# commentaries

text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To the church of God which is at Corinth, those that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints-&nbsp;</em>There is a play on words here. By baptism into Christ we are in Him, and are therefore made holy, sanctified; and therefore we are saints, holy or sanctified ones. Paul approaches the various behavioural issues in Corinth by encouraging them to live out in practice what they are by status in Christ, and to make use of the Spirit power potentially available to enable this transformation.</p><p><em>With all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place-&nbsp;</em>The Jerusalem pattern of gathering collectively in the temple and yet also having home groups was repeated in Corinth. 1Corinthians is addressed to the singular church in Corinth, which he parallels with “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus” (<em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>). Those ‘places’, I submit, referred to the various house churches in the city. He specifically mentions the house churches of Chloe (<em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>) and Stephanas (<em><a href='B:530 1:16'>1Co 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:15'>1Co 16:15</a></em>). The exhortation that “you all speak the same thing” (<em><a href='B:530 1:10'>1Co 1:10</a></em>) would then refer to the need for the various house churches to all “be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment”. As we know, there was an issue of fellowship in Corinth, concerning a deeply immoral brother. If he avoided church discipline by simply joining another house church, they were not going to be joined together in “the same judgment”, and inevitably division would arise amongst those Corinthian house churches. There was to be peace rather than confusion “in all churches” (<em><a href='B:530 14:33'>1Co 14:33</a></em>)- i:e. all the house churches in Corinth. Paul’s complaint that “every one of you saith, I am of Paul… I of Apollos” (<em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em>) surely makes more sense if read with reference to each of the house churches, rather than every individual member. Paul speaks there as if the believers ‘came together’ ‘in ekklesia’ (<em><a href='B:530 5:4'>1Co 5:4</a></em>), i:e. the various home groups occasionally met together. Hence he speaks of when “the whole church be come together into one place” (<em><a href='B:530 14:23'>1Co 14:23</a></em>), i:e. all the house churches gathered together for a special fellowship meeting. He says that when they ‘came together’, then they should make a collective decision about disfellowshipping the immoral brother. Paul wrote to the Romans from Corinth, and he describes Gaius as the host of the whole church (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>)- implying that he had premises large enough for all the various house churches to gather together in. The abuses which occurred when the whole church ‘came together’ presumably therefore occurred on his premises.</p><p><em>Their Lord and ours</em>-</p><p> Paul could be saying that Jesus Christ is Lord both of ‘us’ and also of all the congregations of believers. But he could also mean (and the Greek rather suggests this) that the same Jesus&nbsp;<em>understood and interpreted somewhat differently amongst the various believers “in every place”</em>&nbsp;was in fact Lord of them all. For your interpretation of the Lord Jesus and mine will inevitably differ in some points. Now this must of course be balanced against John’s clear teaching that those who deny Jesus came in the flesh are in fact antiChrist. However the idea is more likely that Paul is preparing the way for his repeated appeals for unity- Jesus is Lord of 'they' over there and also of 'us' here. "Theirs and ours" suggests Paul saw himself very much as standing with the Corinthians- which is significant, given his later criticisms and exposure of their behaviour.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ</em>-</p><p> This was no mere formality; the "grace",&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, the gift Paul wished them was that of the Spirit in their hearts, and he goes on to develop this idea of the&nbsp;<em>charis</em>&nbsp;in :4.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I thank my God always concerning you-&nbsp;</em>The Corinthians slandered Paul, refused his teachings etc. But he can continually be grateful for them. We see here a lovely spirit. h thanks God because of what has been given them by status, and for how be believes God sees them, because of the righteousness imputed to them. Serious adoption of Paul's perspective would solve absolutely every church division and argument.</p><p><em>For the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus</em>-</p><p> There is a clear connection between baptism and the receipt of the gift of the Spirit. By baptism "in Christ", the converts were given a&nbsp;<em>charis</em>, a gift or grace, from God.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:5'>1Co 1:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That in everything you were enriched in him-&nbsp;</em>In detailing the work of the Spirit gift in the hearts of those who believe, <em><a href='B:560 3:16-20'>Eph 3:16-20</a></em> uses this same word for 'riches', and the same kind of ideas Paul uses in this section of 1 Corinthians 1 : "He would grant you, according to the&nbsp;<em>riches</em>&nbsp;of His glory, that you may be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, to the end that you would be rooted and grounded in love, that you might be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height, and to truly know and understand the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to Him that is able to do immeasurably above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us...". The complete spiritual enrichment of the Corinthians "in everything" is hard to square with their rather woeful spiritual state- getting drunk at the breaking of bread, denying the Lord's resurrection etc. But the point is that the gift of the Spirit had potentially enabled them not to be like this- and the appeal was for them to make use of the potential they had.</p><p><em>In all utterance and all knowledge-&nbsp;</em>In all&nbsp;<em>logos</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>gnosis.</em> These were the very things the Corinthians were tempted to seek from secular sources, and to leave Christ for. But they were blessed with everything- every word of wisdom was in Him, provided by His Spirit. They need not look to other sources of these things because all had been made available to them potentially by the Spirit they had received.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:6'>1Co 1:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you-&nbsp;</em>The preaching of Christ was confirmed&nbsp;<em>in</em>&nbsp;the believers by the gift of the Spirit within their hearts. And this was itself the testimony of Christ to the validity of their conversion to Him. The external miraculous gifts of the Spirit were given to confirm the preaching of the Gospel (s:w. <em><a href='B:480 16:20'>Mar 16:20</a></em>), but their withdrawal doesn't mean that the Lord Jesus doesn't still confirm the preaching of His word by the Spirit in an internal sense. This is the significance of the word&nbsp;<em>in&nbsp;</em>you. Paul says that this confirmation will work in them "until the end", i:e. the final glorification at the Lord's return (:8 s:w:). It was not temporary nor was it going to be withdrawn. A process is ongoing which is intended to bring us to final salvation at the Lord's return. This confirmation or 'establishment' is achieved by our being 'anointed'- a clear reference to the gift of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a></em> s:w:). The same word is used in <em><a href='B:520 4:16'>Rom 4:16</a></em>, speaking of how the promise of salvation to Abraham is confirmed or AV "made sure to all the seed".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:7'>1Co 1:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ-&nbsp;</em>They had been enriched spiritually in every way (:5). But this was only true potentially. And this explains why a baptized believer may not sense the power of the Spirit in their hearts- because they are not allowing the potential to work. Paul is going to be appealing for radical changes in thinking and behaviour- but he begins by saying that all the power for that is already potentially with them. Paul later urges the Corinthians to covet the most useful Spiritual gifts (<em><a href='B:530 14:1'>1Co 14:1</a></em>). But he says here that they already have them all. So clearly enough he means that they must use their potential.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:8'>1Co 1:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>Who shall also confirm you to the end, unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ-&nbsp;</em>The gift of the Spirit given as a confirmation at baptism (see on :6) would continue to work with them, if they allowed it, to present them acceptable at the day of final judgment. We can only be without accusation (Gk:) before the day of judgment by having righteousness imputed to us; this is the great theme of Romans. This is made possible by our part in the Lord's representative death for us (s:w. <em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>). But as Romans 8 explains, this is made true for us in practice by the Spirit working within us to lead us to that end in practice, and seeking to make us in reality what we are counted as by status.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:9'>1Co 1:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God is faithful</em>-</p><p> The claims made here for the work of the Spirit may seem incredible, given our weakness, and the evident weakness of the Corinthian believers. But God is faithful- He will really do what He has promised. The faithfulness of God is associated in the Old Testament with His faithfulness to the covenant; and the Abrahamic covenant included within it the implication of the Spirit's work; this is very much part of the "blessing" promised. And God will surely fulfill His part; it is for us to be open to this and believe it.</p><p><em>Through whom you were called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord-&nbsp;</em>We through the Spirit are in active fellowship with the Lord Jesus. It's not a case of mere theological agreement with a set of Biblical principles. Paul assumes that the Corinthians, with all their immorality and misunderstandings of basic doctrine, were in fellowship with Jesus; and he therefore treated them accordingly. This is a huge challenge to those who feel they can only accept in fellowship those who can jump certain bars of their own creation regarding doctrine and practice.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:10'>1Co 1:10</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now I urge you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment</em>-</p><p> This appeal was made for the sake of the fact they were all "in the name" of the Lord Jesus by baptism into that name. They had therefore been given "the spirit of Christ", the mind of Christ. The "one mind" or "same mind" which Paul appeals for us to have is the mind of Christ (see on <em><a href='B:570 2:5'>Phi 2:5</a></em>). He's not confusing unity with uniformity, but rather reasoning that if we each allow the mind of Christ to be dominant within us, then we shall have the same mind / judgment because we will each have&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>mind. This is not therefore an appeal to each study the Bible in the same way and reach the same conclusions, or have the same level of discipline for those who fail in certain moral areas. Rather is it quite simply an appeal for us to have the mind of Christ. And thereby we shall be united, regardless of other issues over which we may differ.</p><p>“Be perfected together" (<em><a href='B:530 1:10'>1Co 1:10</a></em>) uses the same Greek word as in <em><a href='B:650 10:5'>Heb 10:5</a></em>, where we read of the Lord's one body "prepared", joined together.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brothers</em>-</p><p> Paul doesn't mean 'They dobbed you in to me, so I'm taking it with you'. That would be responding to gossip. The 'report' would appear to refer to a formal, written statement- that may well have been inspired by the Spirit. Otherwise Paul surely could not have written such confidence that the report was true.</p><p><em>By those of the household of Chloe</em>-</p><p> The 'church' at Corinth was comprised of various house groups; this one was apparently led by a woman, or at least were comprised of her household servants and family. Perhaps like Lydia she had converted her 'household' or extended family, including servants.</p><p><em>That there are contentions among you-&nbsp;</em>If they each had the mind of Christ, then there would not be contentions amongst them. Therefore 'contentions' are a sign of not having the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 3:3'>1Co 3:3</a></em>)- i:e. the spirit / mind of Christ.</p><p>The first problem in the Corinth ecclesia, Paul said, was that they were divided. He begins his letter by addressing this problem, not the incest, the drunkenness at the breaking of bread, the false doctrine... See on <em><a href='B:550 2:2'>Gal 2:2</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>By this I mean, that each one of you is saying: I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and&nbsp;I am of Christ-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:530 3:22'>1Co 3:22</a></em> speaks of three groups in the Corinth ecclesia, following Paul, Peter and Apollos. Yet in <em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em> someone says “I am of Christ" . This seems to be Paul himself- so Christ-centred was he, that he wanted no part in ecclesial politics nor in the possibility of leading a faction. His Christ-centredness was a phenomenal achievement:&nbsp;</p><p>A case can be made that the letters of Peter and Jude were also written to Corinth. Peter visited Corinth, presumably focusing his preaching on the Jewish community, and perhaps he was writing his letters specifically to the Jewish house churches there (<em><a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:22'>1Co 3:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:5'>1Co 9:5</a></em>). The same concerns are apparent as in Paul's letters to Corinth: The need to distinguish between spiritual and unspiritual persons who despised others (<em><a href='B:720 1:19'>Jud 1:19</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 2:6'>1Co 2:6</a></em> to <em><a href='B:530 3:4'>1Co 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:1-3'>1Co 8:1-3</a></em>); those who perverted liberty into licence (<em><a href='B:720 1:4'>Jud 1:4</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 6:12'>1Co 6:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:23'>1Co 10:23</a></em>), becoming slaves of sensuality (<em><a href='B:720 1:8'>Jud 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:10'>Jud 1:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:16'>Jud 1:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:23'>Jud 1:23</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 6:9-20'>1Co 6:9-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:21'>2Co 12:21</a></em>); some eating and drinking abusively at the love feast (<em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 11:17-33'>1Co 11:17-33</a></em>); refusing the authority of their elders (<em><a href='B:720 1:8'>Jud 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:11'>Jud 1:11</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 4:8-13'>1Co 4:8-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:1-12'>1Co 9:1-12</a></em>); both Peter and Paul warn Corinth of the danger of worldly wisdom. Peter's reminder to them about the authority of Paul is very understandable in this case. However, the point of all this is to observe the tenderness of Peter and Jude in writing to the Corinthians "my beloved...", whilst at the same time warning them of the awesome judgment which there behaviour was preparing for them. It was the same passionate love for Christ's weak brethren which Paul showed them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?-&nbsp;</em>There are times when Paul uses the word "Christ" when we'd have expected him to use the word "church"- e.g. "Is Christ divided?... as the body is one... so also is Christ" (<em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:12'>1Co 12:12</a></em>). This synecdoche serves to demonstrate the intense unity between Christ and His people- we really are Him to this world. Think through the reasoning of <em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>: “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?". The fact Jesus was crucified for us means that we should be baptized into that Name, and also be undivided.