a figure for 'the spirituality which the doctrines of the Gospel brings forth, so close is the link between the Gospel and the inculcation of spirituality. We must walk worthy of that pure doctrine, in the abstract sense of doctrine, which we have received (<em><a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a></em>). The purpose of keeping our understanding of the basic principles clear is that this will lead to true love and faith (<em><a href='B:610 1:3-5'>1Ti 1:3-5</a></em>).<br/>Paul says he could have asked Corinth ecclesia to support him financially, but he chose not to. Thus he chose the higher of two options. See on <em><a href='B:530 7:11'>1Co 7:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you not know that they that labour in the temple get their food from the temple, and they that serve at the altar have their portion from that which is sacrificed on the altar?-&nbsp;</em>This argument from Jewish law might seem inappropriate for Gentile, immoral Christians in Corinth. But Paul's appeal to Jewish argument is likely because of the presence of Judaist influence, encouraging the Gentiles in their immorality by kidding them that obedience to some Jewish laws could of itself assure their salvation:The New Testament is very insistent that the true temple of God is the body of Christian believers (<em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:21'>Heb 10:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 4:17'>1Pe 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:12'>Rev 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 11:1-2'>Rev 11:1-2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 3:15'>1Ti 3:15</a></em>). This string of passages is quite some emphasis. Yet the Lord Jesus was the temple; He spoke of the temple of His body (<em><a href='B:500 2:19-21'>Joh 2:19-21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 21:22'>Rev 21:22</a></em>). For this reason, the Gospels seem to stress the connection between Him and the temple (<em><a href='B:480 11:11'>Mar 11:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:15-16'>Mar 11:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 11:27'>Mar 11:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 12:35'>Mar 12:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:1'>Mar 13:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 13:3'>Mar 13:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 14:49'>Mar 14:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 2:46'>Luk 2:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 21:38'>Luk 21:38</a></em>). Christ's body was the temple of God. By being in Christ, we too are the temple (<em><a href='B:530 3:16-17'>1Co 3:16-17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:21'>Eph 2:21</a></em>),&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;body is the temple of God (<em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>). Paul therefore saw his work for others in the church as being like a priest labouring in the temple. He saw himself as a temple servant, a Levite, able to take literally the food required to sustain life- a far cry from pastors demanding 10% of everyone's cash.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:14'>1Co 9:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even so the Lord ordained that they that proclaim the gospel should live from the gospel-&nbsp;</em>Paul’s almost rabbinic respect for every word of his Lord indicates how deeply he had them in his heart as the law of his life. He speaks of how “The Lord Jesus&nbsp;<em>commanded</em>&nbsp;that those who preach the Gospel should get their living by the Gospel” (<em><a href='B:530 9:14'>1Co 9:14</a></em> RSV). The Lord Jesus didn’t command this in so many words- but it’s the implication of His teaching in <em><a href='B:490 9:1-5'>Luk 9:1-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 10:1-12'>Luk 10:1-12</a></em>, especially of <em><a href='B:490 10:4'>Luk 10:4</a></em> “The workman deserves his food / keep” (Gk:). But those words of the Lord to the disciples were understood by Paul as a&nbsp;<em>command</em>- so clearly did he appreciate that those men following Jesus around Galilee are really&nbsp;<em>us</em>, and every word of the Lord to them is in some form a command to us. Another example would be the way Paul states that the Lord ‘commanded’ that the wife is not to separate from her husband (<em><a href='B:530 7:10'>1Co 7:10</a></em>). The Lord didn’t actually state that in so many words- but He implied it quite clearly. And so that for Paul was a command. He didn’t reduce the teachings of Jesus to a set of yes / no statements; rather he saw, as we should, even every&nbsp;<em>implication</em>&nbsp;of the words of Jesus as a command to us. You will notice that in both these examples from 1Corinthians, Paul doesn’t explicitly quote the Lord Jesus in the format in which we expect a citation- e.g. ‘I’m saying this, because it is known and written that Jesus said, XYZ’. I submit that this wasn’t simply because the Gospels weren’t in wide circulation when Paul was writing. Rather I think that the indirectness of Paul’s allusions and quotations from the words of Jesus reflect how his mind was&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;full of the Lord’s words that he doesn’t quote from them in a formal sense, as one usually would quote from literature or the known words of a respected person. Rather did Jesus so&nbsp;<em>live</em>&nbsp;within Paul’s consciousness, His words were so widely and deeply within the texture of his thinking, that the allusions and quotations are made less self-consciously. <em><a href='B:530 9:16-17'>1Co 9:16-17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 18:4-5'>Act 18:4-5</a></em>.</p><p>Yet despite this provision, Paul chose to disobey what he calls a ‘command’ from the Lord- because he figured that the purposes of the Gospel would be served better long term if he in his case didn’t obey that command. Paul was no legalist- for legalism would reason that a command is there to be obeyed; but Paul perceived a higher principle than legalistic obedience. Not only does all this give an insight into the nature of a man’s relationship with his Lord when he knows Christ well enough; but it indicates the huge priority placed by Paul upon the spreading of the Gospel. He would even relegate a ‘command’ from the Lord Jesus beneath the overall aim of spreading the Gospel. This is a line of reasoning which is of course dangerous for&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;to adopt; but it indicates the priority given to preaching. Actually one sees other examples of this in Paul- he observed Torah amongst the Jews, but broke it amongst the Gentiles; he thus relativized obedience to Divine law for the sake of the spreading of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>). In fact all Paul’s decisions in controversial matters seem to have been made based around the ultimate question: ‘What would be best for spreading the Gospel?’. Perhaps the Lord was making the same point when He told His preachers to stay in their converts’ homes and eat whatever was out before them (<em><a href='B:490 10:8'>Luk 10:8</a></em>), i:e. without insisting on eating kosher food. For the Pharisees insisted that an observant Jew could&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;do what the Lord said- i:e. eat ‘whatever’ was set before them. But the Lord waived that commandment- for the sake of spreading the Gospel. And we do well to get into his spirit as we face the many calls we do in church life.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:15'>1Co 9:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I have used none of these things, and I do not write these things that it may be so done in my case-&nbsp;</em>Paul is covering himself against the likely twist of this words, to the effect that he was hinting at wanting money from the Corinthians. We need to think ahead to the likely impact our words and positions are going to have, and the possibility of misinterpretation.</p><p><em>For it is better for me to die, than that anyone should make my boasting void-&nbsp;</em>Paul goes on to say that he has nothing to glory / boast of regarding his Gospel work, for he is only doing his job (:16). So what glory of his does he fear might be made void? He has argued that his whole approach to these issues is because he wants to see them saved, and their salvation will be part of his salvation- for will partake in the same hope, the same acceptance of the Corinthians into immortality. If they were to be accepted into God’s Kingdom, then they would be his glory<em>:&nbsp;</em>Thus he states in <em><a href='B:540 1:14'>2Co 1:14</a></em> that the Corinthians accepted into God’s Kingdom would be his glory s:w:. Likewise he would glory in the day of Christ if the Philippian converts were accepted (<em><a href='B:570 2:16'>Phi 2:16</a></em>). Paul had constantly in mind this picture of his rejoicing / boast / glory on their behalf at judgment day; and therefore even in this life, he boasted / gloried about them (<em><a href='B:540 7:14'>2Co 7:14</a></em>; 2 Corinthians 9; 2 Corinthians 2), and the Thessalonians too (<em><a href='B:600 1:4'>2Th 1:4</a></em>). The accepted Thessalonians at the last day would be Paul's glory and joy (<em><a href='B:590 2:20'>1Th 2:20</a></em>). This future glorying which Paul ever had in mind would, however, be made void if the Corinthians turned away from the faith. And by asking them for money, Paul feared he might make them stumble out of the path to the Kingdom, and thus his future glorying in their salvation by grace would be voided. Throughout Corinthians, Paul speaks of his fear that his labour would be void, or "in vain", if they turned away from Christ (<em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>). Likewise if the Philippians and Thessalonians turned away, then his labour also would be in vain / voided (<em><a href='B:570 2:16'>Phi 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 3:5'>1Th 3:5</a></em>). Paul felt that he would prefer to die rather than see their salvation lost and his glory in them voided. His whole life and reason for being was the salvation of others; and this must be our pattern. This explains his extreme concern for his brethren's path, rather than shrugging his shoulders. His desire to die if they were not saved is clearly alluding to Moses, who asked that his name be taken out of the book of the living so that Israel might be saved, and Paul in Romans 9 applies this spirit to himself. This desire to die if they were not going to be saved reflected how he felt he had nothing to live for apart from the salvation of others- a powerful challenge to our cluttered lives. It provides help in understanding his comment that he did have a desire to die, but to remain alive in the flesh was more necessary for his converts (<em><a href='B:570 1:23'>Phi 1:23</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:16'>1Co 9:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 20:26'>Act 20:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast about. For necessity is laid upon me-&nbsp;</em>We may need to read in an ellipsis here: 'If I preach the Gospel from a sense of necessity. The necessity, in the context, would be the necessity of preaching because he was a paid preacher and needed an income in order to survive. But he goes on to explain that because he is not preaching from the necessity of getting an income, his necessity is of a more spiritual kind. Again we see the contrast between the way of the flesh and that of the Spirit. The necessity he had was one laid upon him by God and the Lord Jesus; and not because of his material needs. "Necessity" is the same word translated "compel" in <em><a href='B:490 14:23'>Luk 14:23</a></em> - "compel them to come in" and sit in their places at the marriage supper of the Lamb. The compulsion is laid upon us by the tragedy of human rejection of the places Christ prepared for them, and the wonderful, so easy possibility to be there. Significantly, this same Greek word is used elsewhere about the 'necessities' which are part of our ministry of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:540 6:4'>2Co 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>). The urgency of our task will lead us into many an urgent situation, with all the compelling needs which accompany them. But that compulsion, in this context, was from spiritual reasons and not because we want financial gain in this life.</p><p><em>For woe to me, if I do not preach the gospel</em>- The "woe" was because he would not be discharging his need before God to preach. It may be that in these words Paul is alluding to how the High Priest had to have bells so that "his sound may be heard... that he die not" (<em><a href='B:20 28:35'>Exo 28:35</a></em>; this idea of the sound being heard is picked up in Psalms 19 concerning the spread of the Gospel). Whatever the predestined and foreknown purpose of God with Paul as a preacher may have been, the fact still stands that the record emphasizes the quite natural spirit of compulsion to preach which arose within him. Paul was under no financial necessity to preach- indeed he himself admits a tendency not to preach, to hold back from giving his all to fulfil that commission he had received to testify of the Gospel of God’s grace (<em><a href='B:530 9:16'>1Co 9:16</a></em>):&nbsp; He asks his brethren to pray that he would be able to “make it manifest” more than he did (<em><a href='B:580 4:4'>Col 4:4</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:560 6:20'>Eph 6:20</a></em>). He voluntarily, and not for financial motive, made himself a slave to all, selling himself as it were into slavery, in order to save them (:19).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:17'>1Co 9:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if against my own will, then I have clearly had a stewardship entrusted to me-&nbsp;</em>The "reward" referred to the financial motives which Paul has just denied having. The fact that true preaching is a carrying of the cross explains why Paul felt that the fact that to preach what he did went right against his natural grain, it was not at all what he wanted to do, and this was the proof that indeed a “dispensation of the Gospel” had been given to him. Likewise Jeremiah complained that the visions which he had to preach, about violence and judgment, were quite against the grain of his sensitive soul (<em><a href='B:300 46:5'>Jer 46:5</a></em> (RV); <em><a href='B:300 47:6'>Jer 47:6</a></em>). There is therefore no such person as a natural preacher in the ultimate sense. This is a job one would not do for money, not any amount of it.</p><p>It seems strange to think that Paul had to&nbsp;<em>make</em>&nbsp;himself preach, that he did it against his natural will. But remember his poor eyesight, ugly physical appearance, his embarrassing early life spent persecuting and torturing Christians - no wonder public preaching of Christ was something he had to make himself do. It may be that the reason he went to the wilderness of Arabia after his conversion was that he was running away from the command to preach publicly (<em><a href='B:550 1:17-18'>Gal 1:17-18</a></em>). Several times he speaks of how he fears he will lose his nerve to preach, and thereby lose his salvation; he even asks others to pray for him that he will preach more boldly. It also needs to be remembered that Paul was a passionate Jew; he loved his people. It seems that he "preached circumcision" (<em><a href='B:550 5:11'>Gal 5:11</a></em>) in the sense of being involved in actively trying to proselytize Gentiles. But it was Paul the Hebrew of the Hebrews who was called to be the apostle&nbsp;<em>to the Gentiles</em>. It might have sounded more appropriate if preaching to the Jews was his specialism, and fisherman Peter from half-Gentile Galilee went to the Gentiles. But no. Each man was sent against his grain. And more than this. It seems that the Lord set up Peter, James and John as some kind of replacement to the Scribes and rabbis. And let’s not forget Amos, too. He defended his prophetic ministry, as Paul defended his, by saying that it was something he had been called to quite against his nature. He was not a prophet nor a prophet’s son, and yet he was taking from following his flock of sheep to be a prophet to Israel- quite against his will and inclination (<em><a href='B:370 7:14-15'>Amo 7:14-15</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:18'>1Co 9:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel without charge-&nbsp;</em>This was the question the cynical Corinthians wanted answering. Why was Paul preaching, if indeed it was not for money or personal gain?Paul’s decision not to take money from Corinth was due to his deep, deep meditation on the principle contained in <em><a href='B:470 10:8'>Mat 10:8</a></em> "freely you have received, freely give"; although there were other passages in the Gospels, even two verses later in Matthew 10, which he knew implied that it was Christ's will that the missionary should be paid (<em><a href='B:530 9:14'>1Co 9:14</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 10:10'>Mat 10:10</a></em>). This issue of payment shows how Paul based his life decisions on his understanding of the principles of the Gospels. He did far more than learn those Gospels parrot-fashion. They were in his heart, and influenced the direction of his life.</p><p><em>So as not to use to the full my right in the gospel-&nbsp;</em>Paul could have taken wages from the Corinthians for his service. But on that occasion he chose “not to use to the full my right in the gospel”; and he uses the same word in <em><a href='B:530 7:31'>1Co 7:31</a></em>, in teaching that although we have to ‘use this world’ we are to ‘use it to the full’ (RVmg:). As God operates with us on different levels, accepting non-ideal situations, so we are to deal with each other. Paul could have used his power in the Gospel more sharply than he actually did with the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:540 13:10'>2Co 13:10</a></em>)- and note how he earlier uses those two words "power" and "use" in saying that he could have demanded financial support from them, but he chose not to use that power / authority which he had (<em><a href='B:530 9:12'>1Co 9:12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:19'>1Co 9:19</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 20:27'>Mat 20:27</a></em> and <em><a href='B:530 9:16'>1Co 9:16</a></em><em>&nbsp;Woe to me.</em></p><p><em>For though I was free from all, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more-&nbsp;</em>Far from seeking personal financial gain from preaching, Paul had as it were sold himself into slavery so that he might save others. But he "was free from all" in that he did not take money for preaching. The idea of gaining or winning&nbsp;<em>people</em>&nbsp;rather than money as he was falsely accused of alludes to the Lord's words about winning men (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>). When Paul speaks of how he has "made myself a slave unto all" in his preaching (<em><a href='B:530 9:19'>1Co 9:19</a></em>), there is an evident connection with his reasoning in <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em> about how on the cross, the Lord Jesus likewise&nbsp;<em>made</em>&nbsp;Himself a servant to all. For Paul, preaching was and is to be a sharing in the cross of Christ. In his preaching of the Gospel, Paul could say that "I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more" (<em><a href='B:530 9:19'>1Co 9:19</a></em>). Yet elsewhere, Paul uses the idea of the "servant unto all" as descriptive of Christ's attitude upon the cross (<em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>). The connection of thought reflects how Paul understood that in seeking to gain others for Christ, we make ourselves their servants, and in this sense our witness to them is a living out of the principles of the cross. Being such a "servant unto all" hardly squares well with the image of arrogant platform preachers dazzling their audiences. That isn't the preaching which truly 'gains' people for Christ.</p><p>If we can at least grasp the spirit of taking up Christ's cross, there will be a deep sense of fellowship with others who have reached the same realization; and a deep joy and calmness in confidence of sharing His resurrection:&nbsp;<em>The cross is attainable</em>. It’s not just an awful thing that happened in a few hours of history so long ago, the details of which we flinch from, excusing ourselves that it’s just too terrible. Look how Paul alludes to it, and arose to the point where he could truly claim to us that he was living the crucified life. The Lord predicted in <em><a href='B:480 10:44-45'>Mar 10:44-45</a></em>: "and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be&nbsp;<em>slave of all</em>. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and<em>to give His life a ransom for many</em>". And Paul alludes to this in <em><a href='B:530 9:19'>1Co 9:19</a></em>: "I have made myself&nbsp;<em>a slave to all</em>..."; and later in <em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>: "Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but&nbsp;<em>the profit of the many, that they may be saved</em>". Through his sharing in the cross of the Lord Jesus, he, the very human Paul, became an agent in the salvation of all men. He too became a ‘slave of all’ after the pattern of the Lord in His time of dying. We may make excuses about Jesus not being exactly in our position, because God was His Father etc. Valid or not, those excuses disappear when we are faced with Paul’s challenge.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:20'>1Co 9:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 11:24'>2Co 11:24</a></em>.