# commentaries

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:26'>1Co 11:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:530 11:26'>1Co 11:26</a></em> AVmg. makes the act of breaking bread a command, an imperative to action: “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, shew ye the Lord’s death, till he come". If we are going to eat the emblems, it is axiomatic that we will commit ourselves to shewing forth His death to the world, like Paul placarding forth Christ crucified in our lives (<em><a href='B:550 3:1'>Gal 3:1</a></em> Gk:). The Passover likewise had been a ‘shewing’ to one’s family “that which the Lord did unto me" (<em><a href='B:20 13:8'>Exo 13:8</a></em>), the redemption we have experienced. The description of the memorial service as being a 'proclamation' of the Lord's death (<em><a href='B:530 11:26'>1Co 11:26</a></em> RV) is an allusion to the second of the four cups taken at the Jewish Passover: "the cup of proclamation". This was drunk after the reading of Psalms 113, 114, which proclaimed Yahweh's deliverance of Israel from Egypt. Therefore our breaking bread is our proclamation that we really believe that we have been saved out of this world, and are on the wilderness path to the Kingdom. God forbid, really, that our breaking bread should come down to mere ritual and habit. It is a very personal proclamation of our own salvation- as well as that of the whole body of believers:&nbsp;</p><p><em>Until he comes</em>-</p><p> This is surely an allusion, but not a quotation, to the Lord's comment that He would not take the cup again&nbsp;<em>until</em>&nbsp;He returns (<em><a href='B:480 14:25'>Mar 14:25</a></em>). The most evident link between the breaking of bread and the judgment / second coming is in the fact we are to do it “until he come". The Jews expected Messiah to come at Passover, and the Lord seems to have plugged into that fact. ‘Until he come’ was an allusion by Paul to the contemporary Passover prayer for the coming of Messiah at the Passover meal: “May the Lord come and this world pass away. Amen. Hosanna to the house of David. If any man is holy, let him come; if any man is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen". Joachim Jeremias translates the phrase: “’Until (matters have developed to the point at which) he comes’, ‘until (the goal is reached, that) he comes’". He points out a similar construction in other passages relevant to the second coming (<em><a href='B:490 21:24'>Luk 21:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:25'>1Co 15:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a></em>). Thus each memorial meeting brings us a step closer towards the final coming of Jesus. It would therefore be so appropriate if the Lord did return during a breaking of bread. One day, the foretaste of judgment which we experience then will be, in reality, our final judgment. As we break bread, each time we are ‘reminding’ the Father as well as ourselves of His Son’s work and the need to climax it in sending Him back.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:27'>1Co 11:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore whoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner</em>-</p><p> The "unworthy manner" in the context clearly refers to things such as using church prostitutes at the breaking of bread, getting drunk on the wine there as if the whole service was an idol ritual, and in fact not really keeping the Lord's supper because they were also drinking the cup of idols (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>) and had turned the Lord's supper into their own supper (:20). We come to the Lord's table as sinners; our pangs of conscience are in fact the sign we are there in the right and 'worthy' manner. The Greek for "unworthy" means 'irreverent'; and this is exactly the context. It is drunkenness with the wine, using it as part of an orgy, which is the irreverence in view.</p><p><em>Shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord-&nbsp;</em>Noting the earlier allusion to Judas (see on :23), we can rightly assume that again it is Judas whom Paul has in mind. The unworthy are not weak sinners, which is us all, but those who wilfully are betraying the Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:28'>1Co 11:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup-&nbsp;</em>We are to eat in a spirit of self examination "so...", not of light hearted partying as was happening at Corinth. See on :29&nbsp;<em>discern</em>.</p><p>There seems an allusion in this section to Joseph's cup of divination. The Hebrew for “divines" means literally ‘to make trial’; their taking of the cup was their trial / judgment. Thus we drink either blessing or condemnation to ourselves by taking the cup. The word used by the LXX for “divines" in <em><a href='B:10 44:5'>Gen 44:5</a></em> occurs in the NT account of the breaking of bread service: ‘everyone should&nbsp;<em>examine&nbsp;</em>himself, and then eat the bread and drink from the cup’ (<em><a href='B:530 11:28'>1Co 11:28</a></em>). The Lord examines us, as we examine ourselves. There is a mutuality here- the spirit of man is truly the candle of the Lord (<em><a href='B:240 20:27'>Pro 20:27</a></em>). He searches us through our own self-examination. He knows all things, but there may still be methods that He uses to gather than information. Our hearts are revealed to God through our own self-examination. And is it mere co-incidence that the Hebrew words for “divination" and “snake" are virtually identical&nbsp;<em>nahash</em>? The snake lifted up on the pole cp. the crucified Jesus is the means of trial / divination. Through the cross, the thoughts of many hearts are revealed (<em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em>), just as they will be at the last day. Thus the breaking of bread ceremony is a means towards the sort of realistic self-examination which we find so hard to achieve in normal life.</p><p>The whole story of Joseph is one of the clearest types of Jesus in the Old Testament. The way His brethren come before His throne and are graciously accepted is one of the most gripping foretastes we have of the final judgment. The rather strange way Joseph behaves towards them was surely to elicit within them a true repentance. He sought to bring them to self-knowledge through His cup. Joseph stresses to the brethren that it is through his cup that he “divines" to find out their sin. He also emphasizes that by stealing the cup they had “done evil" (<em><a href='B:10 44:4-5'>Gen 44:4-5</a></em>). And yet they didn’t actually steal the cup. The “evil" which they had done was to sell him into Egypt (<em><a href='B:10 50:20'>Gen 50:20</a></em>). They had “stolen" him (<em><a href='B:10 40:15'>Gen 40:15</a></em>) in the same way they had “stolen" the cup. This is why he says that “ye" (you plural, not singular, as it would have been if he was referring merely to Benjamin’s supposed theft) had stolen it (<em><a href='B:10 44:15'>Gen 44:15</a></em>). And the brethren in their consciences understood what Joseph was getting at- for instead of insisting that they hadn’t stolen the cup, they admit: “What shall we say unto my lord? What shall we speak? Or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants" (<em><a href='B:10 44:16'>Gen 44:16</a></em>). Clearly their minds were on their treatment of Joseph, the sin which they had thought would not be found out. And this was why they were&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>willing to bear the punishment of becoming bondmen, rather than reasoning that since Benjamin had apparently committed the crime, well he alone must be punished. The cup was “found" and they realized that God had “found out" their joint iniquity (<em><a href='B:10 44:10'>Gen 44:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 44:12'>Gen 44:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 44:16'>Gen 44:16</a></em>). The cup was perceived by them as their “iniquity" with Joseph. They had used the very same Hebrew words years before, in telling Jacob of Joseph’s garment: “This have we found…" (<em><a href='B:10 37:32'>Gen 37:32</a></em>).</p><p>The cup made them realize their guilt and made them acceptive of the judgment they deserved. And it made them quit their attempts at parading their own righteousness, no matter how valid it was in the immediate context (<em><a href='B:10 44:8'>Gen 44:8</a></em>). The cup made them realize their real status, and not just use empty words. Behold the contradiction in <em><a href='B:10 44:9'>Gen 44:9</a></em>: “With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my Lord’s bondmen / servants". The Hebrew words translated “servants" and “bondmen" are the same. Their mere formal recognition that they were Joseph’s servants was to be translated into reality. Thus they say that Joseph had “found out the iniquity of thy servants; behold, we&nbsp;<em>are&nbsp;</em>my Lord’s servants". Describing themselves as His servants had been a mere formalism; now they wanted it in a meaningful reality. And the Lord’s cup can do the same to us. The way they were “searched" (<em><a href='B:10 44:12'>Gen 44:12</a></em>) from the oldest to the youngest was surely the background for how the guilty men pined away in guilt from the Lord, from the eldest to the youngest. The whole experience would have elicited self-knowledge within them. The same word is found in <em><a href='B:450 1:12'>Zec 1:12</a></em>, describing how God Himself would search out the sin of Jerusalem.</p><p>Joseph was trying to tell them: ‘What you did to the cup, you did to me. That cup is a symbol of me’. And inevitably the mind flies to how the Lord solemnly took the cup and said that this was Him. Our attitude to those emblems is our attitude to Him. We have perhaps over-reacted against the Roman Catholic view that the wine turns into the very blood of Jesus. It doesn’t, of course, but all the same the Lord did say that the wine&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;His blood, the bread&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;His body. Those emblems are effectively Him to us. They are symbols, but not mere symbols. If we take them with indifference, with minds focused on externalities, then this is our essential attitude to Him personally. This is why the memorial meeting ought to have an appropriate intensity about it- for it is a personal meeting with Jesus. “Here O my Lord, I see thee face to face". If it is indeed this, then the cup will be the means of eliciting within us our own realization of sin and subsequently, of our salvation in Jesus.</p><p>Joseph’s brothers’ words are exactly those of Daniel in <em><a href='B:340 10:15-17'>Dan 10:15-17</a></em>, where in another death and resurrection experience, he feels just the same as he lays prostrate before the Angel. Our attitude to the Lord in the last day will be our attitude to Him at the breaking of bread- just as our “boldness" in prayer now will be our “boldness" in the day of judgment. In the same way as the brothers had to be reassured by Joseph of his loving acceptance, so the Lord will have to ‘make us’ sit down with Him, and encourage us to enter into His joy. There will be some sort of disbelief at the extent of His grace in all those who are truly acceptable with Him (“When saw we thee…?"). The brothers grieved and were angry with themselves in the judgment presence of Joseph (<em><a href='B:10 45:5'>Gen 45:5</a></em>)- they went through the very feelings of the rejected (cp. “weeping and gnashing of teeth" in self-hatred). And yet they were graciously accepted, until like Daniel they can eventually freely talk with their saviour Lord (<em><a href='B:10 45:15'>Gen 45:15</a></em>). And so the sheep will feel rejected at the judgment, they will condemn themselves- in order to be saved ultimately. The same words occur in <em><a href='B:160 8:10-11'>Neh 8:10-11</a></em>, when a repentant Israel standing before the judgment&nbsp;<em>bema&nbsp;</em>(LXX) are given the same assurance.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em><em>&nbsp;For he that eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not discern the body of the Lord-&nbsp;</em>The invitation to&nbsp;<em>discern</em>&nbsp;the Lord’s body at the memorial meeting uses the same word occurs in v:28: “let a man&nbsp;<em>examine&nbsp;</em>himself". It’s too bad that the translations mask this connection. We are to examine / discern the Lord’s body, and to do the same to ourselves. The two are inextricably related. Meditation upon and analysis of&nbsp;<em>His</em>&nbsp;body will lead to&nbsp;<em>self</em>&nbsp;examination and discernment. In this lies the answer to the frequent question: ‘What should we examine at the breaking of bread? Our own sins, or the facts of the crucifixion / resurrection?’