</p><p>Christ being undivided is placed parallel with the fact Paul was not crucified for us, but Christ was (<em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>). The implication is surely that because Christ was crucified for us, therefore those He died to redeem are undivided. We have one Saviour, through one salvation act, and therefore we must be one. The atonement and fellowship are so linked. Christ is not divided, and therefore, Paul reasons, divisions amongst brethren are a nonsense:&nbsp;<em>Christ is not divided, and therefore neither should we be&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:3'>1Co 3:3</a></em>). Let's remember this powerful logic, in all our thinking about this issue. Paul even goes so far as to suggest that if we do not discern the body at the breaking of bread, if we wilfully exclude certain members of the body, then we eat and drink condemnation to ourselves. This is how serious division is. The devil’s house is divided (<em><a href='B:470 12:25-26'>Mat 12:25-26</a></em>); Christ is not divided (<em><a href='B:530 1:13'>1Co 1:13</a></em> s:w:). We were called to the Gospel&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;we might share in the fellowship of the Lord Jesus Christ- i:e. fellowship with Him and His Father, and with all the others within His body (<em><a href='B:530 1:9-10'>1Co 1:9-10</a></em>). If we accept that brethren and sisters are validly baptized into and remain within His body, then we simply&nbsp;<em>must</em>&nbsp;fellowship with them. Should we refuse to do this, we are working against the essential purpose of God- to build up the body of His Son now, so that we might exist in that state eternally.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:14'>1Co 1:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius</em>-</p><p> Paul goes on to list others he had baptized, and admits the possibility he had baptized even more than he named. So we have an example here of a grammatical construction whereby 'None' or 'Not' is not global and absolute; and we need to bear this in mind in the interpretation of :17.</p><p>Gaius had a home big enough for the Corinth ecclesia to meet in (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>). Crispus was the leader of the Corinth synagogue and yet he and Gaius were the first people Paul converted there (<em><a href='B:530 1:14'>1Co 1:14</a></em>). Thus in this case the initial response was from the socially well to do, although the later converts were generally poor. By all means compare with how wealthy Lydia was the first convert in Philippi. Anyone who was a household leader or with a home large enough to accommodate the ecclesia was clearly of a higher social level. Thus the Philippian jailer, Stephanas and Chloe had a “household” (<em><a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:15'>1Co 16:15</a></em>), as did Philemon; and even Aquilla and Priscilla although artisans were wealthy enough to have room to host an ecclesia (<em><a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:3-5'>Rom 16:3-5</a></em>). Titus Justus whose name implies he was a Roman citizen lad a house adjacent to the synagogue in Corinth. Mark’s mother had a home in Jerusalem that could accommodate a meeting (<em><a href='B:510 12:12'>Act 12:12</a></em>); Baranbas owned a farm (<em><a href='B:510 4:36'>Act 4:36</a></em>); Jason was wealthy enough to stand bail for Paul and entertain his visitors (<em><a href='B:510 17:5-9'>Act 17:5-9</a></em>). An Areopagite was converted in Athens (<em><a href='B:510 17:34'>Act 17:34</a></em>). Apollos and Phoebe were able to travel independently. Remember that most people at the time lived in cramped tiny rooms, so unbearable that most of their lives were lived outdoors as far as possible.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:15'>1Co 1:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Lest any of you should say you were baptized into my name</em>-</p><p> Paul did baptize some in Corinth. But he means that he avoided baptizing people because of the way it would likely be used as the basis for factions in the future. He could have taken the position that 'I do not baptize into my name; and if at some later point some are to say I did, well, they are wrong, I did not'. But Paul is more sensitive to human weakness, just as we should be. He often sees ahead to the likely interpretations of his words and actions. Later he will parry possible misunderstandings of his words about resurrection by saying "But some man will say...". We too must move away from a bald truth- error scenario, leaving the misinterpretations of others upon their own heads, but rather anticipate their likely weaknesses; and by all means, seek to not make others stumble.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:16'>1Co 1:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Besides these, I do not know whether I baptized any other</em>-</p><p> He doesn't mean 'I don't remember whether I did'; for he would have used a different word. He means that he is not aware of it in that he kept no record of who he baptized, neither formally nor mentally. This is a far cry from those who insist on getting all the details of the candidates they baptize, filling out forms and so forth. Such behaviour is appropriate to admission to membership of a club; but baptism into Christ is into Christ and is not a sign of having joined any human club or institution.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 3:8'>Mat 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:14'>Gal 6:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>For Christ sent me not so much as to baptize, but to preach the gospel-&nbsp;</em>See on :14. The construction involving 'not' doesn't have to mean 'Not at all', but rather 'not' with conditions. Sometimes we need to read into the text the idea of "not so much&nbsp;<em>this</em>, as&nbsp;<em>that</em>". Thus "Christ sent me not so much as to baptize, but to preach the Gospel" (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em> AV). Paul of course&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;baptize people, as he goes on to say in that very context (<em><a href='B:530 1:14'>1Co 1:14</a></em>). Or take <em><a href='B:300 7:22-23'>Jer 7:22-23</a></em>: "I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them... concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God". God&nbsp;<em>did</em>command sacrifices; but He&nbsp;<em>not so much</em>&nbsp;commanded them&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;required Israel's spirit of obedience and acceptance of Him.</p><p>Paul's mission was to spread the word; human response to it was not something he unduly focused upon. Inappropriate focus on results in terms of baptisms can lead missionary endeavour into all manner of wrong paths:This is probably hyperbole (i:e. grossly exaggerated language to make a point). The command to preach and baptize as given in the great preaching commission was just one command; preaching-and-baptizing went together. It seems to me that Paul&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;baptize; but using the figure of hyperbole, he's saying: 'My emphasis is on getting on with the work of preaching the Gospel, the fact I've held the shoulders of many men and women as I pushed them under the water is irrelevant; Christ didn't send me to just do this, but more importantly to preach the Gospel'. And may this be our attitude too.</p><p><em>Not in the wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no power-&nbsp;</em>Paul did not seek to pressure people into baptism because he believed that the simple presentation of the cross of Christ would of itself elicit faith in people. This for all time demonstrates that apologetics and "the wisdom of words" will not persuade men to faith. That persuasion is in the message itself, which is of Christ crucified. No amount of smart arguments from science, archaeology, Bible prophecy being fulfilled etc. will of themselves persuade to faith. The bald presentation of the Gospel of the crucified Christ will of itself be 'powerful' to convert. And I speak from wide personal experience- as well as the clear implication of Paul's argument here. The paradox is that on the cross, the Lord 'made Himself of no power' (s:w. <em><a href='B:570 2:7'>Phi 2:7</a></em>), and it was that moment of human powerlessness which is of power to convert. This is the mystery of faith. It is a paradox which is developed in the following verses; what appears foolishness in the eyes of men is in fact the deep wisdom and saving power of God.</p><p>Paul had been reconciled, as have all men, by the cross. But he still needed to be converted, and this depended upon the freewill obedience of the likes of Ananias. It really is so, for Paul warned that preaching the Gospel with wisdom of words would make “the cross of Christ... of none effect” (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>). The effect of the cross, the power of it to save, is limited in its extent by our manner of preaching of it. And we can make “Christ”, i:e. His cross, of “none effect” by trusting to our works rather than accepting the gracious salvation which He achieved (<em><a href='B:550 5:4'>Gal 5:4</a></em>).</p><p>Paul declared unto Corinth “the testimony of God", i:e. “Christ and Him crucified" (<em><a href='B:530 2:1-2'>1Co 2:1-2</a></em>). This message was “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power", “the wisdom of God", “Christ crucified" (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:23-24'>1Co 1:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:4-5'>1Co 2:4-5</a></em>). Indeed, “the cross of Christ" is put for ‘the preaching of His cross’ (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>). All these things are parallel. The cross is in itself the testimony and witness of God. This is why, Paul reasons, the power of the cross itself means that it doesn’t matter how poorly that message is presented in human words; indeed, such is its excellence and power that we even&nbsp;<em>shouldn’t seek</em>&nbsp;to present it with a layer of human ‘culture’ and verbiage shrouding it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a></em>.</p><p><em>For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness</em>-</p><p> See on :17&nbsp;<em>Not in the wisdom of words</em>. What seems foolish is the wisdom and saving power of God. There is a temptation to make our witness to the world in terms and colours which appear intellectually or even academically respectable. But we must ever remember the dichotomy here presented- that the wisdom of God will be seen as foolish to those who will not believe it. We can't have it both ways- an argument with secular respectability which is also the power and wisdom of God.</p><p>Because we are in Christ, therefore we witness Him; and we witness as He witnessed:&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>witness is in fact ours. But there is a sober theme in Scripture: that the essential witness of Christ was in His time of dying. “The preaching ‘the word’ of the cross” (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>) refers to the way in which the cross itself was and is a witness, rather than speaking of preaching&nbsp;<em>about</em>&nbsp;the cross.</p><p>Do we feel ashamed that we just don’t witness as we ought to? There is no doubt that the cross and baptism into that death was central to the preaching message of the early brethren. Knowing it, believing it, meant that it just had to be preached. The completeness and reality of the redemption achieved is expressed in Hebrews with a sense of finality, and we ought not to let that slip from our presentation of the Gospel either. There in the cross, the justice and mercy of God are brought together in the ultimate way. There in the cross is the appeal. Paul spoke of “the preaching of the cross", the word / message which&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;the cross (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>). Some of the early missionaries reported how they could never get any response to their message until they explained the cross; and so, with our true doctrinal understanding of it, it is my belief that the cross is what has the power of conversion. A man cannot face it and not have a deep impression of the absoluteness of the issues involved in faith and unbelief, in choosing to accept or reject the work of the struggling, sweating, gasping Man who hung on the stake. It truly is a question of believe or perish. Baptism into that death and resurrection is essential for salvation. Of course we must not bully or intimidate people into faith, but on the other hand, a preaching of the cross cannot help but have something compulsive and urgent and passionate about it. For we appeal to men on God’s behalf to accept the work of the cross as efficacious for them. I submit that much of our preaching somehow fails in urgency and entreaty. We seem to be in places too expository, or too attractive with the peripherals, seeking to please men... or be offering good advice, very good advice indeed, background Bible knowledge, how to read the Bible effectively... all of which may be all well and good, but we should be preaching good news, not good advice. The message of the cross is of a grace and real salvation which is almost too good to believe. It isn’t Bible background or archaeology or Russia invading Israel. It is the Man who had our nature hanging there perfect, full of love, a light in this dark world... and as far as we perceive the wonder of it all, as far as this breaks in upon us, so far we will hold it forth to this world. The Lord wasn’t preaching good&nbsp;<em>ideas</em>; He was preaching good&nbsp;<em>news</em>. The cross means that we have a faith to live by all our days; not just a faith to die by, a comfort in our time of dying, as we face the endgame.</p><p><em>But to us who are saved it is the power of God-&nbsp;</em>The cross is the power of salvation to us who are 'being saved', in the saving process. The cross is not only the means of our forgiveness, in a transactional sense, as if at that moment in time, God enabled our forgiveness and salvation. For He can and could have saved in any way He chose. The cross is the ongoing salvation of God in that the Lord there is our endless inspiration and His death released and releases the living waters of the Spirit into human hearts- if they continue to believe in Him there, in an ongoing sense.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:220 5:12-13'>Job 5:12-13</a></em>.</p><p><em>For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise-&nbsp;</em>The quotation from <em><a href='B:290 29:14'>Isa 29:14</a></em> refers to the false 'wisdom' of the unfaithful Jews in Jerusalem at Hezekiah's time. It was perhaps the attraction of the Jewish false teachers which Paul is alluding to. Judaism had a strange attraction for even hedonistic Gentiles; as pointed out throughout our commentary on Titus. See on :20.</p><p><em>And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nothing-&nbsp;</em>There is an allusion here to the Lord's words: "You did hide these things from the wise and prudent, and did reveal them to babes" (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>). Paul alludes to some parts of the Gospels more than to others. The record of John the Baptist, the sermon on the mount, the parables and the record of Christ in Gethsemane are all referred to far more than average. This surely would not be the case if&nbsp;the connections between Paul's writings and the Gospels were&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;the result of the Spirit irresistibly carrying Paul along. We have suggested that Paul's enthusiasm for the record of John the Baptist was because he had probably first heard the Gospel from John; i:e. there was a reason personal to Paul as to why he alludes to much to that particular part of the Gospels. And so with his sustained allusions to Gethsemane, far more than we would expect statistically. Presumably the picture of the Lord Jesus struggling against His own nature, driven to the brink of eternal failure, was an image which echoed in Paul's mind. Likewise the parables were intended to be memorized and meditated upon; Paul did just this, and that's why he alludes to them more than average. This sort of pattern is just what we too experience; there are parts of Scripture which stick in our minds, often for personal reasons. And so it was with Paul. <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em> was a verse which was perhaps very much in his mind as he wrote to Corinth; it is alluded to in <em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:8'>1Co 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em> - and nowhere else.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:20'>1Co 1:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Where is the wise? Where is the scribe?&nbsp;Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :19, this quotation is from a passage talking about the vanity of Jewish wisdom (<em><a href='B:290 33:18'>Isa 33:18</a></em>). And it was Jewish false teaching which was the source of the problems at Corinth. Truly Paul despised all worldly advantage and insisted upon the radical principles of the Lord- that true greatness is in humility, wealth is in poverty, worldly learning is the very opposite of Divine wisdom, etc. He mocks, even, such things when he writes to the Corinthians: "Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?" (<em><a href='B:530 1:20'>1Co 1:20</a></em>). Every one of these terms would have been true of Saul the Pharisee, Paul the powerful user of rhetoric, Paul of the razor sharp mind. And he knew his worldly advantage, and despised it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God</em>-</p><p> This is the paradox; that worldly wisdom does not lead to relationship with God. 