</p><p><em>And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews. To them that are under the law, I became as one under the law-&nbsp;</em>Acts is full of examples of this. Indeed, Paul's arrest in Jerusalem which led to his journey to imprisonment in Rome was all due to trying to be as a Jew to the Jews, entering the temple and paying for sacrifices. To become something else to others must be done for the sake of connection with them, with their salvation in view- there is a fine line at times between this and the natural desire we have to be as others would like us to be, apparently adopting their positions for the sake of peace and acceptance. The Lord Jesus was by nature one of us, but <em><a href='B:570 2:5-9'>Phi 2:5-9</a></em> speak as if He 'became' as us- in that He wilfully entered fully into our human situations. And this came to ultimate term in the death of the cross.</p><p><em>Though I am not under the law-&nbsp;</em>One of the simplest and thereby most powerful statements that the Law of Moses is not now operative nor required for Christians. Elsewhere Paul has clearly argued that we are not under the law (Rom. 6:14,15 "you are not under law, but under grace"; Gal. 3:23; 4:5,21; 5:18 "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law"). But Christian maturity means that we do not just baldly insist upon what we know to be "truth", but rather we accommodate ourselves to those who do not yet believe that truth. In order to win them. Love builds up, but knowledge alone puffs up (1 Cor. 8:1). At times, love is not just insisting upon truth at first encounter. Paul's attitude to meat offered to idols was the same. He argued that meat and food laws were irrelevant to the mature Christian; but he would not eat meat offered to idols lest it caused the immature to stumble. We think likewise of the Lord speaking in terms of believing in demon possession and a paganic 'satan', when He didn't believe in those things.</p><p><em>That I might gain those that are under the law-&nbsp;</em>Paul is writing this in answer to the aspersion that he was in the preaching business for personal or financial "gain". He is saying that the gain he sought was for the Lord and for his converts- that they should be gained for Christ and the life eternal. Yet again, He is alluding to the Lord's teaching, which uses the same Greek word for "gain". The Lord taught against seeking personal gain, even gaining the whole world (<em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>)- instead we should seek to gain our brother (<em><a href='B:470 18:15'>Mat 18:15</a></em>, cp. <em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>). Paul could say that he had 'lost' all the secular things which he once counted "gain" (<em><a href='B:570 3:7'>Phi 3:7</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:21'>1Co 9:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law-&nbsp;</em>Whilst Paul was "not under the Jewish law" (:20), he clarifies that this does not mean that he is in total "without law to God". God’s law is now not the law of Moses, but the law of Christ. The law of Christ is to bear each others' burdens (<em><a href='B:550 6:2'>Gal 6:2</a></em>). This was what Paul was doing by trying to relate to others in the burdens they carried, even if those burdens were a self-imposed attempt to keep the Jewish law. He has used the slavery metaphor in :19, saying that he was a slave to all men's salvation; but that is the same as being under the law of Christ, whose passion is the salvation of all men<em>.</em></p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some-&nbsp;</em>The "weak" in NT usage are the spiritually weak. He "became weak" without being spiritually "weak". The "weak" in the Corinthian context were those who still thought that the pagan gods behind the idols actually existed (<em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>), those who were smitten with weakness because of their gross sins (<em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>), the weak parts of the body of Christ that need extra care (<em><a href='B:530 12:22'>1Co 12:22</a></em>). Perhaps Paul has in mind the 'weak' as being those who were taken in by Judaism, who were still "under the law"; for the same word is used about the weakness of the Law of Moses (<em><a href='B:650 7:18'>Heb 7:18</a></em>). It is a tribute to the Lord Jesus that someone of His spirituality could be naturally attractive to sinners such as tax collectors and prostitutes. Paul likewise sought to connect with the spiritually weak- the total opposite of his earlier Rabbinic mindset, which sought to distance oneself from the spiritually weak. He desired by all means to "save some"- but the Greek appears to mean "somebody". To save just one person was worth it all. As Paul reflected upon how many had turned away, this must have become an every stronger credo for him- to save at least one person is so wonderful that all the grief is worth it. I have had those thoughts at the funerals of those I feel I brought to Christ. By all means I saved somebody, in bringing them to Christ the Saviour. We note that Paul felt that he could play a role in another's salvation. The Lord's saving work has been delegated to us to the extent that we can save some, and also cause others to stumble from salvation.</p><p>Minucius records that opposition to the Christian faith was because the believers so closely identified themselves with the crucified Christ that His death and shame were seen as theirs: “They are said to be a man who was punished with death as a criminal and the fatal wood of his cross, thus providing suitable liturgy for the depraved friends". Thus we see how deep was their appreciation of the doctrine of representation: they saw the Lord in His time of dying as representative of themselves. Time and again the words and actions of Paul show that both consciously and unconsciously he was aware that he was experiencing in himself the experiences of his Lord. In his preaching he&nbsp;<em>made himself&nbsp;</em>a&nbsp;<em>slave of all</em>,&nbsp;<em>weak&nbsp;</em>that he might gain the weak (<em><a href='B:530 9:19'>1Co 9:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>). This is language he elsewhere understands as appropriate to the Lord in His death (<em><a href='B:540 13:4'>2Co 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:480 9:35'>Mar 9:35</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:23'>1Co 9:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker of it-&nbsp;</em>Here again we may need to read in an ellipsis with regard to "the Gospel's sake". As explained on :10, Paul's hope was that he would be a "partaker" in the final salvation of his converts, just like the ox who ploughs and threshes in the hope he will get a mouthful of the corn finally produced. As it stands here in :23, the "joint partaker" has no reference- joint with what or whom? The sake of the Gospel therefore refers, I suggest, to "the sake of your response to the Gospel". The "all things" which he "did" refer in the context to being all things to all men in order to save them. He did these things for the sake of their response to the Gospel, so that he might be a joint partaker with them of the hope of the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:24'>1Co 9:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you not know that they that run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run like this, so that you may attain the prize-&nbsp;</em>There is only one who so ran that He received the prize thanks to His own efforts- and that was the Lord Jesus. But we are in Him, and should run like Him. But we must read this emphasis upon one receiving the prize as an intended contrast to what Paul has just written- that salvation was a matter of being "a&nbsp;<em>joint&nbsp;</em>partaker" of the hope contained in the Gospel. We are to run&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;in a race where only one gets the prize- even though that prize is in another sense a matter of 'joint partaking', a prize received jointly. For Paul felt that the nature of his eternity was tied up in the salvation of his converts. He doesn't want them to think that this idea of joint partaking meant that they were not to run well themselves. They were to run, as he himself did (:26), as if it was a very personal race with an individual, unique prize at the end of the course. And yet in another sense, that prize is a collective matter, a 'joint partaking'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:25'>1Co 9:25</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 13:24'>Luk 13:24</a></em>.</p><p><em>And every man that strives in the games exercises self-control in all things. Now they do it to receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible</em>- Paul lifts the arguments about receiving material advantage from preaching to an altogether higher plane. We are aiming to receive an eternal, incorruptible victory wreath. Even the highest personal achievements and possessions in secular life are not worthy to be compared with that. The crown is both personal and collective; Paul speaks of the Philippians and Thessalonians as being his eternal crown- if they entered God’s Kingdom (<em><a href='B:570 4:1'>Phi 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:19'>1Th 2:19</a></em>). Paul's striving literally, 'agonizing' was not just for his own crown, but for they to be accepted at the last day. The contrast between corruptible and incorruptible will be developed later in <em><a href='B:530 15:52'>1Co 15:52</a></em>; our corruptible body will be made incorruptible at the resurrection of the body at the Lord's return. The crown is therefore to be understood as the change of our bodies, both of Paul and the Corinthians, at the last day. The crown will therefore be very personal and intimate to ourselves- it is in the form of our eternal bodies. And those bodies, that being, shall reflect our efforts for others. If those we work with are saved as a function of our efforts for them, then they shall be part of our crown. Paul's self control was motivated by a desire for others' salvation as well as his own. And this surely is one of the factors explaining the Lord's amazing achievement of perfection within human nature; the motivation came from a desire to save us. For He died primarily "for us". If we are motivated solely by a desire to save ourselves, to get eternity for our personal body, then we will likely fail. We are too dysfunctional to be deeply motivated by that. But enduring for the sake of others' salvation is a more powerful motivator.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:26'>1Co 9:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I therefore run, but not with uncertainty. So fight I, but not as a shadow boxer-&nbsp;</em>Later we will find Paul answering the aspersions that he is indecisive and not serious (e.g. <em><a href='B:540 1:17'>2Co 1:17</a></em>):&nbsp; He was deadly serious, totally focused, because the issues before him affected not only his eternal destiny but that of many others. He uses the same word to urge that the trumpet not give an uncertain sound (<em><a href='B:530 14:8'>1Co 14:8</a></em>). Various images are used in the Bible to bring home to us our sense of purpose. We are to see ourselves as soldiers disciplining ourselves for action, fighting in the only ultimately worthy cause with victory in sight; as slaves of a great Master; as athletes running a race. Paul saw himself as very much in reality, and not just shadowing boxing. Why does he bother saying this- that he boxes not as one who merely beats the air? Surely because he perceived that many people don’t grasp the ‘reality’ of life, and he stood accused of being one of them. They think it’s all some virtual game, online rather than real life. But Paul saw the real issues of eternal life and eternal death very clearly. Those who responded to his preaching and teaching really would live forever; those who rejected it or fell away from it would ultimately remain eternally dead. Paul perceived that we are dealing with the ultimate of all realities: the love of God, His feelings for us, His mission and purpose for us, how every moment the King of the Cosmos is yearning for us, the life eternal, the sense of the future men might miss. And so Paul fought for it all, not uncertainly, and not as one who feels only half in reality. It was his life:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 9:27'>1Co 9:27</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:540 12:10'>2Co 12:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>But like an athlete I discipline my body and make it my slave; lest by any means, after I have preached to others-&nbsp;</em>The Greek for "body" is also translated "slave". Paul speaks here not only of the extent of his self-mastery; he is continuing the metaphor of enslavement with which he opened this section in :19. He made himself a slave to all men in order to save them, empathizing with their sensitivities and weaknesses in order to save them. And so continues the theme being developed here; that although he would be a joint partaker with his converts of the same hoped for salvation, yet he ran the race, as they should, as if only he personally was going to get the prize. His salvation, as ours, was personal; and yet on another hand, it was bound up in the salvation of the others in his life. He beat his body (NEV "discipline"), directing the boxing of :26 at himself, in order to enslave himself- but that enslavement was for the salvation of others (:19). If he did not do this, then having preached to others he would himself be rejected. So his argument is that he would be rejected from salvation if he did not enslave himself to the salvation of others. Serving them and their foibles and needs was a necessary part of his own path to salvation. This is a wide ranging principle. If we consider that we shall reach salvation by simply focusing upon our own faith, sitting behind a screen hitting the right buttons, but making no effort for the salvation of others- then we may well find that in the longer term, we shall ourselves miss salvation. This is the danger of the 'out of church Christian' movement.</p><p><em>I myself should be disqualified-</em>&nbsp;A castaway, reprobate, rejected. The threat of <em><a href='B:490 9:23-25'>Luk 9:23-25</a></em> rung in his mind (also in <em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:9'>2Co 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:8'>Phi 3:8</a></em>): If a man gains the world for Christ but does not take up the cross, or is ashamed of Christ's words and principles in this world, he will be&nbsp;<em>cast away</em>. Especially does Paul allude to these words here in <em><a href='B:530 9:27'>1Co 9:27</a></em>: "Lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (AV). Paul recognized his temptation: to think that his zeal for preaching excused him from taking up the cross. In essence, we must all see our own likely temptations: to focus on one area of spirituality, with the hope that it will excuse us from the cross:&nbsp;</p><p>The real possibility of rejection at judgment day was evidently a motivator in Paul's life, and he used "the terror" of the coming day of judgment to persuade men in his teaching of the ecclesias (<em><a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a></em>), and also in his preaching to the world (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 17:31'>Act 17:31</a></em>). Paul's exposition of judgment to come caused Felix to tremble (<em><a href='B:510 24:25'>Act 24:25</a></em>). I don't suppose Felix would if&nbsp;he walked into many churches today. The fact is, many will be rejected. The unforgiving believer will be delivered to the tormentors to pay what is due (<em><a href='B:470 18:34'>Mat 18:34</a></em>); God is preparing torture instruments for the punishment of the rejected (<em><a href='B:230 7:13'>Psa 7:13</a></em>). These are awesome descriptions of the self-inflicted mental agony in which the rejected will writhe. The matchless grace of God and His eagerness for our salvation should not be allowed to blunt the impact of these warnings- of what we can do to ourselves, more than God doing to us. Almost certainly, some of those you know today will go through the terrible rejection process which we are going to explore now. People from all over the world, the living responsible, will see the sign of the Son of man, will know His return is imminent, and wail with the knowledge that they have crucified Him afresh and must now meet Him (<em><a href='B:470 24:30-31'>Mat 24:30-31</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:730 1:7'>Rev 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a></em>). Our response to the certain knowledge that His return is imminent will in effect be our judgment.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em><em>&nbsp;Brothers, I would not have you ignorant-&nbsp;</em>Paul told the Corinthians that he didn’t want them to be “ignorant” of the powerful implications of the fact that they had been baptized into the Son of God, and were on their way to His Kingdom, being in an exactly analogous situation to Israel as they walked through the wilderness. He uses a word which is the Greek word ‘agnostic’. He didn’t want them to be agnostic, to be indifferent, to shrug their shoulders, at the bitingly insistent relevance of the type to them. And that type of Israel in the wilderness is most applicable to us, “upon whom the ends of the ages are come” (:11) than to any other generation. Indifference seems to have been a problem in Corinth as it is for us. By contrast, God is provoked to jealousy by our indifference to Him (<em><a href='B:530 10:22'>1Co 10:22</a></em>), seeing every self-reliant act as an implicit statement that we are “stronger than he”. He would not have us “ignorant” or agnostic about the implications of the basic doctrines we believe (<em><a href='B:590 4:13'>1Th 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:13'>Rom 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:1'>Rom 7:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:1'>1Co 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:8'>2Co 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:13'>1Th 4:13</a></em>), nor ‘agnostic’ to the fact we have been baptized and risen with Christ (<em><a href='B:520 6:3'>Rom 6:3</a></em>). These are all things that we are almost too familiar with; and yet he urges us, down through the centuries, to never be indifferent and agnostic to these things.</p><p><em>That our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea-&nbsp;</em>Israel left Egypt, passed through the baptism of the Red Sea, and then walked through the wilderness- all in enacted parable of our spiritual experience. They then passed through the Jordan, and set foot in the land of promise (cp. our entry to the Kingdom at the judgment seat). But they had not been circumcised in the wilderness- possibly suggesting that the new Israel will not have cut off the flesh as they should have done in their wilderness walk. It is stressed at least five times in Joshua 5 that Joshua himself personally circumcised each of them, and then they kept the Passover. This would seem to tellingly point forward to our coming to the end of the wilderness walk of this life, and then entering into the Kingdom; to have a personal encounter with the Lord Jesus (cp. Joshua), who performs the intensely personal operation of rolling back and cutting off the flesh, and then we sit down together and keep the Passover, as the Lord clearly intimated we would (<em><a href='B:470 26:29'>Mat 26:29</a></em>). &nbsp; This is how personal relationships in the Kingdom of God will be.</p><p>Israel crossing the Red Sea is one of the most well-known types of baptism / the new creation. They were being chased by the Egyptians, and were trapped against the sea. The only way of escape was for that water to open and allow them to go through it. If any Israelite had refused to go through, there would have been no salvation. Going further, it is evident that the people of Israel as a body were going through the death and resurrection experience of the Lord Jesus, through the process of the Passover and Exodus through the Red Sea:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>Israel</td><td>Abib</td><td>Jesus</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ate Passover (<em><a href='B:20 12:6'>Exo 12:6</a></em>)</td><td>14th</td><td>Died on the cross as Passover lambs slain</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Left Egypt the next day (<em><a href='B:40 33:3'>Num 33:3</a></em>)</td><td>15th&nbsp;</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Journeyed three days (<em><a href='B:20 8:27'>Exo 8:27</a></em>)</td><td>15th-17th</td><td>Jesus three days in the tomb</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Came through the Red Sea&nbsp;</td><td>17th&nbsp;</td><td>Resurrected</td><td></td></tr></table><p>As we come out of the baptismal water, we really are united with the resurrected Lord- a new creation. His newness of life, His deliverance and successful exodus from the world- all this becomes ours. Israel were slaves in Egypt, and then after the Red Sea baptism became slaves of God. <em><a href='B:230 68:18'>Psa 68:18</a></em> pictures them as a train of captives being led out of Egypt, merging into the image of a train of a captivity led into a different captivity. Romans 6 powerfully brings home the point: we were slaves of sin, but now are become slaves of righteousness.</p><p>The cloud above them was water, and the water of the Red Sea on each side of them, giving them as it were a complete immersion without getting wet. But there’s a sense in which baptism is ongoing, and it was for them. They are described as being “under the cloud” throughout the journey to the promised land (<em><a href='B:230 105:39'>Psa 105:39</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 14:14'>Num 14:14</a></em>). We are to die for and in Christ and experience His resurrection life breaking through into our mortal lives as an ongoing process (<em><a href='B:540 4:10-11'>2Co 4:10-11</a></em>).