. If we think about the latter, we will inevitably be led to think of the former. In the Corinthian context, the body of Christ is to be understood as the ecclesia. 1 Corinthians 12 is full of this figure. The need to discern the Lord’s body at the breaking of bread means that we must go beyond reflection upon His physical body. We must recognise / discern His ecclesia too. The immediate context of 1 Corinthians 11 is of unbrotherly behaviour at the memorial meeting. If we fail to recognise / appreciate / discern the Lord’s physical body, we will fail to recognise His brethren. And if we do this, we have made ourselves guilty of His body and blood, we have crucified Him again. This is why I plead with those who use the breaking of bread as a weapon for division within the Lord’s body to think again. The body which we must discern at the breaking of bread evidently has some reference to the ecclesia. We thereby place ourselves in a dangerous position by refusing to share the emblems with others in the body, and disfellowshipping those who do so.</p><p>Paul's reasoning in 1 Corinthians 10-12 seems to be specifically in the context of the memorial meeting. The issue he addresses is that of disunity at the Lord's table- different groups were excluding others. It is in this context that he urges believers to "discern the Lord's body" (<em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em>)- and the Lord's body he has previously defined as referring to the believers within that one body. For in <em><a href='B:530 10:17'>1Co 10:17</a></em> he stresses that all who have been baptized into the body of God's people "being many are one loaf, and one body". There's only ultimately one loaf, as there's only one Christ. All within that one body are partaking of the same loaf whenever they "break bread", and therefore division between them is not possible in God's sight. "The bread which we break, is it not the&nbsp;<em>koinonia</em>, the sharing in fellowship, of the body of Christ?" (<em><a href='B:530 10:16'>1Co 10:16</a></em>). By breaking bread we show our unity not only with Him personally, but with all others who are in His one body. To refuse to break bread with other believers- which is what was happening in Corinth- is therefore stating that effectively they are outside of the one body. And yet if in fact they&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;within the body of Christ, then it's actually those who are refusing them the emblems who are thereby declaring&nbsp;<em>themselves</em>&nbsp;not to be part of Christ.</p><p>Our attitude to the cross&nbsp;<em>and all that is meant by it&nbsp;</em>is the summation of our spirituality. I normally dislike using alternative textual readings to make a point, but there is an alternative reading of <em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em> which makes this point so clearly: “He who eats and drinks ‘unworthily’ isn’t in many manuscripts, eats and drinks discernment judgment to Himself. Not discerning the Lord’s body is the reason many of you are weak and sickly". The Corinthians were not discerning the difference between the Lord’s body and a piece of bread, for they were eating the bread as part of a self-indulgent social meal, rather than discerning Him.</p><p>The command to&nbsp;<em>examine&nbsp;</em>ourselves uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em> concerning the way our works will be&nbsp;<em>tried&nbsp;</em>with fire by the judgment process of the last day. If members of an ecclesia break bread unworthily, they “come together unto condemnation" (<em><a href='B:530 11:34'>1Co 11:34</a></em>). Yet we must judge ourselves at these meetings, to the extent of truly realising we deserve condemnation (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). We must examine ourselves and conclude that at the end of the day we are “unprofitable servants" (<em><a href='B:490 18:10'>Luk 18:10</a></em>), i:e. worthy of condemnation (the same phrase is used about the rejected, <em><a href='B:470 25:30'>Mat 25:30</a></em>). This is after the pattern of the brethren at the first breaking of bread asking “Is it I?" in response to the Lord’s statement that one of them would betray Him (<em><a href='B:470 26:22'>Mat 26:22</a></em>). They didn’t immediately assume they wouldn’t do. And so we have a telling paradox: those who condemn themselves at the memorial meeting will not be condemned. Those who are sure they won’t be condemned, taking the emblems with self-assurance, come together unto condemnation. Job knew this when he said that if he justifies himself, he will be condemned out of his own mouth (<em><a href='B:220 9:20'>Job 9:20</a></em> - he understood the idea of self-condemnation and judgment now). Isaiah also foresaw this, when he besought men (in the present tense): “Enter&nbsp;<em>into the rock</em>, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty", and then goes on to say that in the day of God’s final judgment, “the rejected shall go&nbsp;<em>into&nbsp;</em>the holes of&nbsp;<em>the rock</em>... for&nbsp;<em>fear of the Lord and for the glory of His majesty</em>&nbsp;when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth" (<em><a href='B:290 2:10-11'>Isa 2:10-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 2:19-21'>Isa 2:19-21</a></em>). We must find a true, self-condemning humility now, unless it will be forced upon us at the judgment.</p><p>Judging / examining ourselves is made parallel with discerning the Lord's body: as if discerning His body on the cross inevitably results in self-examination, and vice versa (<em><a href='B:530 11:28-29'>1Co 11:28-29</a></em>). We must&nbsp;<em>discern</em>&nbsp;the Lord's body, and thereby&nbsp;<em>examine</em>&nbsp;ourselves (these are the same words in the Greek text). Yet the Lord’s body in the Corinthian context is the ecclesia, the body of Jesus. To discern ourelves is to discern the Lord’s body (<em><a href='B:530 11:29-30'>1Co 11:29-30</a></em> RV). By discerning our brethren for who they are, treating them as brethren, perceiving our own part in the body of Jesus, our salvation is guaranteed. For this is love, in its most fundamental essence.</p><p>If we examine / judge / condemn ourselves now in our self-examination, God will not have to do this to us at the day of judgment. If we cast away our own bodies now, the Lord will not need to cast us away in rejection (<em><a href='B:470 5:30'>Mat 5:30</a></em>). There is a powerful logic here. If we pronounce ourselves uncondemned, we condemn ourselves (<em><a href='B:630 3:11'>Tit 3:11</a></em>); if we condemn ourselves now, we will be uncondemned ultimately. This is why the Greek word translated "examine" (<em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em>) is also that translated "approve" in <em><a href='B:530 11:19'>1Co 11:19</a></em> (and also <em><a href='B:530 16:3'>1Co 16:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:7'>2Co 13:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:15'>2Ti 2:15</a></em>). By condemning ourselves we in a sense approve ourselves. Our self-examination should result in us realising our unworthiness, seeing ourselves from God's viewpoint. There is therefore a parallel made between our own judgment of ourselves at the memorial meeting, and the final judgment- where we will be condemned, yet saved by grace (<em><a href='B:660 2:12'>Jas 2:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 3:1'>Jas 3:1</a></em>). If we don't attain this level of self-knowledge now, we will be taught it by being condemned at the judgment. This makes the logic of serious, real self-examination so vital; either we do it in earnest, and realise our own condemnation, or if we&nbsp;<em>don't</em>&nbsp;do it, we'll be condemned at the judgment. Yet as with so much in our spiritual experience, what is so evidently logical is so hard to translate into reality. The process of judgment will essentially be for our benefit, not the Lord's:&nbsp;<em>Then</em>&nbsp;the foolish virgins realise that they didn't have enough oil / spirituality; whilst the wise already knew this (<em><a href='B:470 25:13'>Mat 25:13</a></em>). As a foretaste of the day of judgment, we must "examine" ourselves, especially at the breaking of bread (<em><a href='B:530 11:28'>1Co 11:28</a></em>). The same word is used in <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em> concerning how the process of the judgment seat will be like a fire which&nbsp;<em>tries</em>&nbsp;us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep-&nbsp;</em>It was due to an incorrect attitude to the memorial meeting that many at Corinth were struck down "weak and sickly... and many sleep" (<em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>), presumably referring to the power the apostles had to smite apostate believers with physical discomfort and death. Such was the importance accorded to that meeting by them:This is not the only reference to physical sickness or death being used in the first century as a punishment for apostasy (<em><a href='B:510 5:5'>Act 5:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:15'>Jas 5:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:22-23'>Rev 2:22-23</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged-&nbsp;</em>If we perceive ourselves as worthy of condemnation, we will be saved. If we would judge i:e. condemn ourselves, we will not be judged / condemned. This is written in the context of the breaking of bread. When we examine ourselves then, and at other times, do we get to the point where we truly&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;through and through our condemnation? If this is how we perceive our natural selves, then surely we will be saved- if we&nbsp;<em>also</em>&nbsp;believe with joy that God’s righteousness is counted to us. See on <em><a href='B:490 17:10'>Luk 17:10</a></em>.</p><p>Our self-examination must be so intense that we appreciate that we ought to be condemned; if we achieve that level of self-knowledge now, we will not be condemned at the judgment. In the context of the self-examination command in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is speaking of the need to completely focus our attention on the sacrifice of Christ. Yet this command must have its basis in the directive for Israel to search their house for leaven before eating the Passover (<em><a href='B:20 12:19'>Exo 12:19</a></em>). "Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven... of malice and wickedness" (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>). The disciples’ question at the first breaking of bread, “Lord, is it I?" is another prototype of the command to examine ourselves at the feast (<em><a href='B:470 26:22'>Mat 26:22</a></em>). Combining Paul's command to examine ourselves that we are really focusing upon our Lord's sacrifice, and the Exodus allusion which implies that we should examine our own lives for wickedness, we conclude that if we properly reflect upon Christ and His victory for us, then we will inevitably be aware of our own specific failures which Christ really has vanquished. But this will come as a by-product of truly grasping the fullness of the Lord's victory. The Passover was to be a public proclamation to the surrounding world of what God had done for Israel. Likewise our feast 'shows forth' (Greek: 'publicly declares') the Lord's death. Our memorial meeting should therefore include a degree of openly declaring to others what spiritual deliverances the Lord has wrought for us. This is surely the sort of talk that should fill up the half hour between ending the service and leaving the hall.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a></em>.</p><p><em>But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world-&nbsp;</em>Apostate Israel are spoken of as the pagan world; and therefore at the day of judgment the rejected of the new Israel will be condemned along with the world (<em><a href='B:530 11:32'>1Co 11:32</a></em>); assigned their portion "with the unbelievers" (<em><a href='B:490 12:46'>Luk 12:46</a></em>). If we are not separate from this world now, we will not be separated from them when the judgments fall. If we don't come out from Babylon, we will share her judgments (<em><a href='B:730 18:4'>Rev 18:4</a></em>).