'Knowing God' refers to relationship and salvation, not simply claiming some form of belief in the existence of a Divine being or force. Life eternal, living the Kingdom life we shall eternally live, is to 'know God' (<em><a href='B:500 17:3'>Joh 17:3</a></em>). The Gospel message begins with the statement that to know God is a gift (<em><a href='B:480 4:11'>Mar 4:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 8:10'>Luk 8:10</a></em>); for those to whom it is not given, everything about God remains in parables. And so faith is not reached by reading learned books about science, creationism, archaeology or the historical fulfilments of Bible prophecy. For that is the wisdom of the world, which is foolishness with God. If that indeed were the path to faith, then the illiterate and simple would be unable to come to faith. Yet the poor of this world are those "rich in faith". But the gift of faith is available for all- who will look to the cross of Christ as Israel looked to the lifted up serpent, and allow the power of it to transform them. Yet faith therefore is not arrived at by intellectual process; it is a gift. From God. And it is the cross of Christ (:18), the foolishness of the thing preached (:21), which leads to knowing God. There can be no real belief in God nor knowing of Him without Christ- for He is the only way to the Father. Any attempt to reach faith in God by intellectual process is therefore ultimately doomed; it can only be reached through encounter with Christ.</p><p><em>It was God's good pleasure through the apparent foolishness of the message preached to save them that believe-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:530 1:21'>1Co 1:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:25'>1Co 1:25</a></em> speak of the Gospel as “the foolishness of the thing preached” (RV) – not that it&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;foolish, but it is perceived that way. The thing preached is clearly the cross- "For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (:18).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:22'>1Co 1:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Seeing that Jews ask for signs and Greeks seek after wisdom</em>-</p><p> The Jews, like modern Pentecostals, demanded miraculous signs in order to believe; and the Gentiles thought that secular wisdom could be the only way to a respectable faith. But faith in the true God is predicated upon encounter with the crucified Christ. Nothing visible nor intellectual will of itself bring a man to faith; both the Bible and observed experience support that. Whilst there is a tendency to chalk up conversions to various forms of outreach, and it is hard to define why belief is reached, Paul is here crystal clear that the ultimate force in conversion is encounter with Christ crucified.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:23'>1Co 1:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness-&nbsp;</em>The cross was foolishness to the Gentiles and an offence to the Jews. In Roman thought, the cross was something shocking; the very word ‘cross’ was repugnant to them. It was something only for slaves. Consider the following writings from the period:&nbsp;-</p><p> Cicero wrote: “The very word ‘cross’ should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears. For it is not only the actual occurrence of these things or the endurance of them, but… the very mention of them, that is unworthy of a Roman citizen and a free man… your honours i:e. Roman citizenship protect a man from… the&nbsp;<em>terror of the cross</em>”:&nbsp;-</p><p> Seneca the Elder in the&nbsp;<em>Controversiae</em>&nbsp;records where a master’s daughter marries a slave, and she is described as having become related to&nbsp;<em>cruciarii</em>, ‘the crucified’. Thus ‘the crucified’ was used by metonymy for slaves. The father of the girl is taunted: “If you want to find your son-in-law’s relatives,&nbsp;<em>go to the cross</em>”. It is hard for us to appreciate how slaves were seen as less than human in that society. There was a stigma and revulsion attached to the cross. This was the offence of the cross.-</p><p> Juvenal in his&nbsp;<em>6th Satire</em>&nbsp;records how a wife ordered her husband: “Crucify this slave”. “But what crime worthy of death has he committed?” asks the husband, “no delay can be too long when a man’s life is at stake”. She replies: “What a fool you are Do you call a slave a man?”. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The sense of shame and offence attached to the cross was also there in Jewish perception of it. Whoever was hung on a tree was seen as having been cursed by God (<em><a href='B:50 21:23'>Deu 21:23</a></em>). Justin Martyr, in&nbsp;<em>Dialogue with Trypho, &nbsp;records</em>&nbsp;Trypho (who was a Jew) objecting to Christianity: “We are aware that the Christ must suffer…but that he had to be&nbsp;<em>crucified</em>, that he had to die a death of such shame and dishonour- a death cursed by the Law- prove this to us, for we are totally unable to receive it”. Justin Martyr in his&nbsp;<em>Apology</em>&nbsp;further records: “They say that our madness consists in the fact that we place a&nbsp;<em>crucified</em>&nbsp;man in second place after the eternal God”. The Romans also mocked the idea of following a crucified man. There is a caricature which shows a crucified person with an ass’s head. The ass was a symbol of servitude note how the Lord rode into Jerusalem on an ass. The caption sarcastically says: “Alexamenos worships God”. This was typical of the offence of the cross.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But to them that are called, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God-&nbsp;</em>It has been pointed out that if some NT passages are translated into Aramaic, the common language of the day in first century Israel, there would have been ample encouragement for memorization. Thus: We preach Christ crucified (<em>mishkal</em>), unto the Jews a stumblingblock (<em>mikshol</em>), and unto the Greeks foolishness (<em>sekel</em>), but unto them that are called... the power (<em>hishkeel</em>) of God and the wisdom (<em>sekel</em>) of God" (<em><a href='B:530 1:23-24'>1Co 1:23-24</a></em>). "To them that are called" raises concerns as to whether faith, therefore, is just a gift given to some. But the call is in the Gospel, and specifically in the outstretched arms of the crucified Christ. All who encounter it are called; but many refuse to respond. Likewise we noted on :21 that to know God is a gift; but it is available to all who encounter His Son.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:25'>1Co 1:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men-&nbsp;</em>That Almighty all-wise God could inspire <em><a href='B:530 1:25'>1Co 1:25</a></em> is another example of God’s humility: “The foolishness of God… the weakness of God”. In <em><a href='B:300 14:21'>Jer 14:21</a></em> we find something likewise wonderful: “Do not abhor&nbsp;<em>us</em>… do not disgrace the throne of thy glory”:&nbsp;<em>We</em>, weak humans, are paralleled with the throne of God’s glory.</p><p><em>And the weakness of God is stronger than men-&nbsp;</em>The same word is used in :27 about the believers being "the weak things". Many times, this word is used about spiritual weakness, especially in 1Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 4:10'>1Co 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>; <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>). The foolishness of God has been defined as the cross of Christ; but that is now made parallel to the way God calls spiritually weak persons to be His vehicle of operation. Such an observation was relevant to the Corinthian situation. Those weak believers were used by God on account of their association with the cross of Christ, "the foolishness of God".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:26'>1Co 1:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Consider your calling, brothers; not many of you had worldly wisdom, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth</em>-</p><p> The references to 'wise' and 'powerful / mighty' men use the words just used about the Lord Jesus as the wisdom and power of God (:24). He can only be those things to those who are not wise or powerful- or, rather, who recognize that they are not those things. So the attraction of His wisdom and power is to those who recognize they lack those things- the unwise and the powerless. And that is why it is the chain smokers and the asylum seekers and the get rich quick scheme enthusiasts... who have what it takes to believe in Christ as the power and the wisdom of God.</p><p>The Lord Himself had implied that it was to the poor that the Gospel was more successfully preached. And Paul observed that in Corinth, not many mighty had been called, but most of them were poor (<em><a href='B:530 1:26-28'>1Co 1:26-28</a></em>). “Christianity in its beginnings was without doubt a movement of impoverished classes… the Christian congregation originally embraced proletariat elements almost exclusively and was a proletarian organization”. It has also been observed that the New Testament generally is written in very rough Greek, of a low cultural level when compared with other Greek literature of the period. The way he exhorts the Thessalonians to work with their own hands so that the world couldn’t criticize them implies the readership of Thessalonians were mainly manual workers (<em><a href='B:590 4:11'>1Th 4:11</a></em>). Likewise <em><a href='B:560 4:28'>Eph 4:28</a></em>:&nbsp;Paul wrote as if the “abysmal poverty” of the Macedonian ecclesias was well known (<em><a href='B:540 8:1-2'>2Co 8:1-2</a></em>); and yet he goes on to reason that they had “abundance” in comparison with the “lack” of the Jerusalem Christians (<em><a href='B:540 8:14'>2Co 8:14</a></em>). The Jewish Christians called themselves “Ebionites”, based on the Hebrew word for ‘the poor’- “it was probably a conscious reminiscence of a very early term which attested by Paul’s letters as an almost technical name for the Christians in Jerusalem and Judaea”. Even if not all these poor converts were slaves, they were all subservient to their employers / sources of income. Craftsmen would have had to belong to a pagan trade guild, normally&nbsp; involving idol worship which a Christian had to refuse, and slaves of course had no ‘right’ to their own religion if it differed from that of their household.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:27'>1Co 1:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Bit&nbsp;God chose the foolish things of the world-&nbsp;</em>The word&nbsp;<em>moros</em>&nbsp;is predominantly used about the spiritually foolish. This was so relevant to the spiritually weak Corinthians. They had been chosen so that in God's strength they could come to glory. Maybe this is why the Lord forbids us to call each other&nbsp;<em>moros,&nbsp;</em>"fool" (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). That is indeed how we are, spiritual blockheads. But we are not to see ourselves nor each other from that perspective- for we are called to be so much more, and it is through that weakness that God is to be glorified in His Son.</p><p><em>That He might put to shame those that are wise-&nbsp;</em>The 'wise' here are those who appear to be wise. The fools confounding the wise is an inverse allusion to the Lord's parables, where the wise are saved and the foolish are condemned e.g. in the parable of the two builders. But here, the foolish shame the wise. "Shame" is the language of condemnation at the last day- this 'shaming' will happen only then, when those who appeared to be so 'wise', so sorted out, so spiritually and worldly wise, shall be condemned and shamed by the salvation of the transformed 'fools'. This whole approach was very necessary in approaching a church as weak as Corinth. And it has enormous implications for us today.</p><p><em>And God chose the weak things of the world, that He might put to shame the things that are strong-&nbsp;</em>The word for "weak" is elsewhere used about the spiritually weak (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>; <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:590 5:14'>1Th 5:14</a></em>). The 'shame' is in the condemning of the apparently 'strong' at the last day by the apparently 'weak'. These terms effectively mean 'those who consider themselves weak / strong'. Rather like the Lord's statement that it is the sick and not the healthy who need a doctor- we must read in the ellipsis: 'those who consider themselves to be…'. All this is an outworking of the principle that "the weakness of God in the crucified Christ is stronger than men" (:25).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:28'>1Co 1:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God chose what is low and despised in the world-&nbsp;</em>"Low" is&nbsp;<em>agenes</em>, without descent. This may be a reference to the Gentiles, but "the world" of the first century despised people who could not prove where they came from. For people were identified by their ancestors and place of origin. Those who were on the very edge of society were those weak ones through whom His strength could work. Accepting this reasoning would make us conclude that the Christian church generally, and not just Corinth, should be comprised of the low, the stateless and those at the edges of society. For this is a general principle being explained here; it is not just relevant to Corinth. And yet in the West, the church is for the middle class. Historians claim that the early church was full of slaves, women and others on the edges. And this is what a mission church comprised of first generation converts will look like. The same Greek word for "despised" is used of the Pharisee despising the sinful publican in <em><a href='B:490 18:9'>Luk 18:9</a></em>, and those who understood more of the Gospel despising those who were still stuck in their old ways (<em><a href='B:520 14:3'>Rom 14:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 14:10'>Rom 14:10</a></em>). We note with interest the usage of the same word in Paul's appeal to ask those despised&nbsp;<em>within the church</em>&nbsp;to judge matters (<em><a href='B:530 6:4'>1Co 6:4</a></em>). Perhaps that too has a spiritual reference? But it was of course the Lord Himself who on the cross was the despised one; the same word is used about Him there in <em><a href='B:490 23:11'>Luk 23:11</a></em> and <em><a href='B:510 4:11'>Act 4:11</a></em>. He there was identified with the spiritually low and despised; for He died for sinners and not for the self-righteous.</p><p><em>Even things that are not-&nbsp;</em>The language here recalls <em><a href='B:520 4:17'>Rom 4:17</a></em>: "God, who gives life to the dead, and called things that are not, as though they were". The context there is of imputed righteousness. Those who had no righteousness are counted as if they do- by grace. This fits in with the context here in 1Corinthians- the Corinthians were woefully immature but in God's strength would be justified by grace through faith- and bring to nothing those people / things which appeared to be spiritually strong.</p><p><em>To bring to nothing things that are-&nbsp;</em>'Bringing to nothing' is the language of condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:530 6:13'>1Co 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:8'>2Th 2:8</a></em> etc:). The apparently strong, the things that apparently 'were' spiritually, therefore refer to those who shall appear at the day of judgment and be rejected. The idea of some at the judgment condemning others is to be found in various places- e.g. the men of Nineveh shall condemn the Jews of the Lord's say. So perhaps the picture is of those who appear so sorted out, so spiritually stable, so acceptable in secular terms... being condemned at the last day because they didn't really believe in the good news of Christ crucified, whereas those who were socially, spiritually and intellectually disadvantaged compared to them actually did believe in that saving good news. This is a powerful challenge to today's church.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So that no flesh should boast before God-&nbsp;</em>In <em><a href='B:550 6:14'>Gal 6:14</a></em>, Paul says that he will boast s:w. in nothing but the cross of Christ. We are not to boast of works, but only of what was achieved for us by grace through our faith in the Lord's cross (<em><a href='B:560 2:9'>Eph 2:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 3:3'>Phi 3:3</a></em>). Any trust in human strength or wisdom is so abhorrent to God. He chooses the powerless and unwise, or at least those who recognize their lack of power and wisdom, to be the ones through whom He shall work. No wonder the Lord taught that the wealthy will scarcely be saved.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But of Him are you in Christ Jesus</em>-</p><p> We are "of God" in that we are born of Him by being in His Son by baptism into Him.