</p><p>Try to see the historical events which occurred to Israel as relevant to you personally. They were "types of us". Note how <em><a href='B:530 10:1'>1Co 10:1</a></em> speaks of "<em>our</em>&nbsp;fathers"- even when Paul is writing to Gentiles. He intended them to see in the Jewish fathers a type of themselves. Israel's keeping of the Passover implied that each subsequent Israelite had personally been redeemed that night. All down the years, they were to treat the stranger fairly: "for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:20 23:9'>Exo 23:9</a></em>). The body of believers, the body of Christ, is not only world-wide geographically at this point in time; it stretches back over time as well as distance, to include all those who have truly believed. This is why David found such inspiration from the history of Israel in his own crises (e.g. Psalms 77).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:2'>1Co 10:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea</em>- In a sense, Israel’s baptism was an ongoing experience, in that the cloud of water? continued over them throughout the wilderness wanderings. The ongoing nature of the act of baptism was outlined in baptism's greatest prototype: the passage of Israel through the Red Sea (<em><a href='B:530 10:2'>1Co 10:2</a></em>). They were baptized into that pillar of cloud (cp. the water of baptism), but in fact the cloud and fire which overshadowed them at their Red Sea baptism continued throughout their wilderness journey to the Kingdom. They went "<em>through</em>&nbsp;fire and&nbsp;<em>through</em>&nbsp;water" (<em><a href='B:230 66:12'>Psa 66:12</a></em>) throughout their wilderness years, until they entered the promised rest (cp. the Kingdom). Likewise, the great works of Yahweh which He showed at the time of their exodus from Egypt (cp. the world) and baptism at the Red Sea were in essence&nbsp;<em>repeated</em>&nbsp;throughout their wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:50 7:19'>Deu 7:19</a></em>). Therefore whenever they faced discouragement and an apparent blockage to their way, they were to remember how God had redeemed them at their baptism, and to realize that in fact His work was still ongoing with them (<em><a href='B:50 20:1'>Deu 20:1</a></em>). He told them in the desert that He was “Yahweh that&nbsp;<em>bringeth you up</em>&nbsp;out of the land of Egypt" (<em><a href='B:30 11:45'>Lev 11:45</a></em>). Therefore the overcoming of Edom, Moab and the Canaanite tribes is described in language lifted from the Red Sea record (e.g. <em><a href='B:20 15:15-17'>Exo 15:15-17</a></em>). Throughout their history, Israel were reminded that what God had done for them in their Red Sea deliverance He was continuing to do, and therefore all their enemies would likewise perish if they remained God’s people (e.g. <em><a href='B:290 43:16'>Isa 43:16</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:6'>Col 2:6</a></em>.</p><p>Bullinger comments that "they were all baptized into Moses" can be literally rendered 'they baptized themselves'. The same verb form occurs in <em><a href='B:490 2:5'>Luk 2:5</a></em>, where Joseph went "to be taxed", literally 'to enrol himself':&nbsp;Self baptism is quite valid although not advisable in most cases. And yet the language of 'being baptized' suggests that it is God and the Lord, through the Spirit, who baptize us. And yet we take the step ourselves. Baptism is therefore a fusion of our freewill and God’s action.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:3'>1Co 10:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>They did all eat the same spiritual food-&nbsp;</em>This was the manna, which the Lord in John 6 interprets as Him and His word. Perhaps the emphasis is upon "the same"- for the Corinthians were under the influence of false teachers, and there was only one food which would get them through the wilderness journey. Unless we too feed on the Lord Jesus, we shall perish in the journey to the Kingdom. Daily reading of the word, especially of the Gospel records, seems to me to be critical in our age. The food was "spiritual" but the Corinthians were not "spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), even though chapter 1 begins by saying they had been given the Spirit. Unless we feed the Spirit, we too shall not be spiritual.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>And did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them; and the rock represented Christ-&nbsp;</em>"That rock was Christ". However, Deuteronomy 32 seems to imply that the rock was an Angel. "I will publish the name of the Lord (a reference to the Angel declaring the name in Exodus 34)... He is the rock... He found (Israel) in a desert land... He led him" (vv. 3,4,10). This is all describing the activities of the Angel. Israel rebelled against the Angel (<em><a href='B:290 63:10'>Isa 63:10</a></em>), "lightly esteemed the rock... of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful" (<em><a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 32:18'>Deu 32:18</a></em>). Another link between the rock and the Angel is in <em><a href='B:10 49:24'>Gen 49:24</a></em>: "The mighty God of Jacob (an Angel)... the shepherd (the Angel, <em><a href='B:290 63:9-11'>Isa 63:9-11</a></em>)... the stone... of Israel". Note that Jesus is clearly the shepherd, the stone and the rock (of offence). The language of 1 Corinthians 10 invites us not to interpret "the rock" just as the physical rock. It can be shown that the Comforter was an Angel representing Christ, in fact the same Angel as in Isaiah 63 which led Israel through the wilderness. It is therefore fitting that "the rock", the same Angel, should be chosen by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 as a type of Christ. What came from the rock was "spiritual drink"- showing that the Rock Angel spiritually as well as physically fed them. Christ's interpretation of the manna as representing the word in John 6 would support this idea of the Angels spiritually strengthening Israel on their journey. <em><a href='B:20 29:42'>Exo 29:42</a></em> implies this happened daily; the Angel stood&nbsp; at&nbsp; the door of the tabernacle each day to speak with them. Perhaps the same is true today for those who through Angelic help feed daily on the manna of the Word. It is possible that Israel tempting Christ in <em><a href='B:530 10:9'>1Co 10:9</a></em> is meant to refer back to <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em> "They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and that rock was Christ". Tempting Christ was therefore tempting the rock to produce water. The rock was a title of the Angel that was with them, and it was he, representing Christ, whom they tempted. See on <em><a href='B:290 51:9'>Isa 51:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 3:22'>Rev 3:22</a></em>.</p><p>Paul is alluding to a Jewish tradition that the rock followed Israel through the wilderness, always giving water. Some traditions suggest Miriam carried it; the supposed “Rock of Moses” is a piece of rock which could have been carried. Paul emphasizes that the point of his allusion is that the water which they drank of represented “Christ”, the strength which comes from Him as the smitten rock; he alludes to the tradition just as he quotes pagan poets and makes a point out of their words (<em><a href='B:510 17:28'>Act 17:28</a></em>). The Bible often features this kind of thing; and God isn’t so paranoiac and apologetic that He as it were has to footnote such things with a comment that “of course, this isn’t true”:&nbsp;<br/>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>It should be evident enough that the rock which Moses smote in the desert was simply a rock; it wasn't Christ personally. The Jewish book of Wisdom claimed that "the rock was Wisdom" (Wisdom 11). Paul, as he so often does, is picking up this phrase and saying that more essentially, the rock represented Jesus personally, and not 'Wisdom' in the Jewish misunderstanding of this figure. It "was" Him in the sense that it represented Him. Likewise He said about the communion wine: "This is my blood". It wasn't literally His blood; it was and is His blood only in that it represents His blood. Paul is describing the experience of Israel in the wilderness because he saw in it some similarities with the walk of the Corinthian believers towards God’s kingdom. The whole of 1 Corinthians 10 is full of such reference. And this is why he should speak about the rock which Moses smote as a symbol of Christ. The Israelites had been baptized into Moses, just as Corinth had been baptized into Christ; and both Israel and Corinth ate "the same spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual drink". "Spiritual food... spiritual drink" shows that Paul saw the manna they ate and the water they drank as spiritually symbolic- just as He saw the rock as symbolic. Paul goes on in <em><a href='B:530 10:16-17'>1Co 10:16-17</a></em> to write of how Corinth also ate and drank of Christ in the breaking of bread, and in chapter 11 he brings home the point: like Israel, we can eat and drink those symbols, "the same spiritual meat... the same spiritual drink", having been baptized into Christ as they were into Moses, and think that thereby we are justified to do as we like in our private lives. This is the point and power of all this allusion. The picture of their carcasses rotting in the wilderness is exhortation enough. Baptism and observing the 'breaking of bread' weren't enough to save Israel.</p><p>The Lord Jesus Himself had explained in John 6 how the manna represented His words and His sacrifice. He spoke of how out of Him would come "living water", not still well water, but bubbling water fresh from a fountain (<em><a href='B:500 4:11'>Joh 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>). And He invites His people to drink of it. It was this kind of water that bubbled out of the smitten rock. <em><a href='B:230 78:15-16'>Psa 78:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:20'>Psa 78:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 105:41'>Psa 105:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em> describe it with a variety of words: gushing, bursting, water running down like a high mountain stream, "flowed abundantly" − as if the fountains of deep hidden water had burst to the surface ("as out of the great depths", <em><a href='B:230 78:15'>Psa 78:15</a></em>). So the Lord was saying that He was the rock, and we like Israel drinking of what came out of Him.</p><p>The Law of Moses included several rituals which depended upon what is called "the running water"(<em><a href='B:30 14:5-6'>Lev 14:5-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 14:50-52'>Lev 14:50-52</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 15:18'>Lev 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 19:17'>Num 19:17</a></em>). "Running" translates a Hebrew word normally translated "living". This living water was what came out of the smitten rock. The Lord taught that the water that would come out of Him would only come after His glorification (<em><a href='B:500 7:38'>Joh 7:38</a></em>)- an idea He seems to link with His death rather than His ascension (<em><a href='B:500 12:28'>Joh 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 12:41'>Joh 12:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 13:32'>Joh 13:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:1'>Joh 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 17:5'>Joh 17:5</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:500 21:19'>Joh 21:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 2:9'>Heb 2:9</a></em>). When He was glorified on the cross, then the water literally flowed from His side on His death. The rock was "smitten", and the water then came out. The Hebrew word used here is usually translated to slay, slaughter, murder. It occurs in two clearly Messianic passages: "…they talk to the hurt of him Christ whom thou hast smitten"(<em><a href='B:230 69:26'>Psa 69:26</a></em>); "we esteemed him as He hung on the cross smitten of God"(<em><a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a></em>).</p><p>It was in a sense God who "clave the rock" so that the waters gushed out (<em><a href='B:230 78:15'>Psa 78:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>). "Clave" implies that the rock was literally broken open; and in this we see a dim foreshadowing of the gaping hole in the Lord's side after the spear thrust, as well as a more figurative image of how His life and mind were broken apart in His final sacrifice. Yahweh, presumably represented by an Angel, stood upon or 'above' the rock when Moses, on Yahweh's behalf, struck the rock. Here we see a glimpse into the nature of the Father's relationship with the Son on the cross. He was both with the Son, identified with Him just as the Angel stood on the rock or hovered above it as Moses struck it... and yet He also was the one who clave that rock, which was Christ. As Abraham with Isaac was a symbol of both the Father and also the slayer, so in our far smaller experience, the Father gives us the trials which He stands squarely with us through. And within the wonder of His self-revelation, Yahweh repeatedly reveals Himself as "the rock"- especially in Deuteronomy. And yet that smitten rock "was a symbol of Christ". On the cross, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself". There He was the most intensely manifested in His beloved Son. There God was spat upon, His love rejected. There we see the utter humility and self-abnegation of the Father. And we His children must follow the same path, for the salvation of others.</p><p>The rock "followed better, 'accompanied' them" (1). We must understand this as a metonymy, whereby "the rock" is put for what came out of it, i:e. the fountain of living water. It seems that this stream went with them on their journey. The statement that "they drank" of the rock is in the imperfect tense, denoting continuous action- they&nbsp;<em>kept on</em>&nbsp;drinking of that water, it wasn't a one time event, it continued throughout the wilderness journey. A careful reading of <em><a href='B:20 17:5-6'>Exo 17:5-6</a></em> reveals that at Rephidim, Moses was told to "Go on before the people", to Horeb. There he struck the rock, and yet the people drank the water in Rephidim. The water flowed a long way that day, and there is no reason to think that it didn’t flow with them all the time. The records make it clear enough that the miraculous provision of water was in the same context as God’s constant provision of food and protection to the people (<em><a href='B:50 8:15-16'>Deu 8:15-16</a></em>). The rock gave water throughout the wilderness journey (<em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>). This would surely necessitate that the giving of water at Horeb was not a one-off solution to a crisis. There is a word play in the Hebrew text of <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>: "He led them through the Horebs AV 'desert places'" by making water flow from the rock. The Horeb experience was repeated for 40 years; as if the rock went on being smitten. Somehow the water from that smitten rock went with them, fresh and bubbling as it was the first moment the rock was smitten, right through the wilderness (2). It was living, spring water- not lying around in puddles. The water that came from that one rock tasted as if God had opened up fresh springs and torrents in the desert (<em><a href='B:230 74:15'>Psa 74:15</a></em> NAS). It always tasted as if it was just gushing out of the spring; and this wonder is commented upon by both David and Isaiah (<em><a href='B:230 78:15-16'>Psa 78:15-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:20'>Psa 78:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 105:41'>Psa 105:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 48:21'>Isa 48:21</a></em>). It was as if the rock had just been struck, and the water was flowing out fresh for the first time.</p><p>In this miracle, God clave the rock and there came out rivers (<em><a href='B:420 3:9'>Hab 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:16'>Psa 78:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:20'>Psa 78:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 43:20'>Isa 43:20</a></em>). Each part of Israel's encampment had the water as it were brought to their door. And so it is in our experience of Christ, and the blessing enabled by His sacrifice. The blessings that come to us are deeply personal, and directed to us individually. He died once, long ago, and yet the effect of His sacrifice is ever new. In our experience, it's as if He has died and risen for us every time we obtain forgiveness, or any other grace to help in our times of need. We live in newness of life. The cross is in that sense ongoing; He dies and lives again for every one who comes to Him. And yet at the end of their wilderness journey, Moses reflected that Israel had forgotten the rock that had given them birth. The water had become such a regular feature of their lives that they forgot the rock in Horeb that it flowed from. They forgot that 'Horeb' means 'a desolate place', and yet they had thankfully drunk of the water the first time in Rephidim, 'the place of comfort'.</p><p>We too have done the same, but the length of time we have done so can lead us to forget the smitten rock, back there in the loneliness and desolation of Calvary. Not only did his disciples forsake him and his mother finally go away home, but He even felt that the Father had forsaken Him. As Abraham left alone in the Messianic "horror of great darkness", as Isaac alone with only his Father, leaving the other men behind…so the Lord on the cross was as a single green root grown up out of a parched desert. Let us never forget that 'Horeb'; and let's not let the abundant new life and blessing which there is in Christ become something ordinary. God forbid that we like Corinth, like Israel, should drink of that sparkling water each week in our 'place of comfort' and go forth to do just as we please:&nbsp;</p><p>Notes<br/>(1) Marvin Vincent&nbsp;<em>Vincent's Word Studies</em>&nbsp;comments: "Paul appears to recall a rabbinic tradition that there was a well formed out of the spring in Horeb, which gathered itself up into a rock like a swarm of bees, and followed the people for forty years; sometimes rolling itself, sometimes carried by Miriam, and always addressed by the elders, when they encamped, with the words, “Spring up, O well” (<em><a href='B:40 21:17'>Num 21:17</a></em>)". Whether this is true or not, Paul is alluding to this idea- hence the rather awkward idiom to non-Jewish readers.</p><p>(2) There is repeated emphasis in the records that the water came from the singular rock. However <em><a href='B:230 78:16'>Psa 78:16</a></em> speaks of God cleaving the rocks. I suggest this is an intensive plural- the sense is 'the one great rock'. The next verses (17,20) go on to speak of how the water came from a singular rock.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:5'>1Co 10:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>However with most of them God-&nbsp;</em>The majority of them (Gk:) were strewn down along the way (Gk:). Faced with the apostasy at Corinth, Paul was pointing out that as the majority of Israel failed to make it, so the new Israel should not be over confident that this feature of the type doesn't apply to them too.</p><p><em>Was not well pleased</em>- Repeatedly this phrase is used in the Gospels to describe how God was “well pleased” in Christ (<em><a href='B:470 3:17'>Mat 3:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 12:18'>Mat 12:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 17:5'>Mat 17:5</a></em>). The implication may be that it is through being “in Christ” that God will count us acceptable, rather than by our keeping our nose clean of the more public sins of fornication and idolatry.</p><p><em>For their dead bodies were scattered over the wilderness-&nbsp;</em>The Greek means to lay prostrate- the very language of idol worship. Old Testament passages like Ezekiel 20 are clear that Israel worshipped idols in the wilderness, having smuggled them with them through the Red Sea. And this was their death. Clearly idol worship was an issue at Corinth, with some of them still believing that idols represented pagan gods who had actual existence (<em><a href='B:530 8:7-12'>1Co 8:7-12</a></em>). The same image of the carcasses of Israel laying unburied in the wilderness is found in <em><a href='B:650 3:17'>Heb 3:17</a></em>. <em><a href='B:230 91:5-8'>Psa 91:5-8</a></em> speaks as if the condemned generation were struck down one by one, by day and night, and the faithful Joshua was strengthened not to be fearful as he regularly experienced men falling dead literally at his side (<em><a href='B:230 91:7'>Psa 91:7</a></em>) and saw carcases, sometimes in the thousands, laying in the wilderness. The frightened people simply hurried on, with no time to bury the bodies. The journey must’ve been a fearful and depressing experience, with sudden death a daily reality. They were after all experiencing condemnation; it was a death march. Perhaps the destruction of the rejected will be the same at the last day. And yet that death march of the condemned generation is clearly used as a type of our journey from baptism to the Kingdom. In a sense we are living out our condemnation now, so that we will be ultimately saved (<em><a href='B:530 11:29-31'>1Co 11:29-31</a></em>). It does us no harm to reflect upon the reality of condemnation, so that we may sense more keenly the extent of God’s grace in saving us from wrath through Christ. As soon as we start to think that surely all this can’t mean that the majority of those baptized into Christ may also fail to make it, we must bear in mind the reasoning of Hebrews and Romans which warns us against feeling like that. On the other hand, God’s grace is such that we can have every confidence that very many will reach the Kingdom, as many as the grains of sand on the seashore. But the possibility of failure, the sense of the future we might miss, must be deeply felt by us. We&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>&nbsp;assume that as a community of believers we are any better than natural Israel. Reflecting for a moment on the possibility that the majority of those we know who are baptized will not make it, we are left with sober introspection- “Lord, is it I?”