</p><p>“The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts" (<em><a href='B:240 20:27'>Pro 20:27</a></em>); our self-examination is what reveals us to the Lord. What we think about at the memorial meeting, as we are faced with the memory of the crucified Saviour, is therefore an epitome of what we really are. If all we are thinking of is the taste of the wine, the cover over the bread, the music, what we didn’t agree with in the sermon, all the external things of our Christianity; or if we are sitting there taking bread and wine as a conscience salver, doing our little religious ritual to make us feel psychologically safe- then we simply don’t know Him. We are surface level believers only. And this is the message we give Him. Our spirit / attitude is the candle of the Lord, with which He searches us. Our thoughts when confronted by the cross reveal us to Him who died on it. Likewise Joseph (one of the most detailed types of the Lord) knew / discerned his brethren by his cup (<em><a href='B:10 44:5'>Gen 44:5</a></em>). <em><a href='B:530 11:31-32'>1Co 11:31-32</a></em> further suggests that our self-judgment at the breaking of bread is in fact the lord’s judgment of us: “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord". We expect Paul to say: ‘But when we judged ourselves, we are chastened…’. But he doesn’t; our judgment is what reveals us to the Lord, and is therefore the basis of His judgment of us. Even if we flunk conscious self-examination from an underlying disbelief that we will attain the Kingdom, then this of itself reveals our hearts to Him.</p><p>Because of this connection between the breaking of bread and judgment, it would seem that the first century church experienced the physical chastising of the Lord in terms of being struck with sickness and even death&nbsp;<em>at the memorial meeting</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:530 11:29-30'>1Co 11:29-30</a></em>). Thus at ecclesial meetings- particularly the breaking of bread- the early church confessed their sins and prayed for healing from the afflictions some were smitten with as a result of their sins (<em><a href='B:660 5:14-16'>Jas 5:14-16</a></em>). It's easy to forget that the prophecy of the crucifixion in Isaiah 53 is in fact a confession of repentance by God's people- as His sufferings are spoken about, so they lead to the confession that "He was bruised for&nbsp;<em>our</em>&nbsp;iniquities... with his stripes we are healed" (<em><a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 53:5'>Isa 53:5</a></em>). Reflection on the servant's sufferings elicited repentance. See on <em><a href='B:490 2:35'>Luk 2:35</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:33'>1Co 11:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat-&nbsp;</em>The eating and drinking at the memorial meeting is a judging of ourselves. It’s a preview of the judgment. All of 1 Corinthians 11 seems to be concerning behaviour at the memorial meeting. Time and again the brethren are described as “coming together" to that meeting (:17,18,20,33,34). Believers ‘coming together’ is the language of coming together to judgment. Where two or three are&nbsp;<em>gathered&nbsp;</em>, the Lord is in the midst of them (<em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>) uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em> concerning our gathering together unto judgment. We should not forsake the “assembling of ourselves together" (<em><a href='B:650 10:25'>Heb 10:25</a></em>)- the same word as in <em><a href='B:600 2:1'>2Th 2:1</a></em> regarding our “gathering together unto Him". The church being assembled (<em><a href='B:510 11:26'>Act 11:26</a></em>), two or three being gathered (<em><a href='B:470 18:20'>Mat 18:20</a></em>)- this is all a foretaste of the final gathering to judgment (<em><a href='B:470 25:32'>Mat 25:32</a></em> s:w:).</p><p><em>Wait for one another-&nbsp;</em>Again, despite all the serious abuses present at the Corinthian communion services, Paul's paramount concern is for love to be shown to each other. Waiting for each other may mean literally waiting for all to be present before beginning the service, rather than selfishly focusing upon themselves. But "wait for" can also mean to 'look out for', to wait for another's good- as in <em><a href='B:660 5:7'>Jas 5:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:20'>1Pe 3:20</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 11:34'>1Co 11:34</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home-&nbsp;</em>See on :22. The assumption is that the person has food at home to eat; so I would doubt whether this is a reference to any attending the meetings just in order to be fed. In any case, the hungry remained hungry, because the more prosperous didn't share their food with them (:21). So I suggest Paul is targetting the Corinthian's justification of their feasting by saying that they were eating because they were hungry. His comment is that if you're hungry, then eat at home- not at church. Continually we find the interpretation of Corinthians to depend upon understanding or guessing the content of the questions which Paul was responding to.</p><p><em>That your coming together be not to condemnation. About the other things I will give instruction when I come-&nbsp;</em>If we break bread unworthily, they “come together unto condemnation” (<em><a href='B:530 11:34'>1Co 11:34</a></em>). Yet we must judge ourselves at these meetings, to the extent of truly realising we deserve condemnation (<em><a href='B:530 11:31'>1Co 11:31</a></em>). If we feel we are worthy, then, we are unworthy. If we feel unworthy, then, we are worthy.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:1'>1Co 12:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant concerning spiritual gifts-&nbsp;</em>Chapter 1 has explained that they had been given the Spirit, but they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), and were refusing the leading of the Spirit. Paul wanted them to be aware of the working of the Spirit and how they were to walk in step with that Spirit. The Greek means literally 'spirituals'; it is the general working of the Spirit that is in view here, not specifically the miraculous gifts. By saying "I do not want you to be ignorant", the emphasis might be placed upon the word "not". Maybe they were justifying their lack of spirituality by claiming that Paul had kept them in the dark about the Spirit's working.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:2'>1Co 12:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You know that when you were Gentiles you were led away to those dumb idols, in whichever way you might have been led-&nbsp;</em>Paul place<em>s&nbsp;</em>their idol worship in the past tense, but it is clear from several places that many of them were still involved in idol worship and even drunk the cups of the idols (<em><a href='B:530 10:21'>1Co 10:21</a></em>). This is another example of where Paul assumes his readership are saved and counts them as obedient when he knows that in practice they are not. Ellicott suggests the imperfect tense should be translated "As from time to time ye might be led". This would mean that they occasionally went off to the idol temples and then at times to the Christian church meetings. It is this kind of fickleness which is typical of so many converts to Christ. "When you were Gentiles" implies they were no longer Gentiles; they had a new identity as God's people, spiritual Israel. "Led away" is a strange term to use as it is often used with the sense of 'led away to death'. The idea would be that idol worship leads to death, and therefore there can be no compromise between idol worship and Christianity. They lead to death and life respectively, and nobody can be on both paths. The dumbness of the idols (alluding to <em><a href='B:230 115:5'>Psa 115:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 115:7'>Psa 115:7</a></em> and <em><a href='B:420 2:18-19'>Hab 2:18-19</a></em> - these were the types of idols which apostate Israel worshipped) is contrasted with the activity and sensitivity of the Lord the Spirit, who causes His people to speak forth the fact He is Lord (:3). The dumb idols claimed to speak through their priests and prostitute priestesses, who supposedly spoke forth the words of the gods at places like Delphi or other shrine. But by contrast, the Lord Jesus speaks in the hearts and minds of His people wherever they are (:3):&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:3'>1Co 12:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says Jesus is accursed. And no one can say Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit-&nbsp;</em>The speaking of the Spirit is very different to the speaking of the gods represented by the idols- see on :2. It deeply costs us to accept Jesus as Lord. Yet for so many moments of each day, we deny Him His Lordship in practice. In the first century, accepting Jesus as Lord was a life and death issue. Pliny wrote to Trajan how accused Christians had to both say "The emperor is Lord" and also curse Christ. Polycarp was urged by a Roman official to submit: "What harm is there in saying "Caesar is Lord?", and yet because he refused, Polycarp was killed (<em>Martyrdom of Polycarp</em>&nbsp;8:2). It would seem that there were some Christians who gave in- and even justified it. For <em><a href='B:530 12:3'>1Co 12:3</a></em> warns that "no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is cursed", and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit". My suggestion is that this is a reference to <em><a href='B:470 10:17'>Mat 10:17</a></em>, which comforts believers that when we are delivered up, "what you are to say will be given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you". It would appear that some of the Christians who gave in were claiming that in accordance with this verse, it was the Spirit of God which had made them say "Jesus is cursed" and deny that "Jesus is Lord". Paul is pointing out that this simply doesn't happen. In our context, the point simply is that to constantly affirm "Jesus is Lord" demands an awful lot from us, and as in the first century, so in the twenty first... we will be sorely tempted to think that just a few moments of denial when in a tough situation is quite OK. But in this there is the true test as to whether really we are under His Lordship or not. We have no court to face, no lions to fear. Instead, we have the court of human opinion, the lions of social mockery, financial loss, the human negatives that arise from the unselfish living which Christ's Lordship demands of us. Paul had forced Christians to blaspheme under torture- to say things like "Jesus is accursed". He knew from experience that those who truly had the Spirit somehow had the strength not to say those words. And through that same Spirit had had the power to answer Saul: "No, Jesus is Lord", as he tortured them to say "Jesus is anathema / accursed". It could also be that there were false teachers at Corinth claiming to be inspired by God, who were claiming that Jesus is accursed.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:4'>1Co 12:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit</em>-</p><p> Verses 4-6 connect gifts with the Spirit; service with the Lord Jesus (:5); and activities with the God who empowers them (:6). This is an example of where Paul often brings together the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Trinitarian doctrine in its standard form is wrong in the relationships it presupposes between these three entities. But as the baptismal formula of Matthew 28 makes clear, the believer is associated with Father, Son and Holy Spirit by baptism. Baptism is the point at which the Spirit gifts were given, and baptism associates with Father, Son and Spirit. This I suggest is the reason for the allusion to all three entities here in the context of the gifts of the Spirit.