</p><p><em>Who was made to us by God to be our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption-&nbsp;</em>It is those who lack these things, and recognize their lack of them, who are likely to earnestly believe in the Lord's offer of those things through the cross of Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:31'>1Co 1:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That, according to what is written: He that boasts, let him boast in the Lord</em>-</p><p> The whole purpose of calling the unwise, unrighteous and unholy is so that when they are saved at the last day, they will be glorying totally in the Lord's grace and in Him, in His characteristics which are counted to them. It is all a question of giving total glory to the crucified Christ and the plan of salvation by grace which is in Him. This is why self-righteousness, self-sufficiency, self congratulation, human wisdom and acceptance within human society... are all the very characteristics of the person who will not truly respond to the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:1'>1Co 2:1</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 1:14'>Joh 1:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>I brothers, when I came to you, I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God</em>-</p><p> Paul has just argued in chapter 1 that the wisdom of God is in the crucified Christ, and those who are humanly wise will not respond to it. So Paul reasons that we should likewise present the Gospel with no attempt to make the cross of Christ somehow intellectually respectable, or acceptable in a secular sense. I have previously failed in this and so has so much Gospel outreach. Paul of course as a Rabbi and an intellectual could indeed have presented the Gospel with the trappings of secular wisdom. But he writes here as if he consciously stripped his message of anything like that. His message was after all, that of God in Christ- "the testimony of God". The Greek here seems to specifically mean 'evidence'. Faith is not built upon evidence that is visible (<em><a href='B:650 11:1-2'>Heb 11:1-2</a></em>)- and that includes arguments from science, archaeology etc. The evidence / testimony of God is "the cross of Christ"; and the addition of human wisdom to it makes it of none effect (<em><a href='B:530 1:17'>1Co 1:17</a></em>). This is God's evidence which He provides to us in order for us to have a basis for faith. In encountering the Lord Jesus there, we are challenged to believe in God, as faith in God really is. All the energy expended upon apologetics to provide a supposed basis for faith is therefore in my view misguided. It is psychological encounter with the crucified Christ which elicits faith.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:2'>1Co 2:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified-&nbsp;</em>See on :1. The "determined" reflects Paul's struggle with the temptation to make the message of Christ crucified somewhat respectable in secular terms.</p><p>The letters to Corinth must have been very difficult to write. Paul was walking an absolute minefield. Therefore he&nbsp; says that his attitude to Corinth was that he wanted to know nothing among them, saving Jesus Christ and Him crucified (<em><a href='B:530 2:2'>1Co 2:2</a></em>); he wanted to keep his mind fixed upon the Lord Jesus and the intensity of His passion, rather than get sidetracked by personality issues and ecclesial politics. And his letters reveal this. They contain many unconscious allusions to the suffering and death of Christ. Paul refers to Christ as "Lord" throughout all his letters about once every 26 verses on average. And yet in Corinthians he does so once every 10 verses on average. The Lordship and suffering of Jesus were therefore very much in Paul's mind as he wrote. His Christ and cross-centred perspective is a real example to us, living as we do at a time when the body of Christ increasingly distracts us from the central object of our devotion: the Son of God who died for us, and was raised again for our justification.</p><p>When Paul faced Corinth, the ecclesia whom he had loved and brought into being with great labour pains, yet now riven with carnality, fabricating the most malicious rumours against him, bitter at his spirituality... he determined to know nothing among them, saving Christ, and Him crucified. The antidote to ecclesial problems and selfishness is reflection upon the cross. By insisting on our rights, Paul says, we will make the weak brother stumble, "for whom Christ died". 'Think of His cross and sacrifice', Paul is saying, 'and the sacrifice of self restraint&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;are asked to make is nothing at all'.</p><p>Despite “the offence of the cross", Paul preached it. “I determined not to know i:e. ‘teach the knowledge of' any thing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified". Paul didn’t accommodate his message to the ears of his hearers. There are times when God’s revelation&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;accommodated to us, but not when it comes to the basic message of Christ and the demands which His cross makes upon us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:3'>1Co 2:3</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling-&nbsp;</em>For Paul, his glory was not in heroic "deeds of the body" see on <em><a href='B:550 1:10'>Gal 1:10</a></em> but rather in the fact that when he first preached to the Corinthians, he was suffering from "weakness... much fear and trembling"- a reference to anything from agitated nervous breakdown to malaria. We have <em><a href='B:550 4:13'>Gal 4:13</a></em> in the same vein: "You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at the first". So it could be that this is a reference to his physical weakness at the time he preached to the Corinthians. But William Barclay understands the Greek words to more imply “the trembling anxiety to perform a duty”, and I tend to run with this. The words are a reflection of the heart that bled within Paul. The man who has no fear, no hesitancy, no nervousness, no tension in the task of preaching…may give an efficient and competent performance from a platform. But it is the man who has this trembling anxiety, that intensity which comes from a heart that bleeds for ones hearers, who will produce an effect which artistry alone can never achieve. He is the man who will convert another. It has truly been said that “the need is the call”. To perceive the needs of others is what calls us and compels us to witness, coupled with our own disappointment with ourselves, our race, our nature.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 2:3-5'>1Co 2:3-5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 15:26'>Joh 15:26</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:4'>1Co 2:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power-&nbsp;</em>This is parallel in thought to Paul's idea that he would preach the cross of Christ without any words of human wisdom. The "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" is thus paralleled to the cross of Christ. Here was and is the demonstration of Spirit and power. And yet in what sense can the cross of Christ be so powerful? I would say that the Lord's death was designed and is empowered to produce faith in God within those who accept it. For the Spirit was released as rivers of waters from His slain body. And especially in the first century context of illiteracy, the cross of Christ had power in that it was the motivation for the living examples of Christian sacrifice which were Christianity's best advert.</p><p>The essence of all this is the same today as it was then- the revelation of the person of Jesus isn’t solely through Bible reading and getting the interpretation right; it’s through a living community, His body. It is there that we will see His Spirit / personality in action. I don’t refer to miraculous gifts- but to the spirit / mind / disposition / essence of the Lord, man and saviour Jesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:5'>1Co 2:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God-&nbsp;</em>Paul has earlier defined "the power of God" as the crucified Christ (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>). Paul correctly perceived that a person's faith 'stands in' the message they first receive and believe. The teacher / preacher therefore has huge responsibility to teach the right thing. Real faith is not in the wisdom of men, Paul has argued, nor is it predicated upon anything other than the cross of Christ. And so he preached likewise- simply of the cross. The Greek phrase translated "stand in" is the closest we get in the Bible to an explanation of the substance of faith; of what faith is based in. And it is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;in "the wisdom of men", including apologetics. It is in the "power of God" which we have earlier defined as Christ crucified (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:6'>1Co 2:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>We speak wisdom, however, among them that are mature</em>-</p><p> Paul spoke only of Christ crucified (:2), and so the true wisdom was Him. The "mature" would perceive this. For we have just been told that God has made Christ to be "wisdom" for us (<em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>). The Corinthians needed exhortation to become "mature" (<em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em>); maturity has been reached by some now (<em><a href='B:570 3:15'>Phi 3:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 4:12'>Col 4:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:14'>Heb 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 1:4'>Jas 1:4</a></em>) and yet in another sense it is yet future, when we attain the full measure of Christ's maturity (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:28'>Col 1:28</a></em>). The same Greek word is used in all these passages. The idea that faith is predicated upon encounter with Christ crucified will be struggled against, shot down as philosophically lacking, intellectually weak and so forth. But the paradox is that the mature will perceive it. When you reach 'Christ', the maturity that is Him, then we will understand that&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>is of Him and His cross.</p><p><em>Yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nothing-&nbsp;</em>The wisdom of this world and its "princes" (AV), its academics and philosophers and chat show hosts, is 'coming to nothing'. Paul has just used the same word in <em><a href='B:530 1:28'>1Co 1:28</a></em> of how the despised simple believers shall 'bring to nothing' what seems so smart and wise. The means by which the wise of this world shall be brought to nothing is through the simple believers. And the Greek tense used suggests that this is ongoing- the wise of this world are already "coming to nothing". The world rulers are defined in :8 as those who crucified the Lord; Paul envisaged the overthrow of the Jewish system as being at the hands of the humble Christian believers, including the worldly Gentiles of Corinth. Things didn't work out that way because the Lord's return was delayed until our last days, but the principle remains the same.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:7'>1Co 2:7</a></em><em>&nbsp;But we speak God's wisdom in a mystery</em>-</p><p> Paul doesn't mean that he has shrouded the simple message of the cross in "a mystery". For he has spoken of how his preaching is of the cross of Christ, stripped of literally anything else (:2). He means that the message of God's wisdom, which is Christ crucified (<em><a href='B:530 1:24'>1Co 1:24</a></em>), is so simple that it is received as a mystery by the wise of this world and indeed by all those who do not believe it.</p><p><em>Even that which was hidden, which God foreordained before the ages for our glory-&nbsp;</em>The appeal of the cross is "hidden" in that the 'wise' won't see it because they choose not to believe it. The allusion is surely to the usage of the same word in the Lord's teaching that the things of the Gospel had been 'hidden' from the wise, and revealed to babes (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>). <em><a href='B:530 2:6-9'>1Co 2:6-9</a></em> stresses how the early believers possessed a truth which nobody else apart from them could know. Whilst this feature of true Christianity led into the arrogance and pride which eventually doomed the early church, when and whilst used properly, it bound them even closer together. Nikolaus Walter observes that the first century generally “did not experience religion as a binding force that was capable of determining everyday reality by offering support, setting norms, and forming community”. And yet the Truth of Christ enabled just such things to occur. In this, as today, the example of the community is the ultimate proof that the doctrine of Christ which we teach is indeed the Truth and of itself demands conversion:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:8'>1Co 2:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Which not one of the rulers of this world has known. For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory-&nbsp;</em>The rulers or princes of the world therefore referred specifically to the Roman-Jewish leaders who crucified the Lord. As noted on :6, those rulers were already 'coming to nothing' and would be condemned by the simple faith of illiterate Christians. Such talk of the overthrow of empire and ruling systems was criminal within the first century Roman empire. But Paul writes as he does, so important is the message of how simple faith shall gloriously triumph over all secular splendour.</p><p>Paul saw the naked, forsaken, mocked, bleeding, spittle covered body of Jesus as glorious. This was another inversion of all human values. And His glory is ours- for :7 has just mentioned that this mystery was foreordained for "our glory". The Lord's glory is ours, and ours is his.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But as it is written: Things which eye saw not and ear heard not and which did not enter into the heart of man, whatever things God prepared for them that love Him-&nbsp;</em>The context is speaking of man's rejection of the crucified Christ. Unbelievers did not perceive see or hear that message, neither therefore did it enter their heart. The "things God prepared" are therefore those of the crucified Christ, who died in order to achieve that great salvation "for them that love Him". The 'things prepared' are those of the Kingdom feast (<em><a href='B:470 20:23'>Mat 20:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 22:4'>Mat 22:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:34'>Mat 25:34</a></em>); but the same word is also used of the 'preparation' of the Lord Jesus as our sacrifice (<em><a href='B:490 2:31'>Luk 2:31</a></em>). The cross of Christ enabled all the wonderful things of the Kingdom and the salvation experience in Christ. And it is all those things which are not really believed by the eyes, ears and heart of secular man, because the wisdom of this world has blinded them to it.</p><p>So the things which God has prepared for those who love Him, things which the natural eye has not seen but&nbsp; which are revealed unto us by the Spirit, relate to our redemption in Christ, rather than the wonders of the future political Kingdom (because <em><a href='B:470 13:11'>Mat 13:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 16:17'>Mat 16:17</a></em> = <em><a href='B:530 2:9-10'>1Co 2:9-10</a></em>). The context of 1 Corinthians 2 and the allusions to Isaiah there demand the same interpretation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>God revealed them to us through the Spirit-&nbsp;</em>Again the allusion is to <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>, where the Lord praises the Father for 'hiding' His identity from the wise and prudent, and revealing it s:w. to "babies". Those immature, largely illiterate disciples who 'got it' about Jesus are therefore us. Here Paul adds that the process through which that revelation happens is "through the Spirit". This is not to say that one person is zapped by the Spirit and forced to believe, but another is not. There is indeed an element whereby faith is not simply a result of human steel will, but involves the gracious work of the Spirit on human minds. Yet as explained so far in Corinthians, it is our freewill choice to encounter the crucified Christ and believe in God's salvation through Him.</p><p><em>For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God</em>-</p><p> The "things" in view are surely those concerning the Lord Jesus and His kingdom of :9. These are the deep things, and not any apparent profundity of human wisdom or debates. The 'Spirit' is personified as searching around all the depths of God's mysteries because we are going to now read that this Spirit has been given to us, so that&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>might know those deep things. This is all beautifully shown by a comparison of <em><a href='B:290 64:4'>Isa 64:4</a></em> and <em><a href='B:530 2:9'>1Co 2:9</a></em>: “Men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither has the eye seen, O God, besides you, what He has prepared for him that waits for him”. Paul quotes this in <em><a href='B:530 2:9-10'>1Co 2:9-10</a></em>: “It is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love Him. But God has revealed them unto&nbsp;<em>us</em>&nbsp;by His Spirit”. The passage in Isaiah 64 says that no one except God can understand the things He has prepared for the believers. However <em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em> says that those things have been revealed to&nbsp;<em>us</em>. Because His Spirit is given to us and becomes our spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:11'>1Co 2:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For who among men knows the things of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the things of God nobody knows, save the Spirit of God-&nbsp;</em>The spirit of a person is intimately connected to themselves. Only the heart knows its own bitterness in this sense, and likewise an external person can never totally get involved with the heart's joy (<em><a href='B:240 14:10'>Pro 14:10</a></em>). This is the wonder of the fact that God's Spirit is given to us; this is the intimacy possible between God and man in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:12'>1Co 2:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, so that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God</em>-</p><p> The "we" refers to the same "we" who were speaking / teaching the Corinthians (:13) and refers I suggest specifically to Paul and his preaching team. The spirit of the world is the mindset of "the wisdom of this world". Although Paul had that in his rabbinic days, he disregarded it. The Spirit he had received was in response to his faith in the crucified Christ whom he had encountered. This was God's Spirit, and revealed the things of God; and it was those things which he taught to the Corinthians in his preaching of the Gospel. The "things" were "freely given" in that the Spirit of God as it were searches all of God's things. The connection between Christ crucified and the free gift of God's "things" is developed in <em><a href='B:520 8:32'>Rom 8:32</a></em>, where the same words are used: "He that spared not His own Son but delivered him up for us all, how shall He not also with him freely give us all things?". Once we accept the gift of God's Son, then all else, quite literally, is surely going to be given. And those things include faith and understanding. The Greek word for "freely given" is also that translated 'forgive'. Our experience of forgiveness on account of the cross opens the way to receive so much more too- all the things of God's free giving. For the cross not only is the basis for the 'free giving' of forgiveness, but of God's Spirit which knows all things.