. This thought alone inspires an intensity in seeking to abide in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:6'>1Co 10:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they lusted</em>- Literally, they were 'types of us'. <em><a href='B:530 8:7-12'>1Co 8:7-12</a></em> shows that some in Corinth believed in idols and worshipped them, along with the true God. This was exactly analogous to Israel in the wilderness, and they were to take a warning from this. Hebrews however makes the point that Israel's rejection in the wilderness was solely because they did not have faith. The idol worship mitigated against total faith in the true God- and that was and is the essential problem with idol worship, in whatever form. <em><a href='B:550 5:17'>Gal 5:17</a></em> criticizes some believers for being in a position where the flesh lusted s:w. against the Spirit, and the nail biting conflict was too much for weak willed human nature, which fails to have within it the steel will required to resist the flesh. Paul argues there that the Galatians should give themselves over to the Spirit, so that such conflict is not experienced, knowing it will inevitably end in failure. This is a theme of Corinthians- they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), they did not feed the Spirit (:3) they had been given at baptism (chapter 1). And so they lusted after the flesh, and easily gave in.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:7'>1Co 10:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Neither be you idolaters, as some of them were</em>- Some of them were idolaters as well as Christians (<em><a href='B:530 8:7-12'>1Co 8:7-12</a></em>). Paul accepted that was how it was, and urged those who were stronger not to make these weaker ones stumble. He never advocates solving the issue by casting them out of the church, and his repeated silence about this needs to be carefully weighed by those who believe in excommunicating weak members from the church.</p><p><em>As it is written: The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play-&nbsp;</em>Sitting down to eat and drink is used in 1 Corinthians 10, 11 with reference to the breaking of bread service. Israel ate and drunk and then rose up to commit sexual sin in the name of idol worship and religious devotion to the golden calf. It seems from chapters 6 and 7 that the believers at Corinth were sing church prostitutes- and we can deduce from this allusion to the eating and drinking that this was being done at the memorial meeting. They were practicing the communion service just as the surrounding cults had special meals to worship their idols, at which they slept with prostitutes. The golden calf incident happened whilst Moses was absent, and he returned to them in judgment. Paul's threats to come to Corinth and judge their apostasy may suggest he saw himself as their Moses.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:8'>1Co 10:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed-&nbsp;</em>The fornication in view here isn’t going too far with one’s unmarried partner, but the fornication associated with idol worship; indeed, this is the context of most of the NT warnings against “fornication”, and the implication is that fornication was practiced at the breaking of bread, and taught by “Jezebel”, because that service had been mixed with idol worship. Hence Paul has to make the point that feasting and drunkenness shouldn’t be practiced at the memorial meeting- clearly they had turned it into the kind of feast which accompanied idol worship.</p><p>The reference is apparently to the worship of Baal Peor and sleeping with the Moabite religious prostitutes (although see later on this verse). We note that Israel were led into that sin by their leaders (<em><a href='B:40 25:4'>Num 25:4</a></em>), and perhaps that was the same in the Corinthian church.</p><p><em>And so in one day twenty three thousand died-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em> gives a figure of 24,000. Perhaps the key to understanding the difference is the phrase "in one day". <em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em> says that 24,000 died as a result of a plague sent to punish them- but it is not recorded how quickly they died from the plague. We can assume that a "plague" took some time period to kill them. But <em><a href='B:40 25:4-5'>Num 25:4-5</a></em> records that immediately, that day, the judges of Israel were commanded to kill by the sword those who had committed the fornication, and Phinehas arose in response. Those deaths by the sword were different to those from the plague- perhaps 23,000 died that day from these executions, and then 24,000 died from the plague subsequently. Another option is to note that there were 23,000 Levites (<em><a href='B:40 26:62'>Num 26:62</a></em>). If each Levite killed a man (which <em><a href='B:40 25:5'>Num 25:5</a></em> "Let every one kill his man" might imply, cp. <em><a href='B:20 32:27'>Exo 32:27</a></em>), this would mean 23,000 died in that one day, and if 1,000 died subsequently from the plague, we then have the 24,000 of <em><a href='B:40 25:9'>Num 25:9</a></em>. Or it may be that <em><a href='B:530 10:8'>1Co 10:8</a></em> is actually continuing to refer to the golden calf incident mentioned in :7; for <em><a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a></em> LXX says that 23,000 died at that time. The Masoretic text says 3,000. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that <em><a href='B:20 32:28'>Exo 32:28</a></em> specifically states that this slaughter happened in one day.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:9'>1Co 10:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Neither let us put the Lord to the test, as some of them did and perished by the serpents-&nbsp;</em>The usual assumption is that this refers to Israel's complaining about their "light bread" in <em><a href='B:40 21:5'>Num 21:5</a></em>, as this is the only recorded incident where they were punished by serpents. But their complaint at that point hardly sounds like putting the Lord to the test. The more obvious reference is to the incident at the place subsequently named Massah, 'testing', when they put the Lord to the test by asking "Is the Lord among us or not?" (<em><a href='B:20 17:7'>Exo 17:7</a></em>). The Bible doesn't record that they were then punished by serpents, but this was so in Jewish tradition; and we saw on :4 that Paul is unafraid to allude to such traditions and take lessons from them. Suffering from "fiery serpents" was Israel's common experience in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:50 8:15'>Deu 8:15</a></em>). This incident is more pertinent to the Corinthian situation. For in chapter 1, Paul has assured them that the Lord was indeed amongst them by His Spirit; but they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), they refused to perceive His activity amongst them through the Spirit. The miraculous signs of the Spirit had been worked amongst them (<em><a href='B:540 12:12'>2Co 12:12</a></em>). Christ crucified had been revealed amongst Paul's converts by the ministry of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:5'>Gal 3:5</a></em>). And yet the Corinthians were effectively saying, along with the Galatians: 'Where is the promise of the Spirit amongst us which Paul keeps claiming?'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:20 12:23'>Exo 12:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:12'>Rom 5:12</a></em>.</p><p><em>Neither let us grumble, as some of them did, and were killed by the Destroyer angel-&nbsp;</em><br/>The reference is to the murmuring of Korah's rebellion against Moses (<em><a href='B:40 16:41'>Num 16:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 16:49'>Num 16:49</a></em>). Paul is positioning himself as their Moses; for he spends much of Corinthians answering their various murmurings against him. Likewise the grumbling about the manna (<em><a href='B:20 16:8'>Exo 16:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 16:10'>Exo 16:10</a></em>) was against Moses.</p><p>The number of firstborn males after Israel left Egypt was remarkably small (around 20,000, <em><a href='B:40 3:43'>Num 3:43</a></em>). Women in most primitive societies have an average of 7 births. This would mean that given a total population of around 2,800,000 on leaving Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 12:37'>Exo 12:37</a></em>), there should have been around 400,000 firstborn males. But instead, there is only a fraction of this number. Why? Did Israel eat the Passover?&nbsp; My suggestion- and this is well in the category of things you will never know for sure and can only ponder- is that many Hebrew firstborns died on Passover night. Israel were warned that if they did not properly keep the Passover, “the Destroyer” Angel would kill their firstborn (<em><a href='B:20 12:23'>Exo 12:23</a></em>). “The Destroyer” is mentioned in <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em>: “Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the Destroyer” (<em>olothreutes;&nbsp;</em>this is a proper noun in the Greek). Who was the Destroyer? If Scripture interprets Scripture, it was the ‘Destroyer’ Angel of Passover night. In similar vein <em><a href='B:650 11:28'>Heb 11:28</a></em> speaks of “He (the Angel) that destroyed (Gk:&nbsp;<em>olothreuo</em>) the firstborn”:&nbsp;</p><p>Paul's warning in <em><a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a></em> not to "murmur as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer" (i. e. the destroying Angel) implies that the unworthy among the "Israel of God" will also be destroyed by Angelic means if we make the same mistakes Israel of old made:&nbsp; The same Angel that destroyed the Egyptians would destroy God’s Israel; they would be "condemned with the world" (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>). The fact that the Angels will personally minister the condemnation of the unworthy (<em><a href='B:470 13:49'>Mat 13:49</a></em> "the Angels shall come forth and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire") when in their lives those Angels gave their charges every chance to repent and to grow spiritually, preserving them from physical danger, is surely a heart rending thought; and a motivation to respond acceptably to the trials God brings into our lives through His Angels.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:11'>1Co 10:11</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:550 1:4'>Gal 1:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now these things happened to them as an example-&nbsp;</em>They were 'types of us'. Israel's sin was their fault, and the judgments for it were called forth by their behaviour. And yet as with all sin, God works through it. The whole process of their failures and judgments for that failure was for our sakes. We must sense the real possibility of spiritual failure, of the eternal future we may miss.</p><p>The ecclesia in the wilderness (<em><a href='B:510 7:38'>Act 7:38</a></em>) were tempted to commit the same sins in principle as we are tempted to (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-10'>1Co 10:1-10</a></em>). Twice Paul hammers home the point: "These things were our examples... now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and are written (i:e. the process of inspiration became operative) for our admonition" (v:6,11). Paul seems to read the minds of many Gentile Christians as they quietly reason 'But that was Israel- we Gentiles have been called because we shall do better'; he warns that such an attitude places us in grave spiritual danger: "Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. There has no temptation taken you but such as is common to man" (v:12,13). This could be paraphrased as follows: 'The Jews ("man") had the same human nature as you; if you think that you can stand up to it better than they, then such spiritual arrogance will lead you to fall'. Such reasoning goes against the grain of what we would naturally like to hear, which is that we will certainly reach salvation just as we are, with no conditions, and without having to have any conflict with our sinful nature. Paul therefore concludes by saying that only the spiritually wise will grasp his line of argument here: "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say" (v:14).</p><p>I have noted that "example" is the Gk:&nbsp;<em>tupos</em>, types. The New Testament writers present things like the crossing of the Red Sea and the events in the wilderness as real historical events which were types of the work of Christ (<em><a href='B:530 10:1-4'>1Co 10:1-4</a></em>; Hebrews 3 etc:). But by the second century, there was a shift away from reading these events as types, but rather they were seen as allegories- no longer were the events so importantly&nbsp;<em>real</em>, rather the characters and events were seen as allegorical. It was against this background of ever increasing abstraction that Christians likewise started to move away from the real Christ. Origen in the third century argued strongly that the historical sections of the Bible were to be taken as allegory and not as literally accurate history. He spoke of there being in the Bible "spiritual truth in historical falsehood", and went on to use this as an excuse to explain why the Lord Jesus is presented as human rather than Divine in the Gospels. And so, as so often, an incorrect base attitude to God’s word led to seriously misunderstanding it.</p><p><em>And they were written about for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come-&nbsp;</em>We are to imagine the inspired Moses or whoever writing these things down, with God having us in mind, hoping we would take instruction from them. As these things happened at the beginning of the Jewish age, they had particular relevance to those living at the end of that age. J. Milik argues that Paul’s language here is alluding to Apocryphal Jewish writings, which speak of the “ages” as coming to an end in Satan’s destruction at the last day. Paul’s reasoning is that Christ’s death has brought about the termination of the “ages” as the Jews understood them. Satan and his hordes – in the way the Jews understood them – are right&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;rendered powerless and non-existent. As ever, Paul’s approach seems to be not to baldly state that a personal Satan doesn’t exist, but rather to show that even if he once did, he is now powerless and dead. The way the Lord Jesus dealt with the demons issue is identical. Once we understand this background, we see Paul’s writings are packed with allusions to the Jewish ideas about the “ages” ending in the Messianic Kingdom and the destruction of Satan. Paul was correcting their interpretations – by saying that the “ages” had ended in Christ’s death, and the things the Jewish writings claimed for the future Messianic Kingdom were in fact already possible for those in Christ. Thus when 1 Enoch <em><a href='B:530 5:7-8'>1Co 5:7-8</a></em> speaks of ‘freedom from sin’ coming then, Paul applies that phrase to the experience of the Christian believer&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:520 6:18-22'>Rom 6:18-22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 8:2'>Rom 8:2</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:12'>1Co 10:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore let him that thinks he stands be careful lest he fall-&nbsp;</em>I have noted on the previous verses that Paul is at pains to point out that we are not to think that the record of Israel's failure is merely dry history:&nbsp; There is a very real possibility that the Christian community could be no better than Israel after the flesh; and only a minority of those who pass through the baptismal water will therefore be saved. Which should make us look closely at ourselves. Paul's only other usage of the standing / falling image is in <em><a href='B:520 14:4'>Rom 14:4</a></em>: "To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he shall be made to stand up. For the Lord has power to make him stand". Thinking we stand therefore refers to an assumption that we shall in our own strength stand acceptable before the judgment seat. We shall only be made to stand by the Lord's grace; for in the same passage Paul writes of how every knee shall bow.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em><em>&nbsp;No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man-&nbsp;</em>Paul so often sees to the reasoning we indulge deep within our hearts in the times of testing. 'This is unique, without precedent, so I am justified in responding in a sinful way; my unique temptation, which nobody else can understand, justifies my unusual, outside the book response'. But that is not the case. Every temptation has been shared by others, not least&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>Man, the Lord Jesus. "Overtaken" recalls a similar word used in <em><a href='B:550 6:1'>Gal 6:1</a></em> about being overtaken in sin; so perhaps Paul is asking them to reconsider their previous falls into temptation and sin, and reflect that actually those situations were not without precedent; they were no more and no less than human, and therefore those tests were actually common to all men, and others had successfully resisted.</p><p><em>God is faithful, and He will not let you be tempted beyond your ability-&nbsp;</em>What a comfort to know that God is aware of our spiritual limitations and point beyond which we would sin. I suppose that is why so few of us have been tortured for our faith. He allows us to be tested actually beyond that point- but provides a way of escape. In considering others, we need to be aware that what may be a bearable temptation for one is not so for another believer. Sensitivity is required rather than legalistic rules, especially about forbidding any remarriage after divorce to all and every believer.</p><p><em>But with the temptation He will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it-&nbsp;</em>Truly "the sceptre of wickedness won’t remain over the allotment of the righteous; so that the righteous won’t put forth their hands to do evil" (<em><a href='B:230 125:3'>Psa 125:3</a></em>):Abraham's willingness to offer Isaac leaves us all shaking our heads and feeling that we simply wouldn't have risen up to that level of sacrifice. For not only was Isaac the son Abraham had so longed for, but he was the longed for fulfilment of the promises which had been the very core of Abraham's life. Yet <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em> appears to allude to God’s provision of another sacrifice and thereby a way out of Abraham's temptation / testing- and this passage implies that each one of us are in Abraham's shoes: "God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted / tested (=<em><a href='B:10 22:1'>Gen 22:1</a></em>) beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also&nbsp;<em>provide</em>&nbsp;the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it". No longer can Abraham be seen as a Sunday School figure of faith to be merely admired. For we are in his shoes, and the same God will likewise work with us in&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;weaknesses, both testing and providing the ways of escape.</p><p>We tend to think that our temptations / tests are so unique that they are somehow unusual, when in fact all that we experience has been and is in essence experienced by other men. It is in fellowship with others, in real connection with them over coffee, as it were, that we come to realize that we are not alone. 2 Corinthians 1 reasons that whatever we experience is so that we can strengthen others who are going through the same; but that only becomes real and functional if we have meaningful contact with others and share with them. Each test has&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;(Gk:) specific way of escape. Whether or not we take it or perceive it, God has designed so much potentially in the daily lives of each of us. We need to ask what the intended way of escape is in each case. But the “escape” doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the temptation, it means rather a way to bear or endure it.</p><p>Cain, in typifying all the rejected, felt that his condemnation was something greater than he could bear (<em><a href='B:10 4:13'>Gen 4:13</a></em>). This is alluded to in a telling way in <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>: for the righteous, they will never be tested more than they can bear, but a way of escape will always be made possible. But for the rejected, there will be no escape. It will be something too great to bear, and somehow they have to go on existing in that state. Thus the rejected will seek death and not find it (<em><a href='B:730 9:6'>Rev 9:6</a></em>), after the pattern of Judas bungling his own suicide after realizing his condemnation thus his bowels gushed, although he was attempting to hang himself; they will also seek the Lord, all too late, and not find Him either (<em><a href='B:240 1:28'>Pro 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 7:34'>Joh 7:34</a></em>). Israel will seek their lovers / idols and not find them (<em><a href='B:350 2:7'>Hos 2:7</a></em>), and then seek the Lord and not find Him either (<em><a href='B:350 5:6'>Hos 5:6</a></em>). They will seek death and not find it (<em><a href='B:730 9:6'>Rev 9:6</a></em>), seek to their idols, see to the true God- and find none of them. They will exist in unbearable limbo. They will wander seeking the word of the Lord, but not find it (<em><a href='B:370 8:12'>Amo 8:12</a></em>). Tragically, it was so freely available in their lifetimes (cp. the foolish virgins seeking oil, banging on the door trying to hear their Lord's words and speak with Him).