</p><p>There is major emphasis within this section upon there being only one and the same Spirit; all the blessing and gifts were all manifestations of the same one Spirit. We wonder why there is such repeated emphasis. I suggest the answer is in appreciating the degree to which the Corinthian church was operating its services in a way similar to the rituals of the idol temples, which had been their previous religious experience. And this is true to observation with modern converts to true Christianity- they will have a tendency to bring with them the practices of religion which they were previously exposed to, despite the apparent change in understanding concerning Jesus as Lord and focus. These cults, especially in Corinth, also featured the idea of spirit possession and speaking in tongues, in the sense of glossolalia / ecstatic utterance. The idea was that a worshipper of the idol slept with the cult prostitutes and in turn, were possessed by the spirit of the god who was represented by the idol. This possession was thought to be expressed in terms of ecstatic utterances and moaning / groaning, and could also produce supposed words of wisdom and knowledge. It was typical for people to have relationships with multiple gods and to claim possession by the spirits of the various gods. I suggest that this was what was going on amongst some in the Corinthian church. But they were claiming that all this was in fact part of their possession by the spirit of the Lord Jesus. To understand the Corinthian correspondence correctly, we need to appreciate this. Hence so much about speaking in tongues in chapter 14 (Corinth was near to the oracle at Delfi where this was common). And it's why there is so much emphasis upon the Spirit of God being one, and responsible for all things. It was not that He, or His Son, were one source of spirit amongst many others. The unity of God and the unity of the Spirit are therefore connected- "one God... one Spirit... one Jesus" (<em><a href='B:560 4:4-6'>Eph 4:4-6</a></em>). If there was only one true God, then there could only be one Spirit. If there were many gods / idols, there would be many spirits, each responsible for a different aspect of spiritual life:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:5'>1Co 12:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And there are diversities of service, but the same Lord-&nbsp;</em>The gifts of the Spirit are given to enable us to serve the Lord. Never are they for our personal, secular benefit. They are for the service of others, through serving the Lord Jesus. The emphasis upon diversity would be appropriate to a community who favoured the more public, visible forms of service. See on :4.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:6'>1Co 12:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And there are diversities of activities, but the same God who empowers them all in everyone-&nbsp;</em>"Everyone" means that it can never be the case that only the church leadership are empowered. All are empowered- if they are open to it. "Activities" and "empowers" translate the same Greek term; literally, 'energy'. There is a power of energy within- "<em>in&nbsp;</em>everyone"- from God through the Spirit. Such internal empowering is within the human mind. The reference is not simply to the more visible miraculous powers; for as later explained in this chapter, those were not possessed by "everyone". See on :4.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:7'>1Co 12:7</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 25:15'>Mat 25:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>But to each individual is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good-&nbsp;</em>Again the stress is upon the way in which "each individual" has been given the Spirit; see on "everyone" in :6. Paul's theme in this letter so far is that the welfare of others must be paramount in our thinking. The Spirit is given "for the common good". All spiritual gifts and empowerments are not for ourselves; even the energy given within us (see on :6) is ultimately to be used for the good of others.</p><p>Although NEV offers "each individual", the Greek literally means ‘to each one’, and it could refer to how each house church was given a specific gift; although note :11 "each man". I say that because there is New Testament evidence that suggests that not every single individual believer in the first century had miraculous Holy Spirit gifts. That is hard to square with 1 Corinthians 12 teaching that ‘each one’ had such gifts. But remember the context. Paul has been arguing that there is one body of Christ in Corinth, and each house church contributes towards that. The house churches were divided against each other and some groups shunned others. Paul is saying that each of those house groups played a vital role. We can take a lesson from this. Each ecclesia even today has a somewhat different emphasis, and all too easily, ecclesias can divide from each other. And yet this would be a denial of the one body of Christ; we not only need each other individually, each ecclesia needs each other ecclesia in their area, if they are to fully function as the one body. The warning against “schism in the body” (<em><a href='B:530 12:25'>1Co 12:25</a></em>) applied in the context to there being schism between local house churches, rather than between individuals.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:8'>1Co 12:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit-&nbsp;</em>Chapter 1 began by stating that the Corinthians as a church were enriched with all wisdom and knowledge. This was true insofar as these gifts had potentially been given to some within the community. But the church was divided, and the individuals it seems refused to recognize their gifts. And so the situation became analogous to that which we meet today- that many read the promises of Spirit empowerment and simply find them so untrue to observed experience. But that is our fault, both on an individual and collective level. See on :10.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:9'>1Co 12:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To another faith through the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healings through the same one Spirit</em>-</p><p> "Faith" may mean just that- the Spirit gives internal spiritual power to believe, once we have taken the step of faith and baptism. But&nbsp;<em>pistos</em>&nbsp;can also reasonably be translated 'conviction'; perhaps the reference is to the Spirit power to convict others of sin, as Peter displayed with Ananias and Sapphira, and which may have been used to smite some with illness as mentioned in James 5. Paul likewise appears to have used it in <em><a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a></em>. The plural "healings" suggests there were different gifts to heal different illnesses. See on :10.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:10'>1Co 12:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And to another workings of miracles, and to another prophecy and to another discerning of spirits; to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues</em>-</p><p> The question that arises of course is whether the Corinthians, who were for the most part not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>) and deeply astray in understanding and practice, actually had these gifts. When we read "to one is given... and to another... to another...", is this Paul describing how things are at Corinth? Or is he saying that these were the potentials? They had been given the gifts of wisdom, according to chapter 1; and yet Paul laments there was not a wise man amongst them (<em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>). They were struck down with sicknesses because of their abuse of the memorial meetings (<em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>); so why were they not healed, if the gifts of miracles, healings etc. were present amongst them? If indeed they had the gifts of speaking in and interpreting foreign languages "tongues", then why in chapter 14 will we read that they were talking in unintelligible language without an interpreter? I am therefore driven to the conclusion that these gifts had been given in potential to the community, every single member had some gift "everyone... to each", :6,7. But they were not using them, they were focused upon themselves rather than realizing that these gifts were given "for the common good" (:7).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:11'>1Co 12:11</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 25:15'>Mat 25:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>All these gifts are energized by one and the same Spirit, apportioned to each man according as he is willing to receive it-&nbsp;</em>I have commented earlier on the emphasis upon the "same Spirit" being at work (see on :4), and upon the way that "each man" had been given a gift (:10). So much spiritual energy and potential lay wasted and idle in Corinth. But the key was the fact that they were given to each man "as he is willing to receive it". They were unwilling; because they were self centered and did not perceive that the gifts were given for the good of others (:7). If they had had a true passion to serve others, then they would have been willing to receive the gifts. The situation recalls the parable where the poor man is brave enough to knock on the door of his rich neighbour at midnight because he needs bread to give to another- an unexpected visitor. And the rich man will give him whatever he needs- in order to give to others (<em><a href='B:490 11:8'>Luk 11:8</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:12'>1Co 12:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though being many, are one body; so also is Christ-&nbsp;</em>The term "Christ" is even used of the believers, such is His unity with us (<em><a href='B:530 12:12'>1Co 12:12</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:500 3:11'>Joh 3:11</a></em>. The analogy to the human body means that every part is critical for the function of the whole. This is why despite the entire raft of problems at Corinth, Paul begins in chapter 1 by addressing their lack of unity. And he uses the same metaphor in <em><a href='B:520 12:4-5'>Rom 12:4-5</a></em>, arguing that all members do not have the same function, but we are thereby "every one members one of another". This continual focus upon "every one" is in the context of the way that religion generally gives importance to the leadership, and the mass are expected to simply attend and empower the leadership. But in the body of Christ, each member is critical to the function of the whole. If any leave the body or malfunction, then all suffer. This is why Paul is so concerned that "members" of Christ's body should become one body with church prostitutes, because "your bodies are the members of Christ" (<em><a href='B:530 6:15'>1Co 6:15</a></em>). Yet within the same metaphor, we are "every one members one of another" (<em><a href='B:520 12:5'>Rom 12:5</a></em>). Undeniably, our membership within Christ is intimately connected to our membership of one another. This is why the practices of disfellowship and division, so common to many churches, are absolutely wrong. They deeply damage the entire community, including those who are responsible for them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:550 3:27'>Gal 3:27</a></em>.</p><p><em>For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free-&nbsp;</em>Christ "shall baptize&nbsp;<em>you</em>" plural (<em><a href='B:470 3:11'>Mat 3:11</a></em>) was deeply meditated upon by Paul, until he came to see in the fact that we&nbsp;<em>plural</em>&nbsp;are baptized. The strong implication is that therefore we should be one body, without unnecessary divisions. For&nbsp;<em>by one Spirit</em>&nbsp;are we all baptized into one body" of Christ (<em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>). The Spirit seems to be the baptizer. But how? The Lord Jesus baptizes by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:500 1:33'>Joh 1:33</a></em>), although He didn't personally hold the shoulders of those He baptized (<em><a href='B:500 4:2'>Joh 4:2</a></em> - doubtless to show that who does this is irrelevant). We obeyed the Truth (through baptism) "by the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:600 2:13'>2Th 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:22'>1Pe 1:22</a></em>). This doesn't necessarily mean that the Spirit made us obey the Truth. Rather is the idea that as<em>&nbsp;Christ</em>&nbsp;died and was raised by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a></em>), so we go through the same process in baptism, being likewise resurrected (in a figure) by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:670 3:18-21'>1Pe 3:18-21</a></em>). It is therefore the Spirit which raises us up out of the water, as it raised Christ; the man holding our shoulders is irrelevant. It is therefore through / by the Spirit that we have our hope of salvation (<em><a href='B:550 5:5'>Gal 5:5</a></em>). There is only one resurrection, ultimately: that of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:530 6:14-15'>1Co 6:14-15</a></em>). By baptism into Him, we have a part in that. God in this sense resurrected us with Christ (<em><a href='B:560 2:5-6'>Eph 