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:13'>1Co 2:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Which things also we speak about</em>-</p><p> The "things" are those of the Gospel of Christ which Paul spoke or taught.</p><p><em>But not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but in words that the Spirit teaches</em>-</p><p> Paul has said that he preaches Christ crucified without any words of human wisdom. They are the "things" in view. The words taught by the Spirit were therefore the words of or concerning the cross. Paul's teaching of the Corinthians was only verbalizing what the Spirit taught which flowed from the crucified Lord. We can now better understand why "the Spirit" is a title of the Lord Jesus in material like Romans, 2 Corinthians and Revelation. He personally is to be identified with His Spirit which He freely gives to all who believe in Him.</p><p><em>Combining spiritual things with spiritual-&nbsp;</em>The Spirit in Paul's message would connect with the Spirit within the believers at Corinth. The GNB seems to get the point of this rather difficult Greek: "As we explain spiritual truths to those who have the Spirit". It was and is only to the spiritual that spiritual things make sense; to all others, who do not believe the simple message of the cross and all that is given to us through His work there, the spiritual things remain mysterious and unwise. And I have to add, that those believers who resist the current work of the Spirit will likewise find many things closed and hidden, because the Spirit of those teachings is not being allowed to combine with the Spirit within them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:14'>1Co 2:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot know them-&nbsp;</em>Secular wisdom will not believe in a crucified Saviour. Instead of allowing the crucified Christ to convert them, they rush to Josephus and other early historians to enquire whether Jesus of Nazareth really died on a cross outside Jerusalem. But the point is that there is a power within Him there which of itself converts- if we let it, and humble ourselves to shed our human wisdom. Any references in Josephus etc. are at best confirmations of our faith, but play no part in essential faith in Christ. We must take seriously the repeated reports of the early missionaries, that they could not elicit belief in the message of Christianity or the Christian God amongst the illiterate folk they encountered in Africa or the Pacific islands- until they explained or drew pictures of the crucifixion. Then, all seemed to make sense- to those who felt their own sin and thirsted for forgiveness and connection with the one God. "The natural man" is the wise of this world who would consider the cross and all we have written about it to be foolish. Because human pride has stopped him believing. He will not "know" these things because he cannot- until he quits his human wisdom.</p><p>Paul saw the cross of Christ as parallel with “the things of the Spirit of God", the wisdom of God, what eye has not seen nor ear heard, but what is revealed unto the believer and not to the world (<em><a href='B:530 1:18'>1Co 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:23-24'>1Co 1:23-24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:7-13'>1Co 2:7-13</a></em>). The cross of Christ was the supreme expression of the Spirit of God, and it’s true meaning is incomprehensible to the world. In the cross, according to Paul’s allusion back to Isaiah, God bowed the Heavens and came down. He did wonderful things which we looked not for. The thick darkness there is to be associated with a theophany presence of God Himself. See on <em><a href='B:500 19:19'>Joh 19:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Because they are spiritually discerned-&nbsp;</em>Only the Spirit within a person who has believed in the crucified Christ will be able to 'combine with' or connect with Spiritual things (:13). The Greek word means literally to question; asking questions as we read God’s word is therefore an appropriate thing for us to be doing. Paul is not advocating a simplistic approach, nor a shutting down of any critical, analytical approach.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>But he that is spiritual judges all things; and he is ultimately judged by no man-&nbsp;</em>Those who have believed in the crucified Lord will receive of His Spirit, and are thereby able to judge or discern the truth of the things Paul was preaching. Such persons will be mocked and despised by the wise of this world; but ultimately, they are not judged by those men. Indeed, they shall bring to nothing all such pretensions in the day of final judgment, as explained in <em><a href='B:530 1:27-28'>1Co 1:27-28</a></em> (see notes there).</p><p>In the final analysis, we will meet Jesus alone. There will by God’s grace be a moment when we will even see the face of Almighty God- alone. This was the light at the end of Job’s tunnel- he would see his redeemer for himself “and not another”. Paul possibly expresses the same idea of an unenterable relationship in <em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em>: "He that is spiritual discerneth all things (about God), yet he himself is discerned of no man":&nbsp; Our real spiritual being is a "hidden man" (<em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em>). The Spirit describes our final redemption as our "soul" and "spirit" being "saved" ; our innermost being, our essential spiritual personality, who we&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;are in spiritual terms, will as it were be immortalized (<em><a href='B:670 1:9'>1Pe 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>). Notice that Paul styles the spiritual man "he himself" (<em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em> AV); as if the real, fundamental self of the true believer is the spiritual man, notwithstanding the existence of the man of the flesh within him. Likewise Paul calls his spiritual man "I myself" in <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>. He now felt that when he sinned, it was no longer “I", his real, personal self, who was doing so (<em><a href='B:520 7:17'>Rom 7:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:16'>1Co 2:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:220 21:22'>Job 21:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ</em>-</p><p> The person who knows the Lord's mind is the one who has His Spirit (:11). We have the mind of Christ, who had the mind of God. The spirit of Christ and that of God are the same thing. The idea that men should instruct God is unthinkable- but this is what effectively is the position of those who consider that their human wisdom is the true wisdom, and God's wisdom is foolishness. The quotation from <em><a href='B:290 40:13-14'>Isa 40:13-14</a></em> is about God's people in Babylon being tempted to think that the wisdom of Babylon, perhaps the most advanced in the world at its time, was somehow superior to that of Israel's God. Paul uses the same idea in <em><a href='B:520 11:34'>Rom 11:34</a></em> concerning the false wisdom of Judaism claiming as it were to be superior to God's wisdom in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I, brothers, can not speak to you as spiritual people, but as carnal people-&nbsp;</em>The "we" who have the Spirit in <em><a href='B:530 2:13'>1Co 2:13</a></em> refer to Paul and his preaching team and not all at Corinth. The Corinthians possessed the miraculous gifts, but were in a more fundamental sense Spirit-less. “John did no miracle”, but was filled with the Spirit from his birth. Even the Comforter, which does refer to the miraculous gifts in its primary context, was, in perhaps another sense, to be unseen by the world, and to be&nbsp;<em>within&nbsp;</em>the believers (<em><a href='B:500 14:17'>Joh 14:17</a></em>). It could well be that the Lord’s discourse with Nicodemus concerning the need to be born both of water and Spirit must be read in the context of John’s baptism; his was a birth of water, but Christian baptism is being described with an almost technical term: birth of the Spirit, in that baptism into the Spirit of Jesus brings the believer into the realm of the operation of God’s Spirit. But as happened with the Corinthians, it is possible to deny the Spirit any space to operate within us; those who resist any idea of the Spirit working directly within the human mind are putting themselves in the same position. This is the answer to those who complain that they were baptized but 'feel' no Spirit operation; the potential was given, and is still there, as chapters 1 and 2 make so clear about the Corinthians; but they were not Spirit-filled because they didn't allow it.</p><p><em>As infants in Christ</em>-</p><p> But they were still "in Christ". And Paul respects them for that.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:2'>1Co 3:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I fed you with milk, not with solid food. For you were not yet able to bear it; no, not even now are you able-&nbsp;</em>Paul has defined what he initially taught them as being the crucified Christ. And he has proceeded to develop the idea that the presence of the Spirit within believers in Christ will enable them to 'combine with' further Spiritual teaching. But despite their initial belief, like so many today, they had not remained open to the Spirit, and so Paul was unable to share with them the deeper matters of the Spirit. Or if he did, they could not connect with those things because they were lacking the Spirit within them (see on <em><a href='B:530 2:13'>1Co 2:13</a></em>). The language here and in <em><a href='B:650 5:12-14'>Heb 5:12-14</a></em> surely alludes to <em><a href='B:500 16:12'>Joh 16:12</a></em>, although it doesn’t verbally quote it: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now”. "Able" is&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>, they were not of power to receive Spiritual things; and chapter 1 has laboured the point that&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>&nbsp;comes from the Spirit of Christ received at baptism.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:3'>1Co 3:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For you are still carnal. For whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are you not carnal and do you not walk after the manner of men?-&nbsp;</em>Paul can confidently conclude that they are not Spiritual, and therefore still carnal, because there is no evidence of the fruits of the Spirit. Jealousy, strife and division are the works of the flesh and advertise a lack of the Spirit within (<em><a href='B:550 5:20'>Gal 5:20</a></em>):We are not to judge others in the sense of condemning them; butlike Paul here, we canquite simply observe whether someone has the Spirit by whether they manifest the fruits of the Spirit:We may find that those who differ from us in some areas of Biblical interpretation clearly have the Spirit; and others who share our theology may be Spirit-less. Note that&nbsp;<em>"</em>strife" here translates<em>&nbsp;eris</em>, from whence 'heresy'. The real heresy is division between believers; and yet it is the fear of heresy which so often creates divisions:Paul could have chosen various indicators of the lack of the Spirit amongst the Corinthians; but he chooses the strife and division amongst them as the clearest example of it on a group level. For the joint possession of the Spirit creates unity- the unity of the Spirit. Where this is lacking on a collective level, it is clear that generally, as a community, the Spirit is lacking. This is not to say there were not individuals in Corinth who had the Spirit. But the reasoning here is forceful- any divided church, denomination or community is evidence that on a general, collective level, they are carnal and not Spirit filled.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:4'>1Co 3:4</a></em><em>&nbsp;For when one says: I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos- are you not mere men?-&nbsp;</em>They were "men" rather than being 'spirit' on a collective level; see on :3. The division of the church into groups based around which teacher they preferred or who had baptized them was an evidence that the Spirit received at baptism had not been allowed to dwell within them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:5'>1Co 3:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who then is Apollos? And who is Paul? Ministers through whom you believed, and each as the Lord gave to him-&nbsp;</em>A Christ centred approach makes the person who preached to us a mere instrument, a servant / minister used by the Lord to bring about faith. "Each as the Lord gave to him" could refer to the way that Paul and Apollos were simply fulfilling the ministries given to them by the Lord; but the context is of faith and how one comes to belief. So the reference may rather be to the fact that each of them had believed as a result of the Lord's gift / grace. This was to be paramount in their thinking; the human instruments used in the process were of utterly no account.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:6'>1Co 3:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase-&nbsp;</em>The "increase" in the context is their faith; hence Paul later writes of "when your faith is increased" (<em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>). Faith is a gift from God. This metaphor would have stopped at the planting and watering if the Gospel alone was enough to provoke faith. Paul later explains how that in his preaching he laid the foundation of the Gospel of Christ, but other brethren were building on it, as here in this earlier parable he speaks of his planting the seed of the Gospel and Apollos watering it. He warned these 'builder' brethren to "take heed how he buildeth thereupon", because "every man's work (cp. "ye are my work in the Lord", <em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>) shall be made manifest: for the day (of judgment) shall declare it... the fire of judgment shall try every man's work, of what sort it is... gold, silver... wood, hay, stubble... if any man's work abide which he hath built... he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" (<em><a href='B:530 3:6-15'>1Co 3:6-15</a></em>). This clearly teaches that successful building up of brethren will have its specific reward at the judgment; and that to some degree their rejection will be a result of our lack of zeal, and we will thus lose the extra reward which we could have had for the work of upbuilding. No doubt if the brethren we have laboured hard with to help, are with us in the Kingdom, this will greatly increase our joy- as compared to the brother who has not had such intense fellowship with his brethren during this life, and whose close friends in the ecclesia have been rejected, he himself only barely passing through the fire of judgment himself ("Yet so as by fire").</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:7'>1Co 3:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So then neither is he that plants anything, neither he that waters, but God that gives the increase</em>-</p><p> The channels by which God works are not themselves the source of faith. In chapter 1, Paul has tackled the fact that the Corinthians were divided into camps based around various teachers or baptizers. What's significant is that the individuals being so fiercely followed (Paul, Peter and Apollos) did not themselves want that following. And this kind of thing has repeated itself in church history. People want a human leader, a badge to wear, a human identity- and so they will chose persons and even systems which do not want to be treated in that way, but all the same, those people are made to fit the very human needs of the people.