</p><p>Put together two Bible passages: Cain felt that his condemnation was greater&nbsp;<em>than he could bear</em>, and so God put a mark upon him so he wouldn’t be slain (<em><a href='B:10 4:13'>Gen 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 4:15'>Gen 4:15</a></em>). Now <em><a href='B:530 10:13'>1Co 10:13</a></em>: God will not allow us to be tested&nbsp;<em>more than we can bear</em>, but will make a way of escape so we can bear it. I take this as meaning that if God is even sensitive to the feelings of a condemned man like Cain, rather like putting an animal to sleep in a humane way... then we who are saved in Christ can take comfort that even in this life, we will not be asked to bear the unbearable, and yet we have the prospect of eternity in front of us when this life is through. And in a very quiet, sober way, we have to respond with gratitude: ‘Wow’.</p><p>The idea of a way of escape being provided along with the temptation throws fresh light on <em><a href='B:650 11:35'>Heb 11:35</a></em>. Some refuse the legitimate deliverances provided from temptation- and rightly shall receive a "better resurrection".</p><p>Yet a way of escape is not always provided from physical trials- especially in the case of those who were soon to be the Christian martyrs amongst Paul's readership. But when faced with situations which make us feel that we will be spiritually swamped by the power of our innate evil tendencies, then we can take courage that although the physical conditions causing the trial may not be taken away, there will certainly be an opportunity made for us to resist the spiritual temptation. Notice how a way of&nbsp;<em>escape</em>&nbsp;is provided- implying that initially the temptation is truly too heavy for us, and an escape is therefore made for us by God so that He is not in the position of forcing us to sin. Surely all readers of these words know this feeling only too well- sensing that we are in a position where our evil desires are growing stronger and stronger, not wanting to sin, but feeling that humanly, given a few more moments, and it will be inevitable. It is in these moments that we have to desperately cling to this promise- that God&nbsp;<em>will</em>&nbsp;make a way of escape, that he will keep us from falling (<em><a href='B:720 1:24'>Jud 1:24</a></em>) by His power of righteousness. Hence verse 14 continues "<em>wherefore</em>... flee from idolatry"- i:e. from the spiritual temptations.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:14'>1Co 10:14</a></em> - see on :13.</p><p><em>Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry-&nbsp;</em>Some were guilty of idolatry in the Corinthian church, actually believing that the idols represented real gods who actually existed (<em><a href='B:530 8:7-12'>1Co 8:7-12</a></em>). Paul calls for sensitivity to these weak ones, but urges they all flee from idolatry. The allusion is to Joseph fleeing from temptation with Potiphar's wife. Distancing ourselves from temptation is an important part of spiritual life in practice.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:15'>1Co 10:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I speak as to wise people. Think upon what I say-&nbsp;</em>The Corinthians were not wise; there was not apparently a wise man amongst them (<em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>). They had been given the Spirit gift of wisdom, according to chapter 1; but they were not wise because they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). But Paul relates to the converts as if they were going to be saved, as if they were in fact spiritual. Seeing we cannot condemn our brethren, we are left with no option but to relate likewise to those whose weakness and immaturities are so evident to us:Paul never advocates disfellowshipping these individuals. Paul’s patience with the Corinthians is amazing. He clearly had no fear of guilt by association with them, and addresses them repeatedly as if they are by status “in Christ”- he spoke to them&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they were “wise men” (:15).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?-&nbsp;</em>Paul is going to build up to the argument that partaking in Christ is exclusive of any relationship with other gods, idols, religions etc. Bearing in mind the Judaist influences in Corinth, Paul uses the Passover terminology for the cup of wine which represents the Lord's blood: "The cup of blessing". The Passover was a prototype of the breaking of bread meeting. The cup is a symbol of God’s blessing / forgiveness of us; and we bless it. There is thus a mutuality between us and the Lord as we bless that cup, and are reminded again of the blessing mediated to us through His death blood. "The cup of the blessing" (Gk:) may suggest that a blessing was pronounced over the cup by each believer as they took the cup- for "we bless" it. The reference to "a communion" could suggest that the breaking of bread is but one way of fellowshipping with His body and blood. Baptism, fellowship with the church which is His body, living aware of our connection with His blood- these are all other ways.</p><p>Paul expected other believers to share his familiarity with the words of Christ. An example is <em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 26:26'>Mat 26:26</a></em>; hence Paul reasons: "The cup of blessing…&nbsp;<em>is it not</em>&nbsp;the communion of the blood of Christ?" - i:e. 'Isn't it? I mean, this is familiar to us from the Gospels, isn't it'. It seems likely that the Gospels were memorized by the early converts.</p><p>Paul speaks of "the cup of blessing which we bless" (<em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>), probably using "blessing" in its Biblical sense of 'forgiveness' (e.g. <em><a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a></em>). Whilst there is, therefore, an awareness of our own sins and salvation from them at the memorial meeting, there is not any specific mediation of forgiveness to us through the bread and wine. In prospect, we were saved at baptism, through our Lord's work on the cross. In prospect, all our sins were forgiven then. We must be careful to avoid the Catholic notion that the bread and wine do themselves possess some power of atonement. They are the appointed aids to help us&nbsp;<em>remember</em>&nbsp;what has already been achieved. And this is why the early brethren could break bread with joy- not as part of a guilt trip prompted by the worrying remembrance of the standard set for us in Jesus (<em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>).</p><p>The declaration that we are in the one body is shown in terms of breaking bread together. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (the sign of sharing in) the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (<em><a href='B:530 10:16-18'>1Co 10:16-18</a></em>). All who share in the saving work of the Lord Jesus by true baptism into Him ought to break bread together.</p><p>Paul sees the bread and wine as gifts from God to us. It’s all about receiving the cup of the Lord, the cup which comes from Him. We should take it with both hands. It seems so inappropriate, given this emphasis, if our focus is rather on worrying about forbidding others in His body from reaching their hands out to partake that same cup and bread. Way back in <em><a href='B:10 14:18'>Gen 14:18</a></em>, the gift of bread and wine which foreshadowed our present memorial meetings was a sign of God blessing us. Hence it was “the cup of blessing”, which Paul says we also bless. There is a mutuality about it- we bless God, He blesses us. No part of this wonderful and comforting arrangement depends upon us not passing that cup to our brethren.</p><p><em>The&nbsp;</em>communion,&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>fellowship, was brought about by the Saviour’s body and blood (<em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>). Indeed, “<em>the&nbsp;</em>fellowship” is a common NT phrase (e.g. <em><a href='B:540 13:14'>2Co 13:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:3'>Eph 4:3</a></em>). Because this has been created in prospect, from God’s perspective we are all united in&nbsp;<em>the&nbsp;</em>fellowship, therefore we should seek to be of one mind (<em><a href='B:570 2:1-2'>Phi 2:1-2</a></em>). It broke down, at least potentially, the walls which there naturally are between men, even the most opposed, i:e. Jew and Gentile (<em><a href='B:560 2:14'>Eph 2:14</a></em>). The laying down of the Shepherd's life was so that the flock might be one, in one fold (<em><a href='B:500 10:15-16'>Joh 10:15-16</a></em>). The offering of the blood of Christ was&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;He might "make in himself... one new man" (<em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em>). Thus the theme of unity dominated the Lord's mind as He prepared for His death (John 17).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:17'>1Co 10:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em>; &nbsp; <em><a href='B:530 12:15'>1Co 12:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>Seeing that we, who are many, are one loaf, one body; for we are all partaking of the one loaf-&nbsp;</em>Just as Israel partook of "the same" food and water, "which is Christ", so the many within the body of Christ partake of Him. This verse is not saying that participation in the breaking of bread service somehow magically makes us 'one' and therefore it should only be done with those with whom we are in theological agreement. The unity in view here is between the believers and the Lord Jesus. We the many are one with Him, with His body. We are partakers in or of Christ (<em><a href='B:650 3:14'>Heb 3:14</a></em>). Paul has argued in 1 Corinthians 6 that because believers are one with the body of Christ, they should not be one with religious prostitutes, even Christian ones. And here he will go on to reason that we cannot be one with the Lord Jesus and also with the gods represented by the idols. If we are partakers in Christ, the one loaf, then we cannot partake with idols (:21). <em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em> uses the same word to explain that the Lord Jesus partook in our human nature; and in response, we partake in Him by acts of identity such as baptism and the breaking of bread, and in a life lived in Him. Here we see the practical power of understanding the representative nature of His sacrifice and His genuine human nature; it is an invitation to both ritual and psychological identity with Him.</p><p>The bread represents the body of Christ; at the communion service we express our unity with all who are in Christ as well as with Him. To refuse to break bread with those who are in Christ is therefore to effectively count ourselves out of His body. This doctrine of the one body is as fundamental as there being one God, one baptism and one hope (<em><a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a></em>). But Paul’s argument here is that we cannot therefore bind ourselves in communion with idols if we are truly in the body of Christ. The boundaries he draws are between the believer and the world, not between believer and believer. As the whole community of Israel were treated as one body of believers, even though there was unbelief, doctrinal and moral error amongst them, so is the body of Christ (:18). One implication of this doctrine of the one body is that we cannot be part of any other body. And this was exactly relevant to the Corinthians, who were turning the breaking of bread service into part of an idol service; see on :21. If we are truly “in Christ”, our whole world will revolve around that; to be involved in any other system of thinking or worship is to provoke Him to jealousy.</p><p>To refuse to fellowship a brother is to effectively say that he is not within the Lord's body; for when we break bread, we show that we are one bread and one body (<em><a href='B:530 10:16-17'>1Co 10:16-17</a></em>). It is simply not true that refusal to break bread with another is not passing judgment upon them; it most clearly is. And as we condemn, so we will be (<em><a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a></em>). The purpose of the cross was to gather together in one all God’s children (<em><a href='B:500 11:52'>Joh 11:52</a></em>), that the love of the Father and Son might be realized between us (<em><a href='B:500 17:26'>Joh 17:26</a></em>). If we support division, we are denying the essential aim of the Lord's sacrifice.</p><p>Surrounding Roman culture forbad women to drink wine with men, and only permitted them to do so in special cases if they drank different wine from a different cup. But Paul in conscious reference to this emphasizes the one cup shared by all believers, male and female, in memory of the unity and tearing down of barriers between people achieved by the Lord’s death.</p><p>The bread represents the body of Christ; but it is hammered home time and again in the New Testament that the&nbsp;<em>believers</em>&nbsp;are the body of Christ. By partaking of Christ's body, we are sharing with each other. Paul drives home this point with an Old Testament allusion: "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (<em><a href='B:530 10:18'>1Co 10:18</a></em>). We are the living sacrifices, offered on the Christ altar (<em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). By being placed upon the altar, the sacrifice was counted as the altar. As Christ hung on the cross, all believers were counted as being in Him; Christ and the believers were, in this sense, indivisible on the cross. And they still are- hence the figure of us being the very&nbsp;<em>body</em>, the very&nbsp;<em>being</em>, of Christ. To personally share in fellowship with Him therefore&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;involve intense fellowship with other members of Christ's body. We must 'discern' the Lord's body (<em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em>), and also&nbsp; judge (same word as 'discern') ourselves" at the memorial meeting (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). We discern the Lord's body, and thereby discern ourselves too- because we are part of His body. This further shows that our self-examination at the breaking of bread is both of Christ and also of ourselves (both individually&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;collectively, as the body of Christ?).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:18'>1Co 10:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Behold Israel after the flesh. Are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?-&nbsp;</em>"Participants" is the same word for "communion" in :16. Eating the sacrifice meant fellowshipping, having a common union, with the altar it was placed upon, and the god or religious entity the altar stood for. We recall that in chapter 8, Paul seems to say that a believer could eat food sacrificed to idols if he or she didn’t believe there was a real god behind that idol; but to do so was wrong because it would encourage those Christians who still believed in the gods to do the same and in their case, actively participate in idol worship. The argument here seems to be that any eating idol food within the temple context meant that you were declaring common union with the idol. But Paul's argument in <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em> was that a believer could eat food in the idol's temple but should not do so, lest it lead weaker believers into sin. He could have stated this higher and more obvious principle- that such action was effectively declaring common union with the idol. But instead he argues that an even higher principle is not to lead our brethren into sin. This too should be our primary concern- not, in the first place, whether this is right or wrong- but rather, what effect will this have on others? That is not to say that the right / wrong issue is irrelevant- as Paul makes clear here in chapter 10.</p><p>"Those who eat the sacrifices" within the Israelite system were the priests. They were allowed to take their daily food from the sacrifices offered to Yahweh. But Paul has earlier used this very argument in <em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em> to prove that he would have been justified in taking material support from the Corinthians- because he was likewise involved in ministry work. He chose not to make use of that concession. But here he rather cleverly alludes to the same reality and says that in fact, all the Corinthians were like the priests, eating of the sacrifice, that of the Lord Jesus. This is one of many examples where the NT teaches that we are all priests, the entire brotherhood of believers is "a royal priesthood", every one of us as dedicated to the Lord's service as the Levites were.</p><p>The only exclusivity of the Lord's table was that it was not to be turned into a place for worshipping pagan idols. Paul saw the sacrifices of Israel as having some relevance to the Christian communion meal. He comments: "Are those who eat the victims not in communion with the altar?" (<em><a href='B:530 10:18'>1Co 10:18</a></em>); and the altar is clearly the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). Eating of the communion meal was and is, therefore, fundamentally a statement of our fellowship with the altar, the Lord Jesus, rather than with others who are eating of Him. The bread and wine which we consume thus become antitypical of the Old Testament sacrifices; and they were repeatedly described as "Yahweh's food", laid upon the altar as "the table of Yahweh" (<em><a href='B:30 21:6'>Lev 21:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 21:8'>Lev 21:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:25'>Lev 22:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 28:2'>Num 28:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:7'>Eze 44:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>). And it has been commented: "Current translations are inaccurate;&nbsp;<em>lehem panim</em>&nbsp;is the 'personal bread' of Yahweh, just as&nbsp;<em>sulhan panim</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:40 4:7'>Num 4:7</a></em>) is the 'personal table' of Yahweh". This deeply personal relationship between Yahweh and the offerer is continued in the breaking of bread; and again, the focus is upon the worshipper's relationship with Yahweh rather than a warning against fellowshipping the errors of fellow worshippers through this action. What&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;criticized in later Israel is the tendency to worship Yahweh through these offerings at the same time as offering sacrifice to other gods. <em><a href='B:290 66:3'>Isa 66:3</a></em> speaks of this dualism in worship:</p><table><tr><td></p><p>What was offered to Yahweh</td><td>What was offered to other gods simultaneously</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"An ox is sacrificed,</td><td>a man is killed;</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>a lamb is slain,</td><td>a dog is struck down;</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>an offering is brought,</td><td>swine-flesh is savoured;</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>incense memorial is made,</td><td>idols are kissed"</td><td></td></tr></table><p>And the new Israel made just this same blasphemy in the way some in the Corinth ecclesia ate of the Lord's table and also at the table of idols "demons". Paul wasn't slow to bring out the similarities when he wrote to the Corinthians. It is this kind of dualism which is so wrong; to be both Christian and non-Christian at the same time, to mix the two. But differences of interpretation between equally dedicated worshippers of Yahweh, or believers in Christ, were never made the basis of condemnation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:19'>1Co 10:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What say I then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?-</em>&nbsp;In <em><a href='B:530 8:4'>1Co 8:4</a></em> Paul has clarified that "an idol is nothing". In chapter 8, he accepts that some of the Corinthian believers entered idol temples and ate their sacrifices without believing in the existence of the idols (<em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>). This was not a case of eating meat sold in the market which had been offered to idols. Paul in chapter 8 accepts the situation but urges against it for the sake of not causing the weaker brethren to stumble. But now he seems to be saying that by forbidding eating in the idol temple, he is not presuming the real existence of the gods thought to be behind the idols. But all the same, despite that, he feels that to eat their food in the temples is to proclaim common union with the idols, and this is not possible if we also declare that common&nbsp; union with the Lord Jesus and eat as it were His food at the communion meal with Him. Note again that the even greater reason not to eat idol food in the idol's temple was in order not to cause weak Christians to stumble. This is paramount, and must forge our positions and behaviour on absolutely everything.