2:5-6</a></em>), we even ascended into heavenly places in Him, as He rose up into the literal Heavens. And this whole process was achieved by the Spirit. &nbsp;But what does&nbsp; the Spirit" mean in this context? The Lord Jesus Himself is the life-giving Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 15:45'>1Co 15:45</a></em>). The Spirit is what quickens us; but consider <em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth... the words that I speak unto you,&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;are spirit, and&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;are (what gives) life”. The process of coming alive with Christ by baptism, the raising out of the grave which the water represents, is therefore due to the work of the Lord Jesus through His Spirit and His word. He is "the Lord the Spirit" (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV). At baptism we are born of (or by) water-and-spirit (<em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>; the Greek implies one act, combining water and spirit). We were washed by baptism "in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (<em><a href='B:530 6:11'>1Co 6:11</a></em>). “He that is joined to the Lord (Jesus) (by baptism) is one spirit (with Him)" (<em><a href='B:530 6:17'>1Co 6:17</a></em>). We are saved "by the washing (baptism) of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; which he shed on us abundantly by Jesus Christ" (<em><a href='B:630 3:5-6'>Tit 3:5-6</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:500 3:5'>Joh 3:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>And were all made to drink of one Spirit-&nbsp;</em>At baptism, we drink of the Spirit. The Corinthians had done so, but were unwilling generally to continue doing so. We were "made" to do this. It is not all a mere question of freewill response. <em><a href='B:530 10:4'>1Co 10:4</a></em> has drawn the parallel with Israel all drinking the same spiritual drink, which was Christ. In Christ, we are "made" to drink of Christ's Spirit. But this is not an overpowering influence- for the Corinthians had drunk of it but had turned aside to idols, just as Israel had done.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:14'>1Co 12:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For the body is not one member but many-&nbsp;</em>Paul puts his finger on the psychological problem- that human beings tend to subconsciously assume that they are the only ones. That my immediate issues are paramount. But if indeed we are Christ's, there must be an acceptance that man is not alone. We do not live nor die to ourselves. Our baptism was not only a statement of our relationship with the Lord Jesus; it is also a sign of our entry into the body of the Lord Jesus, i:e. the community of believers, the one ecclesia (<em><a href='B:580 1:24'>Col 1:24</a></em>). Members are added to the church through baptism (<em><a href='B:510 2:41'>Act 2:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 2:47'>Act 2:47</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 5:14'>Act 5:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 11:24'>Act 11:24</a></em>); thus baptism enables entry into the one body of Christ. Whoever is properly baptized is a member of the one body, and is bound together with all other members of that body: "As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body... for the body is not one member, but many" (<em><a href='B:530 12:12-14'>1Co 12:12-14</a></em>). Paul, in his relentless manner, drives the point home time and again. He goes on to reason that just because the hand says it isn't of the body, and won't co-operate with the feet, this doesn't mean that it&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;isn't of the body.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:15'>1Co 12:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If the foot shall say: Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body- that would not make it not a part of the body-&nbsp;</em>When we are first baptized, we can tend to view those who leave our community as simply hard to understand, but we may easily shrug it off. Yet surely we need to do&nbsp;<em>more</em>; to&nbsp;<em>feel</em>&nbsp;more for them. And to realize that we all leave, in that we can be lost in sin for minutes or hours at a time, having numbed our responsibilities to the Father and Son. And yet, we are in covenant relationship with Him. This means that we do not slip in and out of fellowship with Him according to our concentration upon Him or our spirituality. We likewise shouldn’t call those who leave us Mr or Mrs. They are always our brother or sister. We are in a family bond with them. Even if the hand says "I am not of the body, it is not therefore not of the body" (<em><a href='B:530 12:15'>1Co 12:15</a></em> RV). These words were written in the context of some of the Corinthian brethren effectively resigning from the ecclesia and joining the various temples of even synagogues in the town. But they couldn’t really resign from a relationship with God; resign from the fact that their Lord bled to death for them.</p><p>Having reminded us that "by one Spirit are we all baptize into the one body" (<em><a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a></em>), Paul makes the obvious point- that as members of that body we&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>, we dare not, say to other members of the body "I have no need necessity of you" (<em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em>). To fellowship with the others in the body of Christ is our "necessity"; this is why an open table to all those who are in Christ isn't an option, but a necessity. Otherwise, we are declaring ourselves not to be in the body. Indeed "those members of the body which seem to be more feeble, are necessary" (<em><a href='B:530 12:22'>1Co 12:22</a></em>). By rights, we ought to be condemned for such behaviour; for by refusing our brethren we are refusing membership in Christ. And yet I sense something of the grace of both God and Paul when he writes that if someone says "Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?" (<em><a href='B:530 12:15'>1Co 12:15</a></em>). I take this to mean that even if a member of the body acts like they aren't in the body, this doesn't mean that ultimately they aren't counted as being in the body. But all the same, we shouldn't stare condemnation in the face by rejecting ourselves from the body of Christ by rejecting the members of His body at the Lord's table. That's the whole point of Paul's argument. Naturally this raises the question: "Well who is in the body?". Paul says that we are baptized into the body (<em><a href='B:530 10:17'>1Co 10:17</a></em>); and this throws the question a stage further back: "So what, then, makes baptism valid?". Baptism is into the body of Christ, into His person, His death and His resurrection; and not into any human denomination or particular set of theology. If the illiterate can understand the Gospel, if thousands could hear the Gospel for a few hours and be baptized into Christ in response to it- it simply can't be that a detailed theology is necessary to make baptism valid. For the essence of Christ, His death and resurrection, is surely simple rather than complicated. Those who believe it and are baptized into it are in His body and are thus our brethren- whatever finer differences in understanding, inherited tradition and style we may have.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:16'>1Co 12:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if the ear shall say: Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body- that would not make it not a part of the body-&nbsp;</em>Clearly there was jockeying for position within the Corinthian church, and some were professing that they had left the body. But declaration that we are not part of the body doesn't make us not part of the body. The principle we can take is that even if there are barriers between us and other believers, barriers which they have placed, distances they have created- they are still part of the body and we still need them. Denominationalism and division over theology are perhaps the most common cause of these distances.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:17'>1Co 12:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If the whole body were an eye, where is the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where is the smelling?-</em></p><p>&nbsp;We cannot all have the same function. Corinth had "ten thousand teachers" (<em><a href='B:530 4:15'>1Co 4:15</a></em>). There was clearly a desire for prominence, and this contributed to the overall dysfunction of the body. The Corinthians were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). They needed to accept the gifts they were given, and realizing them would mean that they would not seek for other positions. They would be more than content to use what they had been given.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:18'>1Co 12:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now has God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased Him-&nbsp;</em>See on :17. If the Corinthians had accepted their given gifts and roles to play, they would not have been interested in usurping the place of others. God has gone to so much trouble to potentially enable the perfect functioning of the church; to the extent that according to John 17, the unity / perfect function of the body should be enough in itself to convert the world. But a self focused approach and refusal to accept the gifts of the Spirit meant that this wonderful potential didn't work out.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:19'>1Co 12:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if they were all one member, where is the body?-&nbsp;</em>A chronic focus upon being the member we would like to be means that effectively we are destroying the body of Christ- crucifying Christ afresh. It would seem there were many aspiring to be leaders and teachers (<em><a href='B:530 4:15'>1Co 4:15</a></em>)- to be the head. But the head is the Lord Jesus. This aspiration was not only inappropriate but effectively leaves the head of the body without a body. Man is never better than when he has a specific calling, and the ability to achieve and practice that calling. And so it is in Christ. We have specific gifts, designed for usage for others "to the common good". Using them, being Spirit-filled in the ways intended for us, will mean that we have no aspiration to fulfil other roles for which in God's wisdom we were not intended.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:20'>1Co 12:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now they are many members, but one body-&nbsp;</em>"But now" would imply that Paul saw them as right then at that moment a functional body. They were not "now" just a few members with effectively no body; they were many members in one body. This is one of many examples of where Paul counts the dysfunctional Corinthians as mature in Christ when in reality they were not.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 12:15'>1Co 12:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>Therefore the eye cannot say to the hand: I have no need of you; nor the head to the feet: I have no need of you-&nbsp;</em>The same word is used in :24 about our more honourable parts thinking they have "no need". Perhaps we are therefore to read in an ellipsis there, to the effect they think they have no need; for here in :21 it is made clear that we all stand in need of each other. Again Paul is touching to the core of our subconscious sense that we are sufficient of ourselves.</p><p>This is something more than a random example: the head (the Lord Jesus) cannot do without the feet (a symbol of the preacher in <em><a href='B:520 10:15'>Rom 10:15</a></em>). In the work of witness especially, the Head is reliant on the preacher for the work He wills to be done. He likens preaching to drag net fishing (<em><a href='B:470 13:47'>Mat 13:47</a></em>), in which one big fishing boat drags a net which is tied to a small dinghy. God’s fishing is thus dependent on us, the smaller boat, working with Him. Thus the harvest was plenteous during the Lord’s ministry, but relatively few were converted due to the dearth of labourers (<em><a href='B:470 9:37'>Mat 9:37</a></em> implies). So the idea is that if even the Lord Jesus needs us, how much more do we need each other.