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now he that plants and he that waters are one, but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour</em>-</p><p> Despite having said that in terms of giving faith and salvation, the channels are nothing- Paul is clear that those who do this work will be rewarded. The planter and waterer are "one" in that they are both being used by God, but they shall individually receive a reward for their work. Whilst salvation is by grace and not according to works, it is also true that the nature of our eternity will be a reflection of our works in this life. And the judgment process will reflect that; one will reign over five cities, another over 10 cities; just as one star differs from another in glory.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:9'>1Co 3:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 15:26'>Rom 15:26</a></em>.</p><p><em>For we are God's fellow-workers-&nbsp;</em>We are co-workers with Him in the building up of His house (<em><a href='B:530 3:9'>1Co 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>). He could save men directly; but instead He has delegated that work to us, and thereby limited His power to save insofar as it depends upon our extension of it. Only through our preaching can the work of the cross be made complete- and that thought is frightening. God is building up His house, His ecclesia. But because we manifest God, we too are "labourers together with Him", not just puppets in His hand; we too are the builders of His house (<em><a href='B:530 3:9-13'>1Co 3:9-13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a></em>). The contrast between "we" and "you" has been noted earlier- the "we" surely refers to Paul and Silas.</p><p><em>You are God's husbandry, God's building</em>-</p><p> "Husbandry" is literally 'farm'. The same word is used of how previously, Israel had been God's farm (<em><a href='B:470 21:33-38'>Mat 21:33-38</a></em>); but now the likes of the Gentile Corinthians were that farm. But they appeared to be likewise yielding no spiritual fruit, despite all the work being done for them. We note that the Father is the husbandman (<em><a href='B:500 15:1'>Joh 15:1</a></em>); and yet in another sense, we are the husbandmen. He is working with us through every effort made to promote spiritual fruit in His people. We are labourers together with none less that God Himself whenever we do anything to build up others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:10'>1Co 3:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder-&nbsp;</em>The gift "grace" of God, the Spirit gift, was Paul's 'wisdom'. For he has explained in chapter 1 that spiritual wisdom is a Spirit gift from God.</p><p><em>I laid a foundation, and another builds upon it</em>-</p><p> The foundation was in converting unbelievers to the cross of Christ (:11). The rejected stone of Christ becomes the foundation stone "corner stone" for the faith of every individual and every true church. Paul saw himself as called to break new ground, to lay the foundation of Christian belief where it had not been laid before (<em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>); but he depended upon others to build upon it. This is in line with the terms of the great commission- to preach the simple news of the Lord's death and resurrection, to baptize people into it, and then afterwards to "teach them all things that I have commanded" (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>).</p><p><em>But let each man take care how he builds upon it</em>-</p><p> The allusion is surely to the parable of the wise and foolish builders; for Paul has just claimed that he is a&nbsp;<em>wise</em>&nbsp;builder, laying a firm foundation. And the tension between wise and foolish is often played upon in these early chapters of 1Corinthians. His take on the parable is interesting, in that he seems to be arguing that it refers to the work we do in building up others, rather than in laying a personal foundation and building as it were our own house.</p><p>Paul’s reasoning in <em><a href='B:530 3:10-12'>1Co 3:10-12</a></em> is that “every man” will make a convert, and he should ensure they are firm in the faith, lest he lose them at judgment day. These assumptions of Paul reflect his positive way of thought, in a brotherhood that abounded in weakness and failure to live up to its potential. Likewise he writes of marriage as if marriage within the faith was and is the only model of marriage which he knows, even though there must have been many failures to live up to this ideal, as there are today. Paul seems to have assumed that all of us would preach and make converts (not leave it to just some of our community): he speaks of how "every man" in the ecclesia builds upon the foundation of Christ, but how he builds will be judged by fire. If what he has built is burnt up at the judgment, he himself will be saved, but not what he has built. I would suggest that the 'building' refers to our converts and work with other believers. If they fail of the Kingdom, we ourselves will be saved, but our work will have been in vain. This parable also suggests that the salvation of others, their passing through the fire at the judgment, is dependent upon how we build. This may be hyperbole to make a point, but it is a powerful encouragement that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;elders and preachers, and we&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;have a deep effect on others' spirituality. We have responsibilities to those who respond to our preaching.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:11'>1Co 3:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ</em>-</p><p> In chapters 1 and 2, Paul has explained that the foundation is Christ crucified; he determined to preach nothing other than that. The same word is used in <em><a href='B:650 6:1'>Heb 6:1</a></em> about the foundation of "faith toward God". Paul has explained that faith in God is predicated upon encounter with His crucified Son. And yet atheism was not popular in the first century Mediterranean world. The point is that in reality, we are not really believers in God unless we are believers in His Son; for the Son is the only way to the Father. Paul may be implying that some were seeking to claim to have laid some other foundation, disregarding the ground work Paul had done. The allusion to the parable of the wise and foolish builders suggests that the foundation is laid upon a rock- the Lord Jesus- rather than sand. This is the only valid building. And that rock is defined by the Lord Jesus as being Him and His words, believed and acted upon.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:12'>1Co 3:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if anyone builds on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble</em>-</p><p> The builders upon the foundation of Paul's basic preaching work were those who then did the pastoral work of teaching all that the Lord has commanded (<em><a href='B:470 28:20'>Mat 28:20</a></em>). The materials they build with refer to the quality of those they build up. Gold, silver and precious stones can pass through the fire (:13)- the final test of judgment day. And these three figures are used elsewhere about the believers. The other corresponding three figures will be burnt up by the fire. Here we see the principle that the final acceptance of individuals is partly related to the quality of the teaching and caring work done for them by third parties. God has built this factor into the algorithm of our salvation in order that we may each one devote ourselves to caring for others spiritually, and so that likewise we may realize our own need for others' help in our own path to salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Each man's work shall be revealed. For the day of judgment shall declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire itself shall test each man's work of what sort it is</em>-</p><p> The 'revelation' and 'declaration' will be public because in some unimaginable form, the judgment experience will be public. We shall each perceive the various factors in the final salvation and condemnation of each person. The judgment process will reveal openly the efforts made by others towards the salvation of others; the fire shall "test" our work with each other. And Paul writes not merely of himself and his preaching team, but of 'every man'; for we are each called to work in building others up against that day. The same word for "test" is used of how we can examine ourselves now at the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 11:28'>1Co 11:28</a></em>); for that meeting is, or can be, a foretaste of judgment day. We can 'test our own selves' ahead of that day (<em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em> s:w:):&nbsp; Right now God is 'testing' our hearts (<em><a href='B:590 2:4'>1Th 2:4</a></em>); the judgment process will be a declaration for&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;collective benefit of God's present judgments. Peter seems to allude to Paul's ideas here when he writes that the faithful are as gold who pass through the fire right now, and are 'tested' with fire through present experience (<em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em> s:w:). Through our response to trial we therefore have a foretaste of judgment day.</p><p>At the point of conversion, the secrets of our hearts are in a sense made manifest (<em><a href='B:530 14:25'>1Co 14:25</a></em>); but secrets are made manifest in the last day (<em><a href='B:470 6:4'>Mat 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 6:18'>Mat 6:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>). The present judgments of God about us will be revealed at the judgment (<em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>). Our actions "treasure up" wrath or acceptance (<em><a href='B:520 2:5'>Rom 2:5</a></em>). The materialistic believer heaps up treasure for judgment at the last day (<em><a href='B:660 5:3'>Jas 5:3</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:490 11:23'>Luk 11:23</a></em>.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 3:12-15'>1Co 3:12-15</a></em> likens all the faithful to material which can pass through the fire of judgment- and this surely is a reference to the way that Jericho was burnt with fire, and only the metals along with Rahab and her family came through that fire to salvation (<em><a href='B:60 6:24'>Jos 6:24</a></em>). Thus according to the allusion, Rahab and her family represent all the faithful.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:14'>1Co 3:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone's work shall endure which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward</em>-</p><p> Our reward in the Kingdom will in some way be related to the work of upbuilding we have done with our brethren and sisters in this life. The "reward" which <em><a href='B:530 3:14'>1Co 3:14</a></em> speaks of is the "work" we have built in God's ecclesia in this life. In agreement with this, Paul describes those he had laboured for as the reward he would receive in the 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 has in mind that the Corinthians were his "work in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>). He encourages all the Corinthians to likewise abound in this "work of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a></em>)- i:e. of building up each other. Paul has said in :8 that he is liable for "reward"- depending on the growth of the Corinthians.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet as having passed through fire-&nbsp;</em>There is the implication in the New Testament that whoever lives the life of Christ will convert others to the Way. 1 Corinthians 3 speaks of the converts a man builds on the foundation of Christ. They, like himself, must go through the fire of judgment, and if they are lost, then he himself will still be saved (if he has remained faithful). The implication is that all of us build up others, and our work is tried in the end.</p><p>The accepted will be saved "yet so as by fire" (AV). The fire of condemnation will as it were burn at them and remove all their surface spirituality. And as through death comes life, so through condemnation of the flesh comes salvation of the spirit.</p><p>If we invest our lives in seeking to save others and they are burnt up at the day of judgment, then we will indeed experience loss. "Suffer loss" is a term elsewhere used about being "cast away" in rejection at the day of judgment, or 'losing' ones own soul there (<em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em>). This is not teaching that the preacher / teacher will be rejected, for we go on to read that he shall not be- "he himself shall be saved". It's that if we really care for people, then the loss of any man is my loss; we identify with those we love and care for. Hence the faithful of the Old Testament felt that they had sinned along with Israel, and Ezra blushed to lift up his face to God because of the sins of the Israel with whom he was associated (<em><a href='B:150 9:6'>Ezr 9:6</a></em>). As we see those they laboured for condemned and burnt up, we will feel it as if it were us. This is why Paul openly admits that he has a vested interest in the salvation of the Corinthians. We too cannot work with others in some dispassionate, at-a-distance manner, as if it were a mere 9-5 job we were doing. If those we served are indeed burnt up, it shall be as if we were, although we ourselves shall be saved. This I believe is the sense of the next sentence: "But he himself shall be saved, yet as having passed through fire".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:16'>1Co 3:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?-&nbsp;</em>Paul began the chapter by saying that they were not spiritual (:1); and yet the Spirit dwelt in them. As explained earlier in these notes, the Spirit is given but this doesn't make us spiritual unless we allow that Spirit to take over our lives and allow it free movement. And this was what the Corinthians weren't doing; for they instead gave freedom of movement to their flesh. The "you" here is in the plural; the Spirit was dwelling amongst them as a community.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:17'>1Co 3:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone destroys the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy; and such are you</em>-</p><p> Judaism was very touchy about the destruction or damaging of the temple in any way. And Paul transfers that language to these Gentile Corinthians. He began in chapter 1 by appealing for holiness, or sanctification, on a personal level. He reminded them that they had been sanctified, in status before God in Christ and by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. But they had to allow that to work out in practice instead of justifying the flesh. The damaging of the temple is being spoken of on a collective, plural level. The concern here is not so much with damaging ones own physical body, but with damaging the temple / church of God. The letter will continue to give examples of that- division, prostitution and immorality within the church, over eating and drinking at the breaking of bread, false teaching etc. Those who stop the community from being sanctified by advocating the flesh are therefore standing against the Holy Spirit, which is amongst the church and within the individual believers. This becomes a form of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:18'>1Co 3:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let no one deceive himself. If anyone thinks that he is wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise</em>-</p><p> At this stage in the letter, there was in view a particular damaging of the church, God's temple. It was in the belief and teaching of human wisdom. For this stands opposed to the Spirit of God, as Paul has laboured from the start of the letter to this point. Paul is appealing here for a re-conversion- to 'foolishness', in the eyes of the world, by quitting human wisdom. The true wisdom was of the Spirit, which had already potentially been given to them. Chapter 1 has said that they are already enriched with all spiritual wisdom; they had to reject human wisdom, becoming 'foolish', in order to access it:&nbsp;</p><p>Job was the greatest of the men of the east (<em><a href='B:220 1:3'>Job 1:3</a></em>), people who were renowned in the ancient world for their wisdom (cp. <em><a href='B:470 2:1'>Mat 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:110 4:30'>1Ki 4:30</a></em>). Thus Job as the Jews would have been full of worldly wisdom, and this is maybe&nbsp; behind Paul's words of <em><a href='B:530 3:18-19'>1Co 3:18-19</a></em>: "If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written (quoting <em><a href='B:220 5:13'>Job 5:13</a></em>, which is Eliphaz speaking about Job), He taketh the wise in their own craftiness". Job is equated with the false wisdom of the Judaizers, who were using "excellency of speech… wisdom... enticing words of man's wisdom" (<em><a href='B:530 2:1'>1Co 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:4'>1Co 2:4</a></em>), to corrupt the believers from the "simplicity that is in Christ", "as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty" (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:19'>1Co 3:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God-&nbsp;</em>Chapters 1 and 2 have defined the wisdom of God as the power of the crucified Christ. All else is foolishness with God. The whole structure of the argument and language used allows for no incorporation of worldly wisdom within Divine wisdom. Yet we in this age of all ages are so strongly tempted to proclaim a faith which appears intellectually and scientifically respectable:&nbsp;</p><p><em></p><p>For it is written: He takes the wise in their craftiness-&nbsp;</em>The impossibility of combining secular and Divine wisdom is underscored by this. The worldly wisdom of the wise is actually what stops them from believing; which is why Paul insisted on preaching the bald message of the crucified Christ with no words of secular wisdom attached to it. For faith would not then be elicited. The quotation from Eliphaz in <em><a href='B:220 5:13'>Job 5:13</a></em> raises interesting questions as to the nature of Divine inspiration. The words of the friends are at times wrong, and God later says they are wrong. But here some of their words are quoted as being correct. The view that every single word we read in our translations of the Bible is ‘true’ can lead us into the problems evident in many Bible fundamentalists. Take the words of Eliphaz against Job (<em><a href='B:220 5:13'>Job 5:13</a></em>). They were wrong words (<em><a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a></em>). Yet they are quoted in <em><a href='B:530 3:19'>1Co 3:19</a></em>. Wrong statements can still be recorded under inspiration and even quoted. Take the mocking of Sennacherib. It’s recorded under inspiration, blasphemous as it was.