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:20'>1Co 10:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I would not have you sharing communion with demons-&nbsp;</em>Demons refer to idols (<em><a href='B:50 32:17'>Deu 32:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 65:11'>Isa 65:11</a></em> LXX calls Gad, the god of fortune, “the demon”)<em>:&nbsp;</em>Paul now makes the act of eating idol sacrifices tantamount to having common union with the demons,&nbsp; the gods thought to be behind the idols and represented visually by them. In <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em> Paul didn’t make that direct attack when mentioning Corinthian Christians eating idol food in idol temples, whilst not believing in the demons. There, he argued this was wrong because it made other believers stumble. He could have attacked their behaviour with a direct broadside- but he didn’t. This more subtle approach is often required in dealing with the error and immorality of others. Direct broadsides may feel good for&nbsp;<em>us</em>- but we must think of what&nbsp;<em>others</em>&nbsp;need and the way to achieve that, rather than salving our own consciences about wanting to speak out against wrong behaviour.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>.</p><p><em>You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons-&nbsp;</em>Paul is stating baldly that it is one or the other. If they ate idol food on the idol altar or table, then they were not really partaking of the Lord's table, in spiritual reality. Perhaps it is to this fact that he alludes when he states that "When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat" (<em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>). Their external celebration of the Lord's supper was not that at all, because they also partook of the table and cup of the gods.</p><p>Paul speaks of us each one partaking of “the table of the Lord” (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>), a phrase used in the LXX for the altar (<em><a href='B:330 44:16'>Eze 44:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:12'>Mal 1:12</a></em>)- the sacrifices whereof only the priests could eat. This would have been radical thinking to a community used to priests and men delegated to take charge of others’ religious affairs. Hebrew <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em> gets at this idea when we read that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>are to exhort one another not to turn away, situated as we are on the brink of the promised land, just as Moses exhorted Israel. As mentioned earlier, the Corinthians had turned the breaking of bread meeting into a religious gathering similar in style and format to the religious feasts of the surrounding cults. Vine comments that “The Greeks and Romans placed images of the gods reclining on couches, with tables and food beside them, as if really partakers of the things offered in sacrifice. In <em><a href='B:460 1:7'>Mal 1:7</a></em>, the altar of burnt-offering is called “the table of the Lord”. The "altar" of :18 is the Lord's table. The idol altars were likewise their table.</p><p>The "table of the Lord" was Old Testament language for the altar (<em><a href='B:330 41:22'>Eze 41:22</a></em>). By eating from it we are partaking of the altar, the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:18'>1Co 10:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 13:10'>Heb 13:10</a></em>). If we don't partake of it, we declare ourselves to have no part in Him. Yet the very fact we partake of it, is a statement that we have pledged ourselves to separation from this present world; for it is not possible to eat at the Lord's table, and also that of this world (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>). The Passover, as the prototype breaking of bread, featured bitter herbs to remind Israel of their bitter experience in Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 1:14'>Exo 1:14</a></em>). The breaking of bread should likewise focus our attention on the fact that return to the world is a return to bondage and bitterness, not freedom.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:22'>1Co 10:22</a></em><em> Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?</em>-&nbsp;The Corinthians were told that they would “provoke the Lord to jealousy" by breaking bread with the Lord Jesus and yet also with idols. This is surely an allusion to the “trial of jealousy" (<em><a href='B:40 5:24'>Num 5:24</a></em>). A curse was recited and then the believer drunk a cup; if they were unfaithful, they drunk to their condemnation. Paul’s allusion suggests that each time we break bread and drink the cup, we as the bride of Christ are going through the trial of jealousy. Brutal honesty and self-examination, and not merely of our lives over the last few days, is therefore crucial before drinking the cup. It wasn't possible to eat the Lord's food and that of idols. This was actually counted as total idol worship in God’s eyes; thus the prophets likewise consistently taught the need for wholehearted devotion to Yahweh, and nothing else. In essence, we have the same temptation; to serve God and mammon, to have a little of both, to be passive Christians; to flunk the challenge of the logic of devotion. As the reality of Christ's crucifixion made Joseph and Nicodemus 'come out' in open, 100% commitment, come on them what may, so serious contemplation of the Saviour's devotion ought to have a like effect on us. It has been well observed: “that air of finality with which Jesus always spoke meant that everything he said and did constituted a challenge to men to reach a decisive conclusion”.</p><p><em>Are we stronger than he?</em>-&nbsp;Chapter 1 of this letter opened by speaking about the weak and the strong, arguing that God’s weakness is stronger than man's strength. What seems humanly smart and clever is actually a vain bid to be stronger than God. To consider that we can have a little of both, to serve two masters, is serious indeed:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful, but not all things edify-&nbsp;</em>I have repeatedly pointed out that Paul's condemnation of any eating of idol food in an idol temple is in apparent contrast to the way that in <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em> he appears to accept that some did this whilst genuinely not believing in the idols. Paul there urged them not do so because it could lead others into sin. But here in chapter 10 he argues that by eating that idol food, one is declaring common union with them, and therefore any claim to also communion with the Lord Jesus is voided. Because He is rightfully jealous and demands out total devotion. And yet here again in <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em> he nuances the argument by saying that all things are lawful- yes, they could eat in the idol's temple- but the essential problem with this was that it would not build others up ("edify") and was therefore "not expedient". It was therefore prohibited because of the colossal importance of the principle of edifying others and never making them stumble. The idea of 'expediency' is used by Paul with the idea of what is profitable for others; he will soon use the same word in :33 about his concern for their "profit". His concern was ever what was expedient or profitable for them (<em><a href='B:540 8:10'>2Co 8:10</a></em>).</p><p>"Edify" is literally 'to build up'. This is a major concern with Paul, and it is a common NT theme. The parable of the wise man building&nbsp;<em>his&nbsp;</em>house upon the rock of Christ and His word may, at first blush, appear to mean that we build our personal faith on Him (<em><a href='B:470 7:24'>Mat 7:24</a></em>). But the Greek word for 'build', which in 1 Corinthians 10 is translated "edify", is usually used about building up others, and is never used about building up ourselves (<em><a href='B:520 14:19'>Rom 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:17'>1Co 14:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:19'>2Co 12:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:29'>Eph 4:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:11'>1Th 5:11</a></em>). And it is God and His Son who builds up the church (<em><a href='B:470 16:18'>Mat 16:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:9'>1Co 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:5'>1Pe 2:5</a></em>). He works through the efforts of the body of Christ to build itself up (<em><a href='B:560 4:16'>Eph 4:16</a></em>); He operates through our building efforts, and the building up of others is done through the gift of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:560 4:12'>Eph 4:12</a></em>)- which the Corinthians refused to use seeing they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). Indeed in <em><a href='B:530 14:3-4'>1Co 14:3-4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:12'>1Co 14:12</a></em> Paul will criticize the Corinthians individually for building themselves up but not thinking about building up others. Edifying or building up others is therefore a strong theme; so major that it dominates Paul's thinking about all the various questions he has to answer throughout the Corinthian correspondence. And it likewise should be our guiding principle. An addiction to having theoretical, propositional truth can lead us to ignore this; we may be right and others wrong, but the question is how can we build them up. And such building up of others is in fact building our own spiritual house. This again has been Paul's theme; that he wants the Corinthians in the Kingdom because they are part and parcel of his own eternal destiny.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:24'>1Co 10:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let no one seek his own, but his neighbour's good-&nbsp;</em>In the context of what Paul has been saying (see notes above), the way to salvation involves far more than focusing upon our personal salvation. We get there, as the Lord did, through our focus upon saving others. What this means in practice is that we should be concerned,&nbsp;<em>truly</em>&nbsp;concerned, for the spiritual growth of our brethren. This isn't equivalent to a spirit of nosy observation of others' weaknesses:In spiritual terms, we are to love our neighbour as ourselves. Such a spirit is rare indeed ("all seek their own...", <em><a href='B:570 2:21'>Phi 2:21</a></em>); and in <em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em> Paul will say that not seeking our own (but by implication, that of others) is the essence of love. seeking first the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:470 6:33'>Mat 6:33</a></em>) therefore involves seeking it for others as well as ourselves. A few verses later in <em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>, Paul clarifies that this is indeed his sense- he seeks not his own profit, but rather the salvation of others. Truly he could later write to the Corinthians: "I seek not yours (i:e. your money), but you (i:e. your salvation)" (<em><a href='B:540 12:14'>2Co 12:14</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:25'>1Co 10:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience-&nbsp;</em>The left over meat from the idol sacrifices was sold in the meat market. Despite their deep immaturity, it would seem some in this very immature church had been caught up in the Jewish obsessions regarding whether the meat they were buying had been offered to idols. It has been commented that such meat was the cheapest meat, and the fact this issue is raised reflects the poverty of some in the church. Some of those very poor members were also those who had been taken in by the Judaist arguments. We have a window here onto the moral confusion there was at Corinth- some using church prostitutes, others not believing the Lord had risen from the dead; and others and perhaps the categories overlapped in some cases with an over finely tuned conscience regarding the previous history of the meat they ate. As noted elsewhere, such legalistic&nbsp; attempts at hyper obedience to irrelevant principles can be used to justify the conscience in performing serious acts of immorality in other areas.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:26'>1Co 10:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the earth is the Lord's and the fullness of it-&nbsp;</em>Everything is God’s. There is only one God, and so the fact the meat had been previously offered to an idol did not mean that it belonged to an idol, and that eating such meat with that history implied fellowshipping the idol. It was eating the meat in the idol's temple as a conscious act of fellowship with the idol which was wrong- hence the Lord Jesus Himself condemns eating meat offered to idols in his letters to the churches in <em><a href='B:730 2:14-15'>Rev 2:14-15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:20-25'>Rev 2:20-25</a></em>. Note that in each of those cases, He links such eating with sexual immorality. Eating with the idol and then sleeping with the cult prostitutes was pure paganism, and typical of Corinthian religiosity. And it had entered the church at Corinth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:27'>1Co 10:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If one of them that do not believe invites you to a feast and you are inclined to go-&nbsp;</em>"To a feast" is an insertion; the invitation could likely have been to a meal at home.</p><p><em>Whatever is set before you eat-&nbsp;</em>This echoes the Lord’s words: “Eat whatever is set before you” (<em><a href='B:490 10:8'>Luk 10:8</a></em> RSV). It could be that there is no semantic connection between the two passages; so perhaps this is purely an unconscious allusion to the Lord whose words were ever in Paul’s mind. Or it could be that Paul saw accepting an invitation by an unbeliever as an opportunity to preach, to do missionary work just as valuable as that done by the apostles who were sent forth to preach. In this case, Paul's point was: 'You're all preachers, just like those seventy specially commissioned preachers, and in your everyday contact with the world, you too have a special commission to preach as they did'.</p><p><em>Asking no question for conscience sake</em>- See on :25.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 10:25-27'>1Co 10:25-27</a></em> and Romans 14 give the impression that Paul either ignored or severely modified the prohibitions agreed upon in Acts 15, especially in relation to eating food offered to idols and blood (unless the Acts 15 decrees were only relevant to "Antioch, Syria and Cilicia"). Perhaps with later reflection he realized he had compromised too far; or, more likely, he re-interpreted the decrees and sought to keep the spirit of them, which was that there should be unity between Jewish and Gentile believers:&nbsp;We too may make an agreement and then realize we were mistaken, and it is humility rather than fickleness which should motivate us to act otherwise. Too many are trapped by pride in previously agreed to positions which they later realize were unwise or not Biblical.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:28'>1Co 10:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if anyone says to you: This has been offered in sacrifice to idols Do not eat it for the sake of he that tells you, and for conscience sake-&nbsp;</em>Paul has just explained that the history of the meat is irrelevant. But if someone else at the meal table feels differently, then do not insist on eating and having your conscience. The person who makes the objection is presumably a weaker fellow believer (see on :25). Although as noted on :32, it could also refer to an unbelieving Jew or Gentile whose potential path to the Kingdom would be blocked by a believer insisting that he is doing nothing wrong.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:29'>1Co 10:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Conscience, I say, not your own, but the other's. One may ask: Why is my liberty judged by another’s conscience?-&nbsp;</em>"But it's OK in&nbsp;<em>my</em>&nbsp;conscience" is not therefore an appropriate argument for someone committed to building up their weaker brother. The freedom or liberty in view is that provided by the Spirit- "for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (<em><a href='B:540 3:17'>2Co 3:17</a></em>). The Corinthians lacked the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), hence they laboured under the bondage of legalism and guilt by association, worrying the prehistory of the meat they ate might make them unclean. It was the Judaists who specifically tried to take believers away from the liberty they had in Christ (<em><a href='B:550 2:4'>Gal 2:4</a></em>). <em><a href='B:550 5:13'>Gal 5:13</a></em> contrasts our liberty with the need to "by love serve one another". And so Paul now goes on to argue that our freedom is overridden by the need to not make our weak, unspiritual brother to stumble.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:30'>1Co 10:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If I eat my food with thankfulness, why is evil spoken of me, for that for which I give thanks?-&nbsp;</em>This is not Paul stating his personal view or complaint, but a continuation of his answer to the objections he could guess would be raised against his teaching about respecting another's conscience more than our own in these matters. He imagined that it could be objected that if thanks were given to the one true God for the food (reflecting the practice of blessing food before eating it), then there ought to be no objection to eating any meat. That argument was true. But the utterly paramount issue is not to make our brother stumble.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:31'>1Co 10:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The principle is that whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do or do not- do all to the glory of God-&nbsp;</em>The glory of God is parallel with not making another to stumble from the path to the Kingdom of God (:32). For Paul, "the glory of God" was to be ultimately achieved in human salvation; he so often uses the term "glory" with reference to our final salvation at the last day. It can be that legalistic obedience and insistence upon our rightness of interpretation is not for God’s glory, but our own. This is the tendency of legalistic Christianity and those who insist that finding Biblical truth about a matter is paramount&nbsp;<em>per se</em>. Greater than anything in these matters is love, the love that seeks not to cause a weaker person to stumble.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:32'>1Co 10:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Gentiles, or to the church of God-&nbsp;</em>see on :31. Making another stumble is not doing all to the glory of God, and as explained in these notes, is the paramount, deciding principle that must forge all our approaches. But even further, we can make unbelievers stumble; that is the context of :27 speaking of behaviour before an unbeliever. Perhaps the objector of :28 is also to be read as an unbelieving Jew or Gentile. We must consider the same principle of making another stumble- even with reference to the world. Unbelievers have the potential to come to faith and salvation in Christ, but we can place a barrier in that path by insisting on our own rightness. That is indeed true to observation; it is perceived hypocrisy which turns so many away from the Christ of the Christians.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 4:16'>1Co 4:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>Even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but that of the many, that they may be saved-&nbsp;</em>The "profit" of another was their salvation; and therefore we have to consider all our actions and positions from the viewpoint of what would be best for their salvation. Several times Paul explains his positions as being because it was "expedient" or "profitable" s:w. for others, and always he has in view what will help them to salvation. His views on marriage and all these questions about how to act in various situations were resolved according to what would be "profitable" for their salvation (<em><a href='B:530 6:12'>1Co 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:35'>1Co 7:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 8:10'>2Co 8:10</a></em>). And he will soon teach that the Spirit is given to each of us in order to "profit" both ourselves and others towards salvation (<em><a href='B:530 12:7'>1Co 12:7</a></em>). The Corinthians denied the movement of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), and so they were left to struggle with all their questions on a case by case basis with no guiding principle to help them resolve them. That principle clearly enough is: What is helpful to their and thereby my salvation, to God’s glory? The focus is not&nbsp; to be upon our personal profit or salvation, but upon that of others. And that was what motivated the Lord to the great achievement of the cross. In the same way as the Lord Jesus came to seek and to save, so Paul appropriates the same two Greek words regarding&nbsp;<em>his</em>&nbsp;seeking and saving of others (<em><a href='B:490 19:10'>Luk 19:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>). Like Paul, the Lord Jesus didn’t please Himself by being selfishly concerned with His own salvation, but pleased his neighbours for their good unto their eternal edification (<em><a href='B:520 15:2-3'>Rom 15:2-3</a></em>). Here in <em><a href='B:530 10:33'>1Co 10:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:1'>1Co 11:1</a></em> he bids us follow his example in that he lived a life dominated by seeking to save others- both in and out of the ecclesia see context. This may explain why there is little direct encouragement in Paul’s letters to preach; not only was his pattern axiomatically an imperative to live a life devoted to witness, but the following of Christ as he did inevitably issued in a life of witness.