</p><p>As John realized the tendency of some to think they could love God without loving His sons,&nbsp;so Paul here tackled the same problem at Corinth. He knew that some would want to go off on their own, and he shows that such behaviour would suggest that they alone were the whole body. He knew that some would think that they had no need of other parts of the ecclesial body; he saw that some would feel that they were so inferior to others that they had no place in the body. All these are reasons why believers push off on their own. But notice that Paul doesn't actually say 'the eye&nbsp;<em>shouldn't&nbsp;</em>say to the hand, I have no need of you'; but rather "the eye&nbsp;<em>cannot</em>say to the hand...". Although some may say or feel this, ultimately, from God's perspective, it's simply not valid. Christian disillusion with Christianity&nbsp;mustn't lead us to quit the body. The same logic applies to those who think that the body of Christ is divided; ultimately, there is one body, and from God's perspective this is indivisible. The divisions only exist in the minds of men. Those who say that they don't need fellowship with their brethren "cannot say" this, according to Paul. If they continue on this road, ultimately they declare themselves not of the one body of Christ; although I trust there are many brethren who have done just this who may still receive God's gracious salvation. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:22'>1Co 12:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>No, on the contrary, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary-&nbsp;</em>Many of those who ungraciously storm out of fellowship with the rest of the body, do so because they complain that other believers are weak, unloving, hypocrites, don't practice what they preach etc. And in many ways, their complaints are true (seeing that the Lord came to heal those who need a doctor rather than shake hands with the healthy). But those parts of our bodies "that seem to be weaker…that we think are less honourable... the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty... with special honour" (NIV). The private parts of our bodies are the parts we are most sensitive to, although on the outside they seem weak and hidden. And so Paul reasons that the weaker parts of the ecclesial body should be treated the same. The Greek for "feeble" (<em><a href='B:530 12:21'>1Co 12:21</a></em>) is used (notably in Corinthians) to describe spiritual weakness: <em><a href='B:480 14:38'>Mar 14:38</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>. And in some ways, we are all "weak" (<em><a href='B:530 1:27'>1Co 1:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:10'>1Co 4:10</a></em>):&nbsp;&nbsp;So those we perceive ("that seem to be... that we think") to be spiritually weak in their external appearance, we should be especially sensitive towards. Significantly, the “sick" (s:w. "feeble") in the parable of <em><a href='B:470 25:44'>Mat 25:44</a></em> are the "least" of Christ's brethren, the spiritually weakest; and at the day of judgment, the rejected are condemned because of their attitude towards these spiritually weakest of Christ's brethren.</p><p>Our attitude to the spiritually weak is a vital part of our salvation. Christian disillusion with Christianity&nbsp; ignores this at its peril. Thus "those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are&nbsp;<em>indispensable</em>" (<em><a href='B:530 12:22'>1Co 12:22</a></em> NIV); indispensable for our spiritual development and salvation. So we shouldn't be surprised if we don't like our brethren, if there are things which unbearably bug us about the community. This irritation, this clear vision of the weakness of our fellow believers, is a God-designed feature of our spiritual experience. If the day of disillusion and disappointment with the brotherhood hasn't come for you, it surely will do. But remember how&nbsp;<em>indispensable</em>&nbsp;this all is. Consider all the miserable complaints believers make about us: they gossip about me, they actually fabricate things as well as exaggerate, she stole from me, he disregards me, her son&nbsp;<em>swore</em>&nbsp;at me, would you believe it (I would); they don't ask me to speak, he's such a hypocrite, and do you know what she did... Let's say every word is true. These weak brethren and sisters who are doing all this are "indispensable" to the salvation of the one who suffers all this,&nbsp;<em>if</em>&nbsp;he responds properly. Just walking away from them is to effectively put ourselves outside the body. We&nbsp;<em>need</em>&nbsp;them, the Spirit says, we need all the mud, the comments and the undermining and the upstaging and the betrayal, all at the most sensitive and hurtful points.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:23'>1Co 12:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And those parts of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our unattractive parts have more abundant covering-&nbsp;</em>Paul, as always, is our hero. The one who gave his life, his health, his career, his marriage, his soul, for the salvation of others. Only to have confidences betrayed, to be cruelly slandered, to be threatened, to be so passionately hated by his converts that some even tried to kill him and betray him to the Romans and Jews. He talks of how we must honour those whom we think are “less honourable". He uses a word he earlier appropriates to himself in <em><a href='B:530 4:10'>1Co 4:10</a></em> (AV "despised"). He's saying 'OK, if you think I'm so weak, so despised, let's say I am. But you should receive me, because I'm still in the body'. And to that there was no answer (and still isn't any) by those Christians disillusioned with Christianity. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:560 5:31'>Eph 5:31</a></em>.</p><p><em>Whereas our more attractive parts have no need of this. But God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honour to that part which lacked it-&nbsp;</em>God has "tempered" the whole body together, mingling together the weak and strong. That is exactly why Paul didn't seek to resolve the problems at Corinth by disfellowshipping the weak majority. He is likely writing here with an eye to comforting and explaining things for the 'strong' minority who would have wondered how they could ever retain membership in this church. The allusion is to the way in which the unleavened cakes of flour were "mingled" or "tempered" with the oil (cp. the Spirit) in order to be an acceptable offering (<em><a href='B:30 2:4-5'>Lev 2:4-5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 7:10'>Lev 7:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:30 9:4'>Lev 9:4</a></em> etc:). Paul has already likened his Corinthian ecclesia to a lump of unleavened flour (<em><a href='B:530 5:7'>1Co 5:7</a></em>); he is now saying that they have been "tempered" together by the oil of God's Spirit. If we break apart from our brethren, we are breaking apart, or denying, that “tempering" of the body which God has made. It's like a husband and wife breaking apart their marriage, which God has joined together. It isn't only that we are missing out on the patience etc. which we could develop if we stayed in contact with our brethren. Our indifference and shunning of our brethren is actively doing despite to the Spirit of grace and unity which in prospect God has enabled His people to experience. The body “maketh increase of itself... unto the edifying of itself in love”. By remaining in the body, we are built up from what every part of it contributes to the growth of the whole. To quit from our brethren is to quit from that source of nutrition and upbuilding. The earth in the sower parable represents various types of believers; and the Lord went on to say that the earth brings forth fruit “of itself”. The community of itself brings forth spirituality in its members. Some of the most Spirit-filled brethren and sisters you can meet are those who have stuck at ecclesial life all their days, really struggled with personality clashes, with endless ecclesial storms and wrangles- but they've stuck it out. And thereby they have remained in touch with, and been moulded by, that Spirit of tempering together which is so fundamental to the body of the Lord Jesus Christ.</p><p>“God has…&nbsp;<em>given</em>&nbsp;more abundant&nbsp;<em>honour</em>&nbsp;unto that part which&nbsp;<em>lacked</em>" (<em><a href='B:530 12:24'>1Co 12:24</a></em>), as the husband should "(<em>give</em>)&nbsp;<em>honour</em>&nbsp;unto the wife, as unto the&nbsp;<em>weaker</em>&nbsp;vessel" (<em><a href='B:670 3:7'>1Pe 3:7</a></em>). God's dealings with the ecclesia are replicated both within marriage, and within the ecclesia- for we too should give special respect and sensitivity to the weaker parts of the ecclesial body (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:1'>Rom 15:1</a></em>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:25'>1Co 12:25</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 12:7'>1Co 12:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>So that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another-&nbsp;</em>Paul begun his letter in chapter 1 by lamenting the schisms, and goes on to highlight their lack of care for each other in sexual matters and in the whole question of relationships with idol worship. But the composition of the community of believers had been precisely calculated by the Lord of the body for maximum spiritual functionality. The body was designed to have no schism within it,&nbsp;<em>so that</em>&nbsp;each member could care for others. This is why Paul sees schism as the first and foremost problem he must address. It is symptomatic of all the other problems, and it was this which was stopping the path of the Spirit in resolving all the other issues. The tempering of the body, the choice of composition, who was mingled with whom, was and is intended to produce an undivided community. But as we have noted so often, Corinth didn't live up to the potential made possible. And it is the same with us. It can seem that if only this or that person was not in the community of believers, then all would function so much better. But that is not in fact the case- the opposite is true. Who should be avoided are those who cause division, especially by the evil policy of cutting off members from the body.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:26'>1Co 12:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And whether one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it-&nbsp;</em>In an undivided body, the situation of one member affects all. The idea of all suffering together is repeated by Paul in <em><a href='B:540 1:5-6'>2Co 1:5-6</a></em>: "For as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, even so our comfort is also in abundance through Christ. If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which works in the patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer". The Lord Jesus is a member of the body, and His sufferings and exaltation are ours. But likewise our sufferings are not unique; they are so that we can find comfort from others who have suffered the same, and give comfort to them likewise. The joint rejoicing with the one member is surely alluding to the parables of the lost in <em><a href='B:490 15:6'>Luk 15:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 15:9'>Luk 15:9</a></em>, where the rejoicing over the finding of the lost member is a cause for inviting others to "rejoice with me".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:27'>1Co 12:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now you are the body of Christ and each individually members of it-&nbsp;</em>This was perhaps aimed at the spiritually stronger who must have wondered whether Corinth was still part of the body of Christ. This brief statement stands as a huge challenge to all who would draw certain lines of theology or practice or morality in order to exclude others. Paul obviously drew the lines pretty low to say this about Corinth. Again, note the emphasis upon "each one" of them being a member of the body.