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:20'>1Co 3:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And again: The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are vain</em>-</p><p> The vanity of secular reasoning is that it is vain in terms of bringing a person to faith. For true faith is predicated, as Paul has explained, upon encounter with Christ. The quotation from <em><a href='B:230 94:11'>Psa 94:11</a></em> is changed, under inspiration; "men" becomes "the wise" to fit the context of Paul's argument. But it could be argued that secular man is to be identified with secular wisdom. The obsession of our age with education and learning makes these issues poignant. The context of Psalms 94 is a pleading with the faithful in Israel not to adopt the philosophy and belief system of their oppressors. And this is pertinent to Christians- mixing the truth of Christ with secular wisdom is the same error. And the wisdom of the world is thus presented most negatively.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:21'>1Co 3:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore, let no one boast in men. For all things are yours</em>-</p><p> The boasting in men may refer to boasting in human teachers and their words of human wisdom. But these "men" are defined in :22 as Paul, Apollos and Peter. In chapter 1, Paul laments how the church has split into factions around these men. So he is here repeating the basic point made there- the cross of Christ is the fundamental basis of faith. Anything else added to it is mere human thinking. To start talking about perceived differences between those three Christian leaders was just the same as worldly wisdom. And surely none of those three men in themselves approved of the divisions being made around them. The "all things" in view are those of <em><a href='B:530 1:5'>1Co 1:5</a></em>; the gift of the Spirit had given them "all things" in the Spiritual sphere. Again the appeal is to realize what they have potentially been given by the gift of the Spirit. To start talking about the superiority of Paul's teaching over Peter's was a sign that they failed to be awed as they should by the "all things" given them in Christ. The spirit of Christ gave them the "all things, yes, the deep things of God" (<em><a href='B:530 2:10'>1Co 2:10</a></em>). Through the Spirit, God was working all things in all men in the church (<em><a href='B:530 12:6'>1Co 12:6</a></em>) and will articulate this 'all things in all men' at the final change to immortality (<em><a href='B:530 15:28'>1Co 15:28</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:22'>1Co 3:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come- all are yours</em>-</p><p> If literally all things have been made possible by the Spirit, then there is no need to argue about who baptized us, or the different nuances of teaching between church leaders. These things pale into utter insignificance compared to the all things made possible for us right now. "All are yours" suggests that there was the idea that by having a certain baptism or having some supposed superior teaching of secular wisdom, they possessed more than their fellows. This kind of petty arrogance can so often be seen. Yet once the immensity of having "all things" is perceived, then such a mentality disappears.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:23'>1Co 3:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And you are Christ's, and Christ is God's</em>-</p><p> Another nail in the coffin for Trinitarian views of Jesus being equal to God. If we feel we are Christ's, that we belong solely to Him, and through Him we are therefore also God's... then we shall not feel any allegiance to mere man. No human leader, even within the church, can have our allegiance, nor should we even seek to give allegiance if we are wholly Christ's. Yet there is a tendency in us all, as there was in the Corinthians, to be someone's; someone whom we know, who is visible on this earth. And that in the end is why there are so many denominations and followers of people. The extent of Christ's Lordship ought to drive this from us.</p><p>If we believe that all in Christ, all who are ‘Christian’, will be in the Kingdom… then, we will act joyfully and positively toward our community, abounding in hope. We have to assume that our brethren are likewise going to be there; for we cannot condemn them. Therefore we must assume they too will be saved along with us. Consider how Paul repeatedly has this attitude when dealing with his apostate&nbsp;Corinthians: “For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s” (<em><a href='B:530 3:21-23'>1Co 3:21-23</a></em>). See too <em><a href='B:530 6:3'>1Co 6:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 10:17'>1Co 10:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:22'>1Co 15:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:57'>1Co 15:57</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 1:7'>2Co 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:1'>1Co 4:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Let a man regard us as servants of Christ-&nbsp;</em>Paul now begins to justify himself against criticism and gossip, and to lay the basis for his authority in appealing to the Corinthians regarding their serious misbehaviour and wrong teaching. Clearly some did not regard him and his team as "servants of Christ". The word for "servant" is that used by the Lord on the Damascus road in giving Paul authority to do the work he did: "I have appeared unto you... to make you a servant and witness of these things which you have seen" (<em><a href='B:510 26:16'>Act 26:16</a></em>). The word&nbsp;<em>huperetes</em>&nbsp;is literally an 'under oarsman'. He was rowing, but the Lord Jesus was the captain directing the ship; and Paul was 'under' Him. He plays on this idea in <em><a href='B:530 4:3'>1Co 4:3</a></em> where he reasons that therefore it means nothing to him to be&nbsp;<em>hupo</em>&nbsp;man's judgment; for he is in fact&nbsp;<em>hupo</em>&nbsp;or 'under' the Lord's mastership. This is a liberating principle, and it flows directly from the apparently painless statement that Jesus is Lord and Master. If we are indeed 'under' Him, then we will not allow men to put us down, to make us 'under' their judgment. Their words and judgments will mean the less, indeed, nothing at all. For we are not 'under' them but the Lord.</p><p><em>And stewards of the mysteries of God-&nbsp;</em>"Stewards" continues the idea of a 'servant' being 'under' a master. For a 'steward' was a slave within a household who managed day to day affairs. The goods in view were God's mysteries- and not Paul's own. I noted earlier that the Gospel of Christ was only a mystery to those who shut their eyes from understanding it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:2'>1Co 4:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:650 3:5'>Heb 3:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>In this, moreover, it is required of stewards, that a man be found faithful</em>-</p><p> The same word is used in the parable of the unjust steward in <em><a href='B:490 16:1-8'>Luk 16:1-8</a></em>. But the point was that the steward was found faithful or otherwise by his own master- and not by the gossip of other servants. And Paul goes on to develop this point.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:3'>1Co 4:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you, or any man's judgment. I do not judge even myself</em>-</p><p> Our being servants&nbsp;<em>under</em>&nbsp;the Lord Jesus, accountable to&nbsp;<em>Him</em>, means that we are not 'under' any human judgment; see on :1&nbsp;<em>Servants of Christ</em>. This means that quite literally any human judgment of us, whether by our critics in the church or even by our own self in our personal self-assessment, is utterly irrelevant. And yet so many beat themselves up all their lives over the fact that he said that, she thinks that about me, they judged me like this or that. If we are solely and completely under the Lord's judgment, then their view and our own view of ourselves, whether too harsh or too generous is irrelevant.</p><p>For Paul, the fact that he had only&nbsp;<em>one&nbsp;</em>judge meant that he could genuinely feel that it mattered very little to him how others judged him. The idea of worrying only about God's judgment of us rather than man's lies behind <em><a href='B:240 29:26'>Pro 29:26</a></em>: "Many seek the ruler's favourable judgment; but a man's judgment i:e. the ultimate judgment, the only one worth having comes from the Lord". But this takes quite some faith to believe- for in this age of constant communication between people about other people, we all tend to get worried by others' judgments and opinions of us. But ultimately there is only&nbsp;<em>one</em>&nbsp;judge- God, and not the guys at work, your kid sister, your older brother, the woman in apartment 35. The idea of the court of Heaven is a great comfort to us in the pain of being misjudged by men. It's a case of seeing what isn't visible to the human eye.</p><p>Paul’s thought here is building on what he had earlier reasoned in <em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em>, that the spiritual man “himself is judged of no man”. There was only One judge, and the believer is now not condemned if he is in Christ (<em><a href='B:520 8:1'>Rom 8:1</a></em>). He that truly believes in Christ is not condemned, but has passed from death to life (<em><a href='B:500 3:18'>Joh 3:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 5:24'>Joh 5:24</a></em>). So however men may claim to judge and condemn us, the ultimate truth is that no man&nbsp;<em>can&nbsp;</em>judge / condemn us, and we who are spiritual should live life like that, not fearing the pathetic judgments of men, knowing that effectively we are&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;being judged by them. How radically different is Paul’s attitude to so many of us. The fear of criticism and human judgment leads us to respond as animals do to fear- the instinct of self-defence and self-preservation is aroused. We defend ourselves as we would against hunger or impending death. Yet here the radical implications of grace burst through:&nbsp;<em>We</em>&nbsp;are not our best defence. We have an advocate who is also the judge, the almighty Lord Jesus; we have a preserver and saviour, the same omnipotent Lord, so that we need not and must not trust in ourselves. By not trusting in this grace of salvation, we end up desperately trusting ourselves for justification and preservation and salvation, becoming ever more guilty at our abysmal and pathetic failures to save and defend ourselves.</p><p>The message of imputed righteousness was powerfully challenging. For the whole message of Romans is that our only acceptability is through&nbsp;<em>God</em>&nbsp;counting us righteous although we are not... and it is&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;judgment which matters, not that of the million watching eyes of society around us. <em><a href='B:530 4:3-5'>1Co 4:3-5</a></em> teach that the judgment of others is a "very small thing", an irrelevancy, compared with Christ's judgment of us. The fact that we have only one judge means that whatever others think or judge of us is irrelevant. That may be easy enough to accept as a theory, but the reality for those living in collective societies was far-reaching. Appreciating the ultimate importance of our standing before&nbsp;<em>God&nbsp;</em>means that we have a conscience towards&nbsp;<em>Him</em>, and a rightful sense of shame before Him for our sins.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I know nothing against myself in my own conscience. Yet hereby I am not justified; but he that judges me is the Lord-&nbsp;</em>As explained in the previous verses, Paul was under the Lordship of Jesus as his master. Only His judgment therefore was of any meaning; even if his own conscience were clear, this would not justify him. He parallels his justification with his judgment; the Lord's present and final judgment will be our justification by His imputed righteousness. And so a comparison related to time is also introduced; whether we feel justified by our own self assessment now is nothing compared to His justification of us then. This idea is continued in the next verse- "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come".<em></p><p></em></p><p>Paul says that although he does not feel he has done anything wrong, this does not of itself mean that he is justified in God's sight. We cannot, therefore, place too much importance on living according to our natural sense of right and wrong. "It's OK in my conscience" is the only justification for many. They give more credibility to what they perceive to be guidance coming from within them, than to God's word of Truth. The words of the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:490 11:35'>Luk 11:35</a></em> seem especially relevant: "Take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness. "It's OK in my conscience" is indeed dark light. Our conscience is not going to jump out of us and stand and judge us at the day of judgment. There is one thing that will judge us, the word of the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>), not how far we have lived according to our conscience.</p><p>“He that judges me is the Lord” alludes to “Yet surely my judgment is with the Lord” (<em><a href='B:290 49:4'>Isa 49:4</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><p><em><a href='B:530 4:3-5'>1Co 4:3-5</a></em> appeals to the reality of&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;future judgment as a basis for not paying too much attention to how&nbsp;<em>man&nbsp;</em>judges us. If it is&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;judgment that means everything to us, what men say or think about us, or what we perceive they do, will not weigh so heavily with us. The ultimate reality of our lives is the sense of God's future judgment, not the awareness of man's present judgment. If we really grasp the simple fact that God alone is judge, that there is only One who&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;judge us, that Christ will come, then we will say with Paul from our hearts: “He that is spiritual… himself is judged of no man” (<em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em>). Of course, men&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;judge us; and it hurts. But we are to act and feel according to the fact that ultimately, they can&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;judge us. For there is only One judge, to whom we shall all soon give account.</p><p>Paul, misrepresented and slandered more than most brethren, came to conclude: "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me right now is the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 4:3-4'>1Co 4:3-4</a></em>). The judge is the justifier, according to this argument. Paul is not justified by himself or by other men, because they are not his judge. The fact that God alone is judge through Christ another first principle means that nobody can ultimately justify us or condemn us. "Many seek the favour of the ruler 'judge'; but every man's judgment cometh from the Lord" (<em><a href='B:240 29:26'>Pro 29:26</a></em>). The false claims of others can do nothing to ultimately damage us, and our own efforts at self-justification are in effect a denial of the fact that the Lord is the judge, not us, and therefore He alone can and will justify.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come</em>-</p><p> Any feeling OK in our own conscience&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;is irrelevant compared to the fact that the final judgment is not&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;but&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;when the Lord comes. The appeal to judge nothing before that time is directed very much at ourselves in our self judgment, rather than warning against judging others. We are not to judge, not simply because it is beyond our competence, but because&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;is not the time to judge.