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:1'>1Co 11:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Be imitators of me, even as I am of Christ-&nbsp;</em>This verse is best linked to the preceding chapter 10, where Paul urges the Corinthians to put the spiritual profit of others before their own personal conscience on some issues. Paul's relationship with and perception of the Lord Jesus is held up by the Spirit as our example. He himself asks us to copy (Gk:&nbsp;<em>mimic</em>) the way in which he followed the Lord Jesus (this is what <em><a href='B:530 11:1'>1Co 11:1</a></em> implies in the Greek). His mind was increasingly&nbsp;<em>saturated</em>&nbsp;with the Gospels, and with the surpassing excellency and supremacy of the&nbsp;<em>Lordship</em>&nbsp;of the risen Jesus.</p><p>The idea of consciously modelling, of having some characters as your heroes, your inspiration towards a closer following of God, was very much in Paul's thinking. Not only does he do it himself, but he encourages others to do it. He doesn't use the word 'modelling'; he uses the word 'mimicking', Greek&nbsp;<em>mimicos</em>, normally translated "follow" in the AV. This Greek word is used almost exclusively by Paul:<br/>"Ye became&nbsp;<em>followers</em>&nbsp;of us and of the Lord…. ye know how ye ought to&nbsp;<em>follow</em>&nbsp;us…an ensample unto you to&nbsp;<em>follow</em>&nbsp;us" (<em><a href='B:590 1:6'>1Th 1:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:7'>2Th 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:9'>2Th 3:9</a></em>; the implication is that in the gap between 1 and 2 Thessalonians, they stopped following Paul as they initially did straight after his conversion of them).<br/>"Be ye&nbsp;<em>followers</em>&nbsp;of me" (<em><a href='B:530 4:16'>1Co 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:1'>1Co 11:1</a></em>)<br/>"Whose faith&nbsp;<em>follow</em>&nbsp;(i:e. that of your ecclesial elders)" (<em><a href='B:650 13:7'>Heb 13:7</a></em>)<br/>Be "<em>followers</em>&nbsp;of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises", e.g. Abraham (<em><a href='B:650 6:12'>Heb 6:12</a></em>)<br/>"Ye, brethren, became&nbsp;<em>followers</em>&nbsp;of the churches... in Judea" (<em><a href='B:590 2:14'>1Th 2:14</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>So Paul encourages them to mimic him, to mimic Abraham, to mimic the persecuted ecclesias in Judea, to mimic the faithful elders in the Jerusalem ecclesia (e.g. Peter),&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;they would be better mimickers of the Father and Son. But the idea of mimicking involves a child-likeness, an intellectual humility, a truly open mind. Why Paul used that word rather than a word which simply meant 'to copy' or 'to follow' was perhaps because he wanted to stress that this kind of conscious modelling of your life on someone else involved a real need for openness of mind to the word, resulting in an unfeigned, uncontrived, child-like mimicking. Paul is really encouraging his readers to get involved in this 'mimicking' of faithful examples, of absorbing their spirit into our own by careful, sustained meditation. Will we rise up to it? Or are we still on the level of whizzing through our Bible reading in 10 minutes / day, giving little thought to what we've read throughout the next 24 hours?</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em><em>&nbsp;Now I praise you who remember me in all things-&nbsp;</em>This reflects the wide range in the church at Corinth. There were those who were obedient to the commands and teaching Paul gave, and at the other extreme, there were those who worked as and made use of church prostitutes. The way the more spiritual remained within such an apostate community is a challenge to us all, not least to those who insist on leaving any community which has the slightest apostasy.</p><p><em>And hold fast the traditions, as I delivered them to you-</em>&nbsp;This suggests there was a specific body of practical teachings which Paul gave to his converts; and he frames his language in terms of Moses giving the law to Israel. It was expected that the disciples of rabbis memorized their teaching, and there's no reason to doubt that the Lord's disciples, both those who immediately heard Him and those who subsequently became disciples of their invisible Heavenly rabbi, would likewise have memorized the gospel records of His words. This would account for the way they are arranged Mark especially as series of 'pericopes', small bite-sized sections which lend themselves to memorization. This would explain how Paul can use technical terms for handing on a tradition (<em>paradidomi</em>, <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:23'>1Co 11:23</a></em>) and receiving it (<em>paralambano</em>, <em><a href='B:530 15:1'>1Co 15:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:3'>1Co 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:19'>Gal 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 2:6'>Col 2:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:13'>1Th 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:1'>1Th 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 3:6'>2Th 3:6</a></em>); and of faithfully retaining the tradition (<em>katecho</em>, <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:2'>1Co 15:2</a></em>;&nbsp;<em>krateo</em>, <em><a href='B:600 2:15'>2Th 2:15</a></em>); matched perhaps by John's insistence in his letters that the converts retain that teaching which they received "from the beginning".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:3'>1Co 11:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God-&nbsp;</em>The head of “every man is Christ” only in the sense that “every believing man” has this relationship with Him. “Every man” to God is therefore those in Christ. “All” shall be made alive at the Lord’s return- i:e. all “that are Christ’s” (<em><a href='B:530 15:22-23'>1Co 15:22-23</a></em>). "All things" is a title of the church in Ephesians and Colossians, and "any man" evidently means 'any believer' in <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>. “All men... every man” means ‘all that believed’ in <em><a href='B:510 2:44-45'>Act 2:44-45</a></em>. So what Paul now writes is specifically about relationships between believers, and specifically in response to the Corinthians' question which we do not have access to. "The head of Christ is God" is a fair nail in the coffin of trinitarianism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:4'>1Co 11:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonours his head-&nbsp;</em>This may well be a criticism of the way that under the influence of Judaism which we have noted earlier was a problem in Corinth, some of the brothers were covering their heads to pray. The head of the man was Christ (:3), and by acting as if He needed covering for sin and shame before God, they were dishonouring Him. Paul repeatedly uses the same word to argue that in Christ, we are not ashamed s:w. 'dishonoured' before God (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:11'>Rom 10:11</a></em> etc:). Those who had fallen under the influence of Judaism and its practices had failed to perceive this. And thus they were shaming their Lord, Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:5'>1Co 11:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 6:4'>1Co 6:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonours her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven-&nbsp;</em>I suggest there are a series of allusions to the trial of jealousy in Numbers 5; and the idea of uncovering a woman's head connects with how the woman suspected of infidelity had to have her head uncovered (<em><a href='B:40 5:18'>Num 5:18</a></em>). A woman's hair was seen as her glory, and a covered head was associated with shame. It could be argued that the woman was being treated as innocent until proven guilty, and even invited to openly display her glory. The uncovering of the woman's head was a form of shaming (as in <em><a href='B:530 11:5-6'>1Co 11:5-6</a></em>). She had to be shamed whether or not she was guilty; and this led the man to a lose-lose scenario. If she was innocent, then he had needlessly shamed him, she would likely not love him in future, and he had to bear the sin of doing that (:31). If she were guilty, then he had to support a barren wife for the rest of her life, seeing the curses about killing or divorcing her were to be blotted out.</p><p>There are several such allusions to Numbers 5 in 1 Corinthians 11. The idea there of drinking unto condemnation or blessing / justification simply has to be understood in the Numbers 5 context. And it is no accident that the language of a woman having an uncovered head also occurs. What's the connection and the bigger picture? I suggest that what was happening in Corinth was that members who had sinned were being publically shamed before the congregation by e.g. the sinful sisters being made to sit in the meeting with uncovered heads. In Middle Eastern societies today, forcing a woman to uncover her head is a source of shame. Paul is saying that paradoxically, such misbehaviour in the Corinth ecclesia was actually 'shaming' those demanding it; "I speak this to your shame" (<em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:22'>1Co 11:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>). The allusions to Numbers 5 would therefore be saying: 'You are publicly shaming some sisters by making them remove their veils / head coverings in your meetings; and by the way in which you eat the Lord's supper, you are also purposefully shaming some (:22). Instead,&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;should be the ones in shame for your behaviour. By doing so, even if indeed those sisters have sinned, you are acting like the husband who uses the Numbers 5 legislation. Instead, whenever you drink the cup, examine&nbsp;<em>yourselves</em>&nbsp;and not others, and remember that you are the one who is being tested by the Lord's cup- either to your condemnation or justification'. Paul will soon go on to point out that the Corinthians were wrongfully shaming some within the church at the breaking of bread meetings (:22 "shame" is the same Greek word translated "dishonour" here in :4,5).</p><p>Shaved female heads were associated with prostitution in first century Corinth. To shame a woman by making her remove her head covering was effectively labelling her as a prostitute. Paul is against all such shaming behaviour; it is a tendency of religions to shame others, and Paul is deeply critical of it. The irony of course was that according to our notes on chapters 6 and 7, there were church prostitutes operating within the Corinthian church. And yet any sister who got on the wrong side of the leadership was shamed as being a common street whore by demanding she wear her hair uncovered. It ought to be clear enough that these verses speak to a very specific situation within Corinth according to the culture of that time and place; they can not legitimately be used to require women to wear head coverings at all Christian meetings in the world today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:6'>1Co 11:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn; but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled</em>- See on :4. The male eldership were seeking to shame some women, just as they shamed others by not providing food for them at their memorial feasts (:22). Paul is saying that to make a woman take her veil off is the same as making her shave her head. Instead of shaming her, they should allow her to be veiled as she dearly wished to be in that society:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:7'>1Co 11:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man-&nbsp;</em>When we read that man is the "image and glory of God" (<em><a href='B:530 11:7'>1Co 11:7</a></em>), it seems to me that Paul is stating something which is only potentially true, rather than stating a global principle which is true for all males from birth until death- for he elsewhere says that we must be transformed&nbsp;<em>into</em>&nbsp;the image of God (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>), speaking of a progressive renewal in knowledge until we come to the image of our creator (<em><a href='B:560 4:24'>Eph 4:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:10'>Col 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>). This kind of approach is common in Paul- he speaks of a state of being which we should rise up to, as if we already have it. He's surely inspiring us to rise up to our potential.</p><p>But another approach is suggested by observing that the whole arguments in <em><a href='B:530 11:7-15'>1Co 11:7-15</a></em> appear very contradictory. Woman was created out of the man, so she is to have her head covered (:8); but "in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman" (:11). Whether or not a woman should pray with uncovered head is considered to be something they should judge (:13). Long hair should be exposed and gloried in as a woman's covering (:14,15); whereas :10 says she should over her hair to show she is under her husband's authority. And the more one re-reads this section, the more apparent contradictions appear. An answer could be to remember that there are no quotation marks in the original text; and that Paul is quoting or alluding to the questions and arguments of the Corinthians. I suggest that he is quoting here from their arguments, which they had been using to justifying shaming some women by making them pray with uncovered heads. I suggest that :7-11 are all quotation from the arguments used by the Corinthians; and then :12 Paul answers all this by saying that "in the Lord" there is no such distinction. He then concludes by saying that contrary to what some wanted to imply, there was no universally agreed practice regarding head coverings in the churches (:16). Those who insist upon a head covering policy as a global truth are totally ignoring Paul's statement. The whole question depends upon local customs and attitudes to women, and whatever they are, in whatever time or place, the principle of :11,12 must be accepted: "In our life in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman; and it is God who brings everything into existence". On this foundation, we are to "judge for ourselves" on these matters (:13), remembering that there is no universal principle to be enforced about them (:16).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:8'>1Co 11:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the man is not of the woman, but woman of the man-&nbsp;</em>See on :7. I suggest this is part of the Corinthians' argument which Paul is quoting. It seems they as Gentiles had fallen under the influence of Judaist arguments.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:9'>1Co 11:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man-&nbsp;</em>This was very much the language of Judaism- that women were created to serve men. It could be that Paul is here quoting it and then goes on to deconstruct it in the section beginning at :11.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:10'>1Co 11:10</a></em><em> -</em>&nbsp;see on <em><a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a></em><em>.</em></p><p><em>For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels-&nbsp;</em>If this continues the quotation from the Corinthians' argument, then they would be arguing that because of how the Angels ordained things at the creation, the women should wear head coverings to show they were under their husband's authority. This was a distinctly Jewish attitude; and the reference to "Angels" is again Jewish, seeing Jewish thought was quite obsessed with Angels.</p><p>But it could be that at church meetings, indeed the Angel are literally present, and this command was to help those present be aware of this. Great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <em><a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:11'>1Co 11:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Nevertheless, in the Lord, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman</em>- This reference to how things should be in Christ, presumably in distinction and contrast to the ideas Paul has just quoted in :7-10. Paul is seeking to balance their Judaist-interpretation of the Genesis record by arguing that male and female are equal before God and interdependent.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:12'>1Co 11:12</a></em><em> For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God-&nbsp;</em>Paul is here balancing their argument that because woman was made out of man, therefore she must be subservient and wear a head covering to symbolize it. He reminds them that in fact man is taken out of woman at birth. And it is not so that males are superior to females simply because Eve was made out of Adam's bone. For it is God who is the creative source of all things, not man; and His creative power is responsible for not just humans but literally "everything".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:13'>1Co 11:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled?</em>- The Corinthians had asked for Paul's judgment on this matter. Having explained some principles, Paul now throws the judgment back over to them. But he will argue in :14,15 that the whole issue of whether a woman should be covered or not is misplaced because God has given women a natural head-covering, in their hair. That covering should not be covered by human covering laws, so :15 implies. And this will lead up to the clear statement in :16 that this should not be the matter of contention which it was at Corinth, and there is no inspired standard for all the brotherhood to follow. As Paul puts it here in :13, we must "judge for yourselves" given the local culture and customs we find ourselves in.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:14'>1Co 11:14</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 16:2'>Joh 16:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>Does not nature itself teach you, that if a man has long hair it is a dishonour to him?-&nbsp;</em>This was true within the cultural context of Corinth. Nature does not teach that to all people in all cultures at all times. And "long hair" only applies to some people. Paul obviously isn't speaking about Africans whose hair cannot easily be described as "long". So he is obviously writing in a very limited context- to those at Corinth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:15'>1Co 11:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her. For her hair is given her for a covering-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :14, this too is culturally limited to a specific time and place. Long hair is no longer seen as beautiful of itself, and again, "long hair" here surely doesn't refer to African Christians. The whole argument is limited to Corinth and the culture of that day. But Paul is making this observation in order to demonstrate that the whole argument about female head-coverings is misplaced. And that would be typical of both the Lord and Paul- to answer an argument or question by stating a mega principle which contextualizes the specific questions.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:16'>1Co 11:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if anyone seems to be contentious, let them know we have no such custom, neither do the churches of God-&nbsp;&nbsp;</em>As noted on the previous verses, Paul is saying that contrary to what some contentious members wantedto imply, there was no universally agreed custom in the churches about head-coverings. It was a matter of each judging for themselves within their cultural contexts, but bearing in mind the principles of :11,12 (see on :13). It is typical of many contentious individuals to this day that they will argue and assume that their particular fetish of interpretation must be universally accepted in all Christian churches.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:17'>1Co 11:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 7:17'>1Co 7:17</a></em></p><p><em>But in giving you this instruction, I do not praise you- for you come together not for the better but for the worse-&nbsp;</em>The "instruction" here concerning how the breaking of bread meeting should be run was not an answer to questions- but an instruction. Their behaviour there was so bad that it would be better for them not to do it. For it was for their "worse" rather than their spiritual betterment.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:18'>1Co 11:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For first of all, when you come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you-&nbsp;</em>Corinth ecclesia had cases of gross immorality, even incest; some got drunk at the memorial meeting, used church prostitutes and some even denied Christ's resurrection. There can be no question that such belief and practice was not ultimately tolerated either by Paul or God. Yet notice the first thing which the Spirit 'takes up' with Corinth. It wasn't any of these more obvious things. It was the fact there was a spirit of factionism within the ecclesia- "first of all" this was the issue Paul tackled. Just as he has in chapter 10 argued that the principle of building each other up is far more important than whether or not we personally consider idols and pagan gods to have real existence:&nbsp; This is also the way the epistles conclude (<em><a href='B:540 13:11'>2Co 13:11</a></em>); Paul doesn't tell them 'Now don't forget what I said about adultery and having concord with Belial'. Instead: "Finally, brethren... be of one mind, live in peace".</p><p><em>And I partly believe it</em>- This may not mean that Paul was undecided as to whether it is true or not. For in chapter 1 he has directly accused them of being a divided church. I suggest the sense is rather: 'I believe / know that this is partly true'. Some in the church were in line with the spirit of Paul's teaching (:2). But others weren't. It was this 'part' who were answerable for the divisions.