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:28'>1Co 12:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then those who do miracles, then the gifts of healing, helping, administration and various kinds of languages-&nbsp;</em>God set the apostles&nbsp;<em>first</em>&nbsp;in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:530 12:28'>1Co 12:28</a></em>)- but in another sense, God set the apostles&nbsp;<em>last</em>&nbsp;in the ecclesia (<em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em>). It depends from which perspective we look at these things. Pentecostals need to note that healings and tongues are low down the list. "Administration" is likewise these days read as 'leadership'; but it is well down the list. Perhaps the idea also was that there was no use pretending to positions of apostles or prophets, because true apostles and prophets had been "set" by God in the church. Hence Paul elsewhere speaks of how he had been set or appointed as an apostle (s:w. <em><a href='B:610 1:12'>1Ti 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 2:7'>1Ti 2:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 1:11'>2Ti 1:11</a></em>); any attempt by the agitators to talk that down was simply going against God's sovereign choice.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:29'>1Co 12:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?-&nbsp;</em>Paul so often positions himself as Moses. The revolt against the authority of Moses was on the basis that "all the congregation are holy, every one of them" and therefore Moses did not really have the special authority he claimed (<em><a href='B:40 16:3'>Num 16:3</a></em>). It seems the same was happening at Corinth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:30'>1Co 12:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak with languages? Do all interpret?-&nbsp;</em>The answer in reality was not 'No, only some do'. Because I have argued elsewhere that these gifts had only potentially been given. Those who had been struck with sickness had no healers in the church (<em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>); and chapter 14 will rebuke the Corinthians for not using the gift of interpretation, and not speaking in foreign languages but rather in unintelligible gibberish after the pattern of the idol cults. Yet the Corinthians claimed to have these gifts. I have suggested earlier that they were imitating the claims made within the idol cults, but in their case, were claiming that these were Spirit gifts from God. In reality they were not. But Paul gently doesn't take direct issue with this. Instead he criticizes their desire to have the more public gifts, or at least, their desire to lay claim to them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 12:31'>1Co 12:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But earnestly desire the higher gifts-&nbsp;</em>Although believers were "set" or appointed to have certain gifts and should not therefore aspire to others, there appears here to be the possibility of desiring even "higher" ones. It may be that this reflects the openness of God to serving Him and His people- that we can move above or beyond our calling. Or it could be that Paul is treating their wrongly motivated desires for Spirit gifts in the same way as he treated their wrongly motivated desires for singleness and freedom from the marital ties that bound them. He goes along with them, by saying that indeed singleness unto the Lord is commendable; but warns them against using the church prostitutes in their single state, and against breaking up existing marriages. And so here, having said that we should receive and use the gifts we were appointed to and not pretend to others which were not intended, he now seems to say that of course, God is open to dialogue with man, and may grant even greater gifts "for the common good" if our motivation is correct. But the highest way is a way far higher than miraculous gifts- it is the way of love without exercising those miraculous gifts:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And I will show you a still more excellent way-&nbsp;</em>The "way" of love outlined in the next chapter. The "higher gifts" were those which would help others the most; but the way of love was higher. <em><a href='B:530 12:31'>1Co 12:31</a></em> to <em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em> implies that Paul was faced with the higher choice of the ministry of love and the written word, compared to the lower choice of exercising the Spirit gifts. By all means compare this with the choice which he had in <em><a href='B:570 1:21-26'>Phi 1:21-26</a></em>: to exit this life was made possible to him, but he chose the higher, more difficult and more spiritually risky option of living for a few more years, in order to strengthen his brethren. See on <em><a href='B:530 7:11'>1Co 7:11</a></em>. The miraculous gifts were given "for the common good", and would have been given to those who truly sought the good of others. But the way of love was a better way. And that is the way open to us. We can achieve even more by that, than by possessing miraculous gifts. This is not only a stern counter to the obsession of Pentecostalism for the miraculous gifts. It means that we should never feel that we cannot serve others as we would wish because of lack of resources or gifts. The way of love, after the pattern of chapter 13, is even more effective.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:1'>1Co 13:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If I speak with all the languages of men and of angels, but do not have love-&nbsp;</em>The description of love in 1 Corinthians 13, the outline of the fruits of the Spirit in <em><a href='B:550 5:22-26'>Gal 5:22-26</a></em>, these are all portraits of the man Christ Jesus. The clearest witness to Him “therefore consists in human life in which his image is reproduced”.</p><p>So far in Corinthians, Paul has been arguing that care for others is paramount. In issues like marriage and food offered to idols, the critical issue is what will edify / build up others. And the same principle is used regarding the Spirit gifts. The mere possession of material / physical ability to serve the Lord is not the same as love. At the end of chapter 12, Paul has argued that the ministry of love is more effective in helping others towards salvation than the exercise of the miraculous gifts. The Corinthian clamour for miraculous experience, especially speaking in exotic utterances, was akin to the pagan religious cults- upon which it seems they had based their church life. "If I speak..." could mean that Paul did indeed speak with all human languages- as a travelling missionary he was empowered to have the gift of languages. "Of angels" is likely hyperbole. The pagan cults experienced ecstatic utterances, and they (along with the apostate Judaists who were influencing Corinth) liked to justify their glossolalia by claiming it was in fact Angelic language. I would have been inclined to labour the point that the gift of 'tongues' was the gift of speaking and communicating in intelligible contemporary languages, in order to preach the Gospel. Their usage in Acts 2 is the parade example. But instead Paul takes a higher approach. He says that even if he speaks with every human language&nbsp;<em>and</em>&nbsp;Angelic language- it is of no use if he has no love. This is what he has argued in chapter 12- that if we are not achieving the building up of our brethren, then all we do is of no use.</p><p><em>I have become like sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal-&nbsp;</em>These instruments soon give a headache if they just continue making the same sound for an extended period. This is another indication that Biblical tongue speaking is not making ecstatic sounds but rather is done to build up others in love. Vine writes of "the celebrated Corinthian bronze". There is a contrast between the unwrought brass or metal which was struck, and the more refined musical sound of the cymbal. Whether refined or totally unrefined, without love, the words spoken would be but noise. A clanging cymbal contributes nothing to music unless it is within a wider context of other contributions; and likewise speaking / teaching without love achieves nothing edifying. This is a much needed caveat to the emphasis placed upon platform speaking; of itself it will produce nothing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 7:22'>Mat 7:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>And if I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries, and all knowledge-&nbsp;</em>Prophecy, knowledge and understanding "all mysteries" are nothing unless we are going to use that knowledge to profit or assist others. In the knowledge oriented world of the information age, we need this reminder as no other generation. Intellectual knowledge alone cannot save; it is only if this is harnessed for others that we can become 'profitable' and as it were find ourselves; otherwise we shall simply "be nothing". The Corinthians were modelling their church upon the surrounding idol cults, with their claims to speak "mysteries" and have exclusive knowledge. They were clearly making these claims in the name of having Holy Spirit gifts. Although they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), Paul doesn't directly attack their false claims. Rather he argues more subtly, that even if he has all such knowledge of mysteries, this of itself is nothing if it is not rooted in the love that seeks to upbuild others.</p><p><em>If I have all faith so as to remove mountains</em>-</p><p> Paul appears to speak of such faith as a gift of the Spirit. Perhaps the miracles of the Spirit were done through granting the believers the gift of faith so that they could achieve the miracles. Surely Paul has in mind the Lord's teaching that faith as a grain of mustard seed could remove a mountain (<em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>). But that alone would not save the individual doing the miracle. That mustard seed had to grow into a great plant which gave shelter to others (<em><a href='B:490 13:19'>Luk 13:19</a></em>). Faith alone will not save; it must have works, and those works relate to the blessing of others. This is the whole theme here in Corinthians. We may have the faith which enables us to eat idol food; but that is not the point. Our impact upon others and care for them is the essential thing.</p><p>The fact we copy the language patterns of those we are with was true for Paul. The Gospels were so much in his heart that he can hardly speak or write without some reference, consciously or unconsciously, to the Lord Jesus. Thus in <em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em> I sense that Paul as he is writing (on a human level) was looking round for a superlative to express just how useless we are without love. And the superlative expression he picks is unconsciously taken out of the Gospels (<em><a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a></em>): "Though I have all faith&nbsp;<em>so that I could remove mountains</em>&nbsp;and have not charity, I am nothing".</p><p>Even if we have faith to move mountains- an allusion to the Lord's teaching in <em><a href='B:470 21:21'>Mat 21:21</a></em> - we 'are nothing' without love (<em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em>). God so respects faith that He may hear the prayer of a believer, even though He considers that person "nothing" because they lack love. Rather like Elijah bringing fire down from Heaven by his faith- and yet the Lord Jesus seems to imply that this wasn't the right thing to have done, because Elijah lacked love (<em><a href='B:490 9:55'>Luk 9:55</a></em>). In our self-examination we may perceive how God answers our prayers, our faith is rewarded... and think we're doing OK. But it could be that we are still "nothing". It's a sobering thought. Paul goes on in <em><a href='B:530 15:2'>1Co 15:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:19'>1Co 15:19</a></em> to say that faith can be "in vain", and hope can likewise be merely of benefit in this life. But <em><a href='B:530 13:3'>1Co 13:3</a></em> hits even harder home: a believer can give their body to be burned, for nothing, if they lack love. Remember these words were written, albeit under inspiration, by a believer who did give his body to die a violent death, and who had seen with his own eyes the death of Christians. Surely Paul writes with a warning word to himself; that even that apparent pinnacle of devotion to the Lord can be in vain, if we lack love.</p><p>Note how he writes in the first person: "If&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;have all faith... but have not love,&nbsp;<em>I am nothing</em>" (<em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em>). It's not only that Paul is warning himself personally; the only other time the Greek phrase "I am nothing" occurs is Paul speaking about himself, also to the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:540 12:11'>2Co 12:11</a></em>). There's a kind of association of ideas between the "I&nbsp;<em>am</em>&nbsp;nothing" and "Love&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;everything". Unless we 'are' love, we 'are' nothing.