</p><p><em>Who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts</em>-</p><p> Judgment of others is impossible because we cannot see the hearts of others, nor can we see in darkness. There is an element to which judgment will be public; and hidden things will be made manifest not only to those being judged, but to all of us. The real intentions of others will then be known by us all. And this is necessary to prepare us to live eternally together. The judgment process in that sense is for our benefit and education, rather than because God needs it in order to gather information. The same word for "bring to light" is used of how we can now live 'in the light', with our whole body as it were full of light and having no dark parts (<em><a href='B:490 11:36'>Luk 11:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em>). This is the whole sense of our having been 'enlightened' (<em><a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:4'>Heb 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a></em> s:w:).</p><p>We can live in the spirit of judgment day right now, if we allow the Lord's light to operate as intended. He will reveal the hidden things of darkness (the human heart), and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). Of course He knows these anyway; but He will make them manifest&nbsp;<em>to us</em>. The judgment seat is for our benefit, not God's- He knows our lives and spiritual position already. The day of judgment is to purify us (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>)- not ultimately, for that has been done by the Lord's blood and our lives of faithful acceptance of this. But the fire of judgment reveals the dross of our lives&nbsp;<em>to us</em>&nbsp;and in this sense purges us of those sins. Without the judgment, we would drift into the Kingdom with no real appreciation of our own sinfulness or the height of God's grace. The judgment will declare God's glory, His triumph over every secret sin of His people. The heathen will be judged "that the nations may know themselves to be but men" (<em><a href='B:230 9:20'>Psa 9:20</a></em>)- self knowledge is the aim, not extraction of information so that God can make a decision. And it was the same with Israel: "Judge the bloody city... (i:e:) shew her all her abominations" (<em><a href='B:330 22:2'>Eze 22:2</a></em>).</p><p>At judgment God "shall bring forth thy righteousness (good deeds) as the light, and thy judgment as the noon day" (<em><a href='B:230 37:6'>Psa 37:6</a></em>). The sins of the rejected and the good deeds of the righteous will be publicly declared at the judgment, even if they are concealed from men in this life (<em><a href='B:610 5:24-25'>1Ti 5:24-25</a></em>). This is how men will receive "praise of God" (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>). The wicked will see the generous deeds of the righteous rehearsed before them; and will gnash their teeth and melt away into condemnation (<em><a href='B:230 112:9-10'>Psa 112:9-10</a></em>).</p><p><em>And then shall each man have his praise from God-&nbsp;</em>The praise, in the context, would be for the counsels of their hearts. This is exactly the sense of <em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>, where the same word is used: "He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God". This is how critically important it is to be spiritually minded; this is the essence which the Father looks at. And yet "praise of God" at the judgment recalls the Lord's parable of how we shall be praised in that day for having fed, clothed and visited the suffering Lord Jesus in the form of the least of His brethren. With such an awesome prospect ahead, we will not be interested in being judged positively by men; and neither will their negative judgment of us mean anything much.</p><p>Whilst we ourselves will feel the need to "confess to God" (<em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em>) our failures and unworthiness, we have shown earlier how our Lord will not mention these to us, but instead joyfully catalogue to us those things which have so pleased him in our lives. This will be to our genuine amazement: "Lord, when::?". Keeping a subconscious inventory of our own good works now will surely prevent us from being in this category. <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em> speaks of us as receiving "praise of God" at the judgment, presumably in the form of praise for the good works which we are not aware of, as outlined in the parable (cp. <em><a href='B:230 134:3'>Psa 134:3</a></em>). "Praise" suggests that our Lord will show quite some enthusiasm in this. Not he that commends himself will be approved cp. The listing of good deeds by the rejected, "but whom the Lord commendeth" in as it were listing the good deeds of the accepted (<em><a href='B:540 10:18'>2Co 10:18</a></em>).</p><p>There are some instructive parallels here:</p><p><table border="1"><tr><td></p><p>"Bring to light"</td><td>"Make manifest"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"The hidden things of"</td><td>"The counsels of"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Darkness"</td><td>"The hearts"</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The hidden man is therefore "the counsels" of the heart. How we speak and reason to ourselves in our self-talk, this is the indicator of the hidden man. This will be 'made manifest' to the owners of those hearts, the Greek implies. "All things are naked and opened" unto God anyway; the second coming will reveal nothing to Him. The making manifest of our hidden man will be to ourselves and to others. The purpose of the judgment seat is therefore more for our benefit than God's; it will be the ultimate self-revelation of ourselves. Then we will know ourselves, just as God knows us (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>). Through a glass, darkly, we can now see the outline of our spiritual self (<em><a href='B:530 13:11-12'>1Co 13:11-12</a></em>), although all too often we see this picture in the spiritual mirror of self-examination, and then promptly forget about it (<em><a href='B:660 1:23-24'>Jas 1:23-24</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:6'>1Co 4:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now these things, brothers, I have applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes</em>-</p><p> The letter opened with a lament that the church had split into factions, after Paul and Apollos. Presumably the reference here is to the mention he has made of Apollos and himself a few verses earlier in <em><a href='B:530 3:22'>1Co 3:22</a></em>: "Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours". He may mean that he has addressed the issue of following men by quoting Apollos and himself as examples of those who were being followed- even though they themselves did not want it. The implication might be that there were others whom he could name but didn't wish to, "for your sakes".</p><p><em>That from us you might learn not to go beyond the things which are written</em>-</p><p> The example of Paul and Apollos was of being leaders who did not want a personal cult following. The presence of the article "the" after "learn" requires us to read this as: "That you might learn the 'Not beyond the things which are written'". "Written" translates&nbsp;<em>grapho</em>, the writings, or, the Scriptures. 'Not beyond the writings' was a Rabbinic expression, and Paul is saying that the Corinthians would see it exemplified in the demeanour of Apollos and himself. The Corinthians were to learn from their example not to go beyond respect of leaders and fall into cult following. 'The things written' would in this context therefore refer to things written against following leaders into a cult situation; and that is what Paul has been writing about so far in the letter. The things written which must not be 'gone beyond', just as the Rabbis were not supposed to 'go beyond the inspired writings', would therefore refer to what Paul has just written under inspiration. So whilst turning down any personal cult following, he is also making clear that what he is writing is inspired and should be treated with as much respect as the OT Scriptures.</p><p><em>So that none of you get puffed up, one against the other-&nbsp;</em>As noted earlier on this verse, the inspired message so far given was to stop such following of leaders in a divisive, cult-like sense. 1Corinthians contains many warnings against being "puffed up" (<em><a href='B:530 4:6'>1Co 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:8'>1Co 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:19'>1Co 4:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:6'>1Co 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:4'>1Co 13:4</a></em>). These warnings often come in the context of statements about the Lordship of Jesus, or about the sacrifice of Jesus, the Passover lamb. The fact He is our Lord and died as He did means that we must live Passover lives without the leaven of pride and being puffed up about leading brethren etc. Perceiving&nbsp;<em>His&nbsp;</em>greatness will mean that we will not seek to follow men.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:7'>1Co 4:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For who makes you to differ? And what have you that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?-&nbsp;</em>Their differences were made by themselves; the differences were in their following of different leaders. What was 'received' by the Corinthians was the free gift of the Spirit (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 2:12'>1Co 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:4'>2Co 11:4</a></em>). "Boast" translates a Greek word Paul has used in speaking of how we should glory in the Lord and not glory or boast in human leaders (<em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:31'>1Co 1:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:21'>1Co 3:21</a></em>). This boasting would only be made by those who did not have the Spirit; for such boasting is of the flesh and not the Spirit. We noted earlier that the Corinthians had been given the Spirit, and yet they acted as if they didn't have it. Their boasting was done as if they had not received the Spirit. Instead, their lives should have been wholly Spiritual, taken up with the things of the Spirit; so that it would be true that they had nothing in life apart from what they had been given by the Spirit and accepted from the Spirit. And this would utterly preclude boasting in mere men and their human words and examples. Yet the Corinthians had not made use of the Spirit gifts given them, as made clear in chapters 1 and 2; see on <em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:8'>1Co 4:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Already are you filled, already you have become rich, you have come to reign without us</em>-</p><p> The ideas of filling and being enriched were used in chapter 1 with reference to how the Corinthians had been filled with the Spirit, but had not made use of it. I suggested on :7 that what was 'received' was the Spirit. Here in :8 Paul is using sarcasm, which was more acceptable to use as a literary figure than it currently is in our times. They considered themselves wealthy, reigning and with no hunger or lack of anything. Paul is saying that they are indeed like this spiritually, if only they would know it; but their arrogant boasting was "without us", i:e. without the support of Paul and Apollos and Paul's team.</p><p><em>Yes, and I hope that you will indeed reign, that we also might reign with you-</em></p><p>&nbsp;Paul's thought is of the 'reigning' in God's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:730 5:10'>Rev 5:10</a></em> etc:). He sees his future reward as related to whether or not they his converts enter God's Kingdom. He has earlier developed this thought in <em><a href='B:530 3:8'>1Co 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:20 7:4'>Exo 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 3:19'>Rom 3:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:28'>1Co 12:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I think God has sent us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death. For we are made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and men-&nbsp;</em>The Roman spectacles included men doomed to death who were made to fight as gladiators to the death, either against each other or wild animals. The "last of all" compares with the idea of the Corinthians wanting to be 'first' (:8). Paul is saying that apostles like him were hardly worth following in a cultic sense; for they were indeed on the stage in front of all men, but were set to die a sad death, in shame and rejection. It would seem from <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a></em> and <em><a href='B:540 1:10'>2Co 1:10</a></em> that Paul was indeed thrown to the lions at Ephesus but was miraculously delivered. With typical spiritual culture, Paul only alludes to the incident indirectly, and in order to make points for the edification of others. Remember that Paul wrote this first letter from Ephesus. See on :11.</p><p>There is a sense in which the Angels have limited knowledge about our spiritual capacities; "We are made a spectacle... to Angels"&nbsp; implies that the Angels look on at the sufferings God has brought on us through our guardian Angel, and intensely scrutinize how we are acting as if earnestly watching a theatre play (so the word "spectacle" implies). Thus they are anxiously looking for the outcome of their trials on us, not knowing the final result. The fact that only at the judgement will the names of the worthy be confessed to the Angels by Jesus (<em><a href='B:730 3:5'>Rev 3:5</a></em>) makes it appear that the ultimate outcome of our probations is not known to our guardians, hence their eagerness in our lives to see how we react. It is not until the harvest that they are sent out to root out of the Kingdom all things that offend (<em><a href='B:470 13:41'>Mat 13:41</a></em>).</p>


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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p>&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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> <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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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.</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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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.</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>-</p><p> 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.</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>-</p><p> 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 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. 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>-</p><p> 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.</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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> <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:</p><p>a) recognize their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit, and therefore to glorify God in spirit and body</p><p>b) realize that they are not their own, to live their lives just as they wish</p><p>c) act as if they are indeed joined to Christ</p><p>d) let the power of Christ’s resurrection and new life work in them</p><p>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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p>&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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>.</p><p><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:-</p><p> It is better not to marry: "<em>But and if</em>&nbsp;thou marry, thou hast not sinned" (v:28):&nbsp;-</p><p> 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;-</p><p> 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>)-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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></p><p></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></p><p>&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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>


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>-</p><p> 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:-</p><p> 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.-</p><p> 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;-</p><p> 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;-</p><p> Young brethren, "the messenger of the churches", who spent their lives full time running errands in dangerous situations throughout the known world.-</p><p>&nbsp; Over zealous brethren (in Thessalonica) who packed up their jobs because they were so sure the second coming was imminent:&nbsp;-</p><p> 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.-</p><p> The assumption that all believers would make converts (<em><a href='B:530 3:10-15'>1Co 3:10-15</a></em>):&nbsp;-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> "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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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?-</p><p>&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></p><p></em></p><p>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>).</p><p>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>-</p><p> 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>-</p><p> 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.</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>-</p><p> 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></p><p>&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><p><table border="1"><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>-</p><p> 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>