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:19'>1Co 11:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For there must also be factions among you, that they that are approved may be revealed among you-&nbsp;</em>The allusion is to <em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em>: "For it is necessary that the offences occur, but woe to that man through whom the offence comes". Causing division within the body is therefore a sin which may exclude us from the Kingdom. It is so obviously true to observed experience that factionism within the church causes 'offences' or spiritual stumbling. It is also true that the "approved" are "revealed" by their correct response to the factionism. How we respond to church division is one of the litmus tests that reveal our spirituality. So many stumble... but it will be no excuse to tell the crucified Lord at the last day that His death and pain for us was rejected by us because of the cranky people in a church we attended. The cross is still there, and His outstretched arms towards us must not be spurned because of an argument here and hypocrisy there. Likewise those who see through those things and will not be swayed from their focus on the Lord who loved them, and who will not spurn His Spirit because others do, are thereby declared "approved" even now. For the essence of judgment day is worked out today. "Approved" translates a word meaning 'tried'; it is in <em><a href='B:660 1:12'>Jas 1:12</a></em>: "Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he is&nbsp;<em>tried</em>&nbsp;he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to them that love Him". The experience of division in the church is the trial through which we demonstrate our acceptance before the Lord, and even have a foretaste of the Lord's acceptance at the last day.</p><p>Although sects and divisions should not be within the one body of Christ, in another sense there must be such sectarianism that they which are approved may be “made manifest” by their response to it- in anticipation of how we will all be “made manifest” (s:w:) at the judgment (<em><a href='B:490 8:17'>Luk 8:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). In this we see the Divine ecology; nothing is wasted. There must not be divisions; but even when they do occur, they are used by God in order to manifest the righteous and the principles of true spirituality. Thus trial can easily arise from within our ecclesial experience.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat-&nbsp;</em>Verse 21 goes on to reason that&nbsp;<em>the Lord's&nbsp;</em>supper has become&nbsp;<em>their own&nbsp;</em>supper. Our breaking of bread is&nbsp;<em>far far more</em>&nbsp;than&nbsp;<em>just</em>&nbsp;religious ritual, although on one level it is that. But we must rise well above this. Israel kept the Passover (cp. the breaking of bread), and yet to God they never&nbsp;<em>really&nbsp;</em>kept it. The Corinthians took the cup of the Lord and that of the idols; they broke bread with both (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>). But they were told they&nbsp;<em>could not</em>&nbsp;do this. They took the cup of the Lord; but not in the Lord’s eyes. They turned&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>supper into their&nbsp;<em>own&nbsp;</em>supper. They did it, but for themselves. And so in spiritual terms, they didn’t do it (<em><a href='B:530 11:20-21'>1Co 11:20-21</a></em>). Just as the “<em>Lord’s&nbsp;</em>passover" became by the time of the NT “the feast of&nbsp;<em>the Jews</em>". They turned His Passover into their own. Likewise they turned the house&nbsp;<em>of God&nbsp;</em>into their&nbsp;<em>own&nbsp;</em>house (<em><a href='B:470 23:38'>Mat 23:38</a></em>); and the Lord called the law of God through Moses as now “<em>their&nbsp;</em>law" (<em><a href='B:500 15:25'>Joh 15:25</a></em>). And so we must just accept the real possibility that we can break bread on the surface, but not break bread. We’ve probably all done this. Don’t let it become the norm. Likewise Israel had to be asked the rhetorical question: “<em>Have ye</em>&nbsp;offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years?" (<em><a href='B:370 5:25'>Amo 5:25</a></em>). Because they&nbsp;<em>also</em>&nbsp;worshipped Molech, their keeping of the feasts wasn’t accepted. So I can ask again: Do you&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;break bread? Israel kept their Passovers throughout the wilderness years, one would assume- but they never remembered the day that God brought them out of Egypt (<em><a href='B:230 78:42'>Psa 78:42</a></em>)- although notice how although Israel didn’t remember God, yet He remembered them in His grace (<em><a href='B:230 106:7'>Psa 106:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 106:45'>Psa 106:45</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:21'>1Co 11:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk-&nbsp;</em>"His&nbsp;<em>own</em>&nbsp;meal" meant it was no longer&nbsp;<em>the Lord's&nbsp;</em>meal- see on :20. The idea of a ritual meal, accompanied by abuse of alcohol and religious prostitutes, was typical of Corinthian religiosity. Clearly the Christian church there had turned the communion service into something similar. And worse still, the whole ceremony became a place to flaunt wealth. And yet the meal was supposed to represent the supreme unity enabled by the Lord's death, who on the cross became poor for our sakes.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:22'>1Co 11:22</a></em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<em>What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in?-&nbsp;</em>Paul has just been noting that some of them are drunk at the breaking of bread service because they turned the service into a feast similar to those of the idol cults. Paul is apparently telling them to go to their own homes and carry on like this. My response would have been to criticize them for getting drunk. But Paul's primary concern is for the church as a whole, and the damage done to other believers. And so he tells them to do this, if they must, in their own homes. Another possibility is that 'their houses' refer to the houses of the idols whose cults they were clearly still associated with. He would then be telling them to not serve two masters, and seeing they attempted to take the Lord's cup as well as that of idols (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>) they were unable therefore to properly take the Lord's cup at all (<em><a href='B:530 11:20'>1Co 11:20</a></em>). He may therefore be telling them to go and carouse in the houses of their idols rather than in the Christian church.</p><p>Yet another possibility arises from the fact that the church was split into various house groups (listed in chapter 1); but they 'came together' at combined breaking of bread meetings:This wasn’t the time to indulge in a huge party, with all the emphasis upon eating and drinking your own food and wine, rather than focusing upon that which God had provided in Jesus. Hence he comments: “Have you not houses to eat and to drink in?” (<em><a href='B:530 11:22'>1Co 11:22</a></em>). Given almost every reference to ‘house’ in Corinthians is to a house church or to the spiritual house of God, it would seem Paul’s idea is: ‘It’s OK to eat and drink and have a collective meal etc. in your house church meetings. But don’t do that when you all meet together for the breaking of bread- it’s getting divisive, because of the social differences between the house groups which are made apparent by the choice of food and drink’. They were to ‘discern the body of the Lord Jesus’ at those gatherings- i:e. recognize that all of them gathered there, the various house churches of Corinth, were in fact the collective body of Christ (<em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em>). If anyone was hungry and therefore in need of material support, the combined breaking of bread meeting wasn’t the place to raise the issue- he should “eat at home”, i:e. take food and support from his local house church (<em><a href='B:530 11:34'>1Co 11:34</a></em>). That’s surely a more reasonable reading, for at face value it would seem the hungry brother lacking food is being heartlessly told ‘Well go home and eat’.</p><p><em>Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who do not have? What shall I say to you? -&nbsp;</em>The reference to shaming connects to the allusions to the trial of jealousy commented on under :5. To not offend others, to seek to save them, means that we will not despise them. <em><a href='B:530 11:22'>1Co 11:22</a></em> accuses some brethren of despising others s:w. <em><a href='B:470 18:10'>Mat 18:10</a></em> about despising the little ones in the ecclesia by “shaming” them. If we perceive the value of persons, the meaning of others personhood, we will not shame them in our words, gestures, body language or actions. No “shameful speaking” should proceed out of our mouths (<em><a href='B:580 3:8'>Col 3:8</a></em> RV). Of course, the true believer in Christ cannot be ashamed- for whilst some stumble on Christ, the rock of offence, the believer in Him will not be shamed (<em><a href='B:520 9:33'>Rom 9:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 10:11'>Rom 10:11</a></em> - s:w. <em><a href='B:530 11:22'>1Co 11:22</a></em>). For his or her sure hope of the Kingdom “maketh not to be ashamed” (<em><a href='B:520 5:5'>Rom 5:5</a></em>). Again, if our hope of the Kingdom is real to us, nobody will make us ashamed, will in reality make us feel despised, or make us stumble. The reality ahead will transfix us so that all human unkindness toward us gains no permanent lodgment in our hearts. We do well to review our way of talking and acting to ensure we do not shame others.</p><p><em>Shall I praise you? In this I do not praise you</em>- This connects to how he praised some of them in :2. But this group who behaved in this way were not being praised.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:23'>1Co 11:23</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I received of the Lord that which I in turn delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread-&nbsp;</em>The order of service which the Lord had given Paul required just a cup of wine and loaf of bread. Their style of feasting was not at all His intention. Note how Paul associates the themes of betrayal and the breaking of bread- and John quotes the prophecy that “He who feeds on bread with me has raised his heel against me" in the context of Judas breaking bread with Jesus. “Is it I?" must be a dominant part of the breaking of bread experience. The hint was clearly enough that there was one present at the original last supper who had betrayed the Lord; and Paul saw those who were also involved with the idol cults as being represented by Judas the betrayer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 6:51'>Joh 6:51</a></em>.</p><p><em>And when he had given thanks-&nbsp;</em>Paul saw the breaking of bread prefigured in Christ's feeding of the 4000 after taking the bread and blessing it, and then distributing to the disciples and they to the crowds (<em><a href='B:470 15:36'>Mat 15:36</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 11:24'>1Co 11:24</a></em>). The connection surely show that the breaking of bread was not based upon any closed table ideology, but was radically open.</p><p><em>He broke it, and said: This is my body, which is for you. This do in remembrance of me-&nbsp;</em>Some manuscripts add "which is&nbsp;<em>broken</em>&nbsp;for you". ‘Broken’ can imply divided and shared out. The gruesome record of the Levite cutting up his wife’s body and sending parts of the body throughout all Israel has much to teach us of the power of the memorial service. It was done so that all who received the parts of that broken body would “take advice and speak their minds" (<em><a href='B:70 19:30'>Jdg 19:30</a></em>). It was designed to elicit the declaration of their hearts, and above all to provoke to concrete action. Splitting up a body and sharing it with all Israel was clearly a type of the breaking of bread, where in symbol, the same happens. Consider some background, all of which points forward to the Lord’s sufferings:<br/>- The person whose body was divided up was from Bethlehem, and of the tribe of Judah (<em><a href='B:70 19:1'>Jdg 19:1</a></em>)<br/>- They were ‘slain’ by permission of a priest<br/>- They were dragged to death by a wicked Jewish mob<br/>- They were “brought forth" to the people just as the Lord was to the crowd (<em><a href='B:70 19:25'>Jdg 19:25</a></em>)<br/>- “Do what seemeth good unto you" (<em><a href='B:70 19:24'>Jdg 19:24</a></em>) is very much Pilate language<br/>- A man sought to dissuade the crowd from their purpose- again, as Pilate.<br/>There should be a like effect upon us as we receive the emblems of the Lord’s ‘broken body’- the inner thoughts of our hearts are elicited, and we are provoked to action.</p><p>Considering how the bread represents the body of Christ leads us to a common query: 'Seeing that "a bone of Him shall not be (and was not) broken”, how can we say that we remember the&nbsp;<em>broken</em>&nbsp;body of Jesus by&nbsp;<em>breaking&nbsp;</em>the bread?'. First of all, it must be understood that 'breaking bread' or 'eating bread' is simply an idiom for sharing in a meal (<em><a href='B:290 58:7'>Isa 58:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 16:7'>Jer 16:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 4:4'>Lam 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 17:7'>Eze 17:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 24:17'>Eze 24:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 9:4'>Hos 9:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 26:14'>Deu 26:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 42:11'>Job 42:11</a></em>). 'Bread' is used for any food, just as 'salt' is used in the same way in Arabic. The breaking of a loaf of bread is not necessarily implicit in the phrase (although it can be). However, we must also be aware of a fundamental misconception which one feels is held by many; that the physical blood and body of Christ are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;that we come to remember. This notion is related to that which feels that there is some mystical power in the physical bread and wine in themselves. Robert Roberts makes the point in&nbsp;<em>The Blood of Christ</em>&nbsp;that "it is not the blood as literal blood that is precious or efficacious". And the same might be said about the Lord's literal body. His body and blood were no different to those of any other man.</p><p>The fact that we are asked to symbolize His broken body, when it is stated that His literal body was&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;broken, is proof enough that Christ's body is to be understood as something more than His literal flesh and blood. Indeed, <em><a href='B:530 10:16-17'>1Co 10:16-17</a></em> seems to suggest that the "body of Christ" in which we partake through the bread is a symbol of the whole body of believers, just as much as His actual body which enabled this salvation. Likewise the Passover was not intended to commemorate the red liquid which flowed from the first Passover lambs, but to remember the salvation which God had achieved for&nbsp;<em>all Israel</em>&nbsp;on account of that. Christ bore our sins "in his own body on the tree" (<em><a href='B:670 2:24'>1Pe 2:24</a></em>)- and it was more in His mind and mental awareness that this was true, rather than our sins being in (e.g.) His arms and legs. Other uses of " body" which require reference to our whole mind and being, rather than our literal body, include <em><a href='B:470 5:29-30'>Mat 5:29-30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:22-25'>Mat 6:22-25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 2:21'>Joh 2:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:19'>1Co 6:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:23'>1Co 9:23</a></em>. Luke's record of the Last Supper shows how the Lord spoke of His body and blood as parallel with His whole sacrifice: "This is my body... this do in remembrance of&nbsp;<em>me</em>&nbsp;(His whole way of life- not just His physical body). This cup is the new testament in my blood, which&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;shed for you" (<em><a href='B:490 22:19-20'>Luk 22:19-20</a></em>). <em><a href='B:580 1:20'>Col 1:20</a></em> likewise parallels “the blood of the cross" with “him" (the man Jesus). <em><a href='B:520 7:4'>Rom 7:4</a></em> puts “the body of Christ" for the death of that body; He was, in His very person, His death. The cross was a living out of a spirit of self-giving which&nbsp;<em>was</em>&nbsp;Him. The cup of wine represents the promises ("testament") of salvation which have been confirmed by Christ's blood. Note how Jesus quietly spoke of "my body which&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;(being) given for you... my blood which&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;shed for you". The pouring out of His life/blood was something ongoing, which was occurring even as He spoke those words. The cross was a summation of a lifetime of outpouring and breaking of His innermost being, or "body". It is this that we remember at the breaking of bread. The Passover was comprised of the lamb plus bread. The breaking of bread, the Passover for Christians, is wine and bread. The lamb was thus replaced in the thought of Jesus by His blood / wine. He perceived that His blood was Him, in that sense.</p><p>It is also worth reflecting how the Hebrew writer saw the torn veil as a symbol of the Lord’s flesh. It is just possible that the physical tearing of the Lord’s flesh at His death through the nails represented the tearing of His flesh nature, symbolized in the physical tearing of the veil. But the tearing of the veil was something essential and far reaching- not a surface rip. The Lord’s death is surely to be understood as a tearing apart of the flesh nature and tendencies which He bore; and it is this we remember in breaking the bread which represents His flesh. Note that to break the bread in a place was an idiom for breaking the life there (<em><a href='B:330 4:16'>Eze 4:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 5:16'>Eze 5:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 14:13'>Eze 14:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 26:26'>Lev 26:26</a></em>). This was what the Lord asks us to remember- not the physical breaking of His body, but the breaking of His life for us and sharing it with us (<em><a href='B:290 58:7'>Isa 58:7</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:25'>1Co 11:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In the same manner also the cup, after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood-&nbsp;</em>The breaking of bread brings us before the cross, which is in a sense our judgment seat. There can only be two exits from the Lord’s throne, to the right or to the left, and likewise we are faced with such a choice in our response to the bread and wine. The cup of wine is a double symbol- either of blessing (<em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:25'>1Co 11:25</a></em>), or of condemnation (<em><a href='B:230 60:3'>Psa 60:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 75:8'>Psa 75:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 51:17'>Isa 51:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 25:15'>Jer 25:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 14:10'>Rev 14:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 16:19'>Rev 16:19</a></em>). The very structure of the Hebrew language reflects this. Thus the Hebrew&nbsp;<em>baruch</em>&nbsp;means both ‘blessed’ and ‘cursed’;&nbsp;<em>kedoshim</em>&nbsp;means both ‘Sodomites’ and ‘saints’. Why this use of a double symbol? Surely the Lord designed this sacrament in order to highlight the two ways which are placed before us by taking that cup: it is either to our blessing, or to our condemnation. Each breaking of bread is a further stage along one of those two roads. Indeed, the Lord’s supper is a place to which the rejected are invited (<em><a href='B:430 1:7-8'>Zep 1:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:7'>Rev 19:7</a></em>), or the redeemed (<em><a href='B:730 3:20'>Rev 3:20</a></em>). Like the cup of wine, being invited to the Lord’s supper is a double symbol. And there is no escape by simply not breaking bread. The peace offering was one of the many antecedents of the memorial meeting. Once the offerer had dedicated himself to making it, he was condemned if he didn’t then do it, and yet also condemned if he ate it unclean (<em><a href='B:30 7:18'>Lev 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:20'>Lev 7:20</a></em>). So a man&nbsp;<em>had&nbsp;</em>to either cleanse himself, or be condemned. There was no get out, no third road. The man who ate the holy things in a state of uncleanness had to die; his eating would load him with the condemnation of his sins (<em><a href='B:30 22:3'>Lev 22:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 22:16'>Lev 22:16</a></em> AV mg:). This is surely the source for our possibility of “eating... condemnation" to ourselves by partaking of the breaking of bread in an unworthy manner. And so it is with us as we face the emblems. We must do it, or we deny our covenant relationship. And yet if we do it in our uncleanness, we also deny that relationship.</p><p><em>This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me-&nbsp;</em>This seems carefully worded so as to free us from any idea that we must break bread at a certain commanded frequency. Or perhaps the import was more practical- in that the cup was being used as means for getting drunk. The idea would be: 'Every time you lift that cup to your mouth and drink, it is to be in remembrance of the Lord- and not in the name of something else, and just as a path towards intoxication'.</p>