</p><p><em>But do not have love, I am nothing</em>-</p><p> The same phrase is only used, also to the Corinthians, in <em><a href='B:540 12:11'>2Co 12:11</a></em> "Though I am nothing". We are indeed "nothing" of ourselves; only if we have love for others do we become something. We are to connect "I am nothing" with the comment that "it profits me nothing" in :3. If we do not profit or benefit others, then we are ourselves nothing. This continues the theme so often touched upon in Corinthians- that our salvation is wrapped up in that of others. We cannot just focus upon our own salvation and relationship with the Lord. If we do not profit others, then we are nothing ourselves. This explains Paul's passion for the spiritual growth and salvation of the Corinthians and indeed all his converts. The whole situation is reminiscent of how the men of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh were not allowed to have their own inheritance on the East of Jordan until they had helped their brethren to secure their inheritances in the promised land to the West of Jordan.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:3'>1Co 13:3</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 7:59'>Act 7:59</a></em>.</p><p><em>And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing-&nbsp;</em>Even making sacrifice for others does not make us anything- if it is not done with love. Even dying for our faith doesn't make us any more than "nothing" if we do so without love. See on :2&nbsp;<em>I am nothing</em>. Our "profit" is to that of others. Doing good deeds of charity alone would not save, according to the Lord's teaching in <em><a href='B:470 6:1-4'>Mat 6:1-4</a></em> - if there was the wrong motive; some manuscripts add here "That I may glory". And this certainly makes sense here. The burning of Christians only began under Nero's persecution, so far as history records. But perhaps such punishment had already begun in some places and Paul therefore alludes to it.</p><p>Let's not equate true love with the mere act of giving aid to charities. We can give all our goods to feed the poor, but lack true love; the life of love, the love of Christ permeating all our being (<em><a href='B:530 13:3'>1Co 13:3</a></em> may well have been written by Paul with his mind on some in the early Jerusalem ecclesia, who&nbsp;<em>did</em>&nbsp;give all their goods to the ecclesial poor, but lacked a true love, and returned to Judaism).</p><p>There is another possibility regarding giving our body to be burned. Some of the legal terms used in the NT for our redemption imply that Christ redeemed us from slavery through His death. And yet one could redeem a slave by oneself becoming a slave (<em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 3:13'>Gal 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 4:5'>Gal 4:5</a></em>). This is why the crucified Jesus is typified by the suffering servant / slave of Isaiah’s prophesies. And Paul seems to have risen up to something similar when he speaks of giving his body to be branded, i:e. becoming a slave (<em><a href='B:530 13:3'>1Co 13:3</a></em> Gk:).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:4'>1Co 13:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Love suffers long-&nbsp;</em>"Longsuffering" is used in the sense of patient waiting for response from others, or the patience required to forgive another who at this time has not made recompense (<em><a href='B:470 18:26'>Mat 18:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:29'>Mat 18:29</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:7'>Jas 5:7</a></em>); and of God's longsuffering with us, as He awaits our spiritual maturity (<em><a href='B:490 18:7'>Luk 18:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:680 3:9'>2Pe 3:9</a></em>). All the attributes of love in this poem have some reference to our attitudes towards others, and that is the key to understanding each term. Those who refuse to forgive until there is repentance, or who are impatient with the immaturity of others in spiritual terms, are lacking this longsuffering which is in view here. Paul's patience with the Corinthians is really a parade example of what he meant.</p><p>I find it deeply concerning that so many who have committed themselves to Christ are unable to confidently answer questions such as 'What is love?'. To expound the beasts of Daniel's visions is relatively easy- this equals that, that refers to this. But to get to grips with "love" appears to have been given all too little attention. Love is patient / long-suffering (<em><a href='B:530 13:4'>1Co 13:4</a></em>). But let's not think that patience simply means how we react to forgetting our keys or spilling milk. To some extent, whether we take such events calmly or less calmly is a function of our personality, our nervous structure, the kind of cards we were dealt at birth. I suggest that the long-suffering patience Paul refers to instead has reference to our forgiving attitude to others, rather than applying to whether or not we get frustrated with ourselves. The man hopelessly in debt to his Lord begged for Him to show "patience" (<em><a href='B:470 18:26'>Mat 18:26</a></em>). Patience is about not forcing others to "pay me what you owe me". We all have many people in our lives who are in our debt- more such people than we may realize. We have all been hurt by more people, and hurt more deeply, than we realize. Patience is about bearing long with their immaturity, waiting for them, whilst the debts remain unpaid; rather than demanding that they resolve with us before we'll fellowship them.</p><p><em>And is kind-&nbsp;</em>The context of this great love poem is the discussion of things like marital decisions, attitudes to idol meat etc. Paul has developed the theme that our salvation is wrapped up with that of others, and therefore love for others is vital within all spiritual endeavour. "Kind" translates a very practical word, meaning useful or quite simply, 'employed' (see the root word in <em><a href='B:530 7:31'>1Co 7:31</a></em> "they that&nbsp;<em>use&nbsp;</em>this world", "I have&nbsp;<em>used</em>&nbsp;none of these things", <em><a href='B:530 9:12'>1Co 9:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:15'>1Co 9:15</a></em>). 'Love is practical' would be a fair interpretation.</p><p><em>Love envies not-&nbsp;</em>The Corinthians were full of envies because they lacked the Spirit (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 3:3'>1Co 3:3</a></em>), and Paul was fearful that they would continue to have "envies" (s:w. <em><a href='B:540 12:20'>2Co 12:20</a></em>). If we love others then we will not envy them. Envy arises from a sense of inferiority and regret that we are not as the envied. But if love and care for them, especially spiritually, is our passion- then whilst we are not 'above' them, for we too are human, we shall not envy them.</p><p><em>&nbsp;It is not arrogant or rude-&nbsp;</em>If we see ourselves as the servants of others, in Christ's place, then we will never act as superior over them.</p><p><em>Is not puffed up-&nbsp;</em>Earlier in Corinthians, Paul has warned that "knowledge puffs up" (<em><a href='B:530 8:1'>1Co 8:1</a></em>). The Corinthians were "puffed up" in their supposed knowledge about sexual freedoms and the freedom to eat idol meat (<em><a href='B:530 4:6'>1Co 4:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:18-19'>1Co 4:18-19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a></em>). But in those matters, Paul has argued that love thinks of others- and that is the important thing, far more significant than whatever we theoretically know:&nbsp; Let us never kid ourselves that because we "know" some things about God, even know them correctly, that we will thereby be justified. It's not a case of simply holding on to a set of doctrinal propositions which we received at the time of our baptism into Christ. For the day of judgment won't be an examination of our knowledge or intellectual purity. This is not to say that knowledge isn't important. Paul had been arguing that if we truly know that God is one, that idols therefore have no real existence, that we are free in Christ to eat any meat- then this knowledge should not lead us to be arrogantly insensitive to our brother or sister who has a less mature understanding or conscience. Love is... not like that. Love therefore restrains our own superior knowledge and bears with those who don't quite 'get it' as they should. Again, our pattern is God's attitude to us who know just a fraction of His ultimate Truth.</p><p>That the rugged and at times abrasive Paul could write a poem about love, albeit under inspiration, reflects the extent to which he had thought about the utter supremacy of love. The device of acrostic Psalms (9,10,25,34,37,119,145) and the use of acrostics in Lamentations and Esther would enable the reciting of them. The repetition of the same word at the beginning of successive sentences is yet another such feature (<em><a href='B:50 28:3-6'>Deu 28:3-6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:100 23:5'>2Sa 23:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 1:18'>Jer 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:350 3:4'>Hos 3:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:4'>1Co 13:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 2:11'>2Co 2:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 6:12'>Eph 6:12</a></em>). The same phrase is also sometimes repeated at the beginning and end of a sentence with the same effect (<em><a href='B:20 32:16'>Exo 32:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:120 23:25'>2Ki 23:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 122:7-8'>Psa 122:7-8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 7:14-16'>Mar 7:14-16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 12:5'>Luk 12:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 3:8'>Joh 3:8</a></em> <em><a href='B:520 14:8'>Rom 14:8</a></em> Gk:). &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Does not behave itself inappropriately-&nbsp;</em>This poem about love is a summary of Paul's policies so far concerning various practical issues. He has urged that in marital and relationship decisions, we are to do that which is "appropriate"; appropriate to a life dominated by the love principle (<em><a href='B:530 7:36'>1Co 7:36</a></em> s:w:). The only other occurrence of the word is again in Corinthians, when Paul speaks of the weaker members of the Christian body with the same word (<em><a href='B:530 12:23'>1Co 12:23</a></em>). Such members are weak because they do not have love; and yet Paul teaches that our response to them is "necessary" and that they must be retained within the community of the body of Christ. To love the unloving is indeed hard, but it is the essence of love.</p><p><em>Is not self seeking-&nbsp;</em>This phrase again builds on Paul's earlier argument in Corinthians- that we should act sensitively to others weaker in the faith, not doing things which may make them stumble, according to the principle "Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbour's good" (<em><a href='B:530 10:25'>1Co 10:25</a></em>). This is quite something. All the time, in every decision, action, position we adopt, we are to think of what would be best for&nbsp;<em>others</em>&nbsp;rather than what's cool for ourselves. At the very least, this means that we are to act in life&nbsp;<em>consciously</em>-</p><p> not just go with the flow, reacting to things according to our gut feeling, chosing according to what seems right, comfortable and convenient to us at that moment; but rather thinking through what import our positions and actions will have upon others. It takes&nbsp;<em>time</em>&nbsp;to think out what will be beneficial for them. And "love is..." just this. This is a way of life and thinking which it's very rare to meet in people. Almost frustrated, Paul lamented: "For all men seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's" (<em><a href='B:570 2:21'>Phi 2:21</a></em>). <em><a href='B:530 10:25'>1Co 10:25</a></em> spoke of seeking not our own good, but the good of our brethren- i:e. "the things which are Jesus Christ's". But according to <em><a href='B:570 2:20-21'>Phi 2:20-21</a></em>, Paul felt that only Timothy understood this spirit of not seeking our own good, but that of the things of Christ, i:e. our brethren. The life of love is therefore a lonely life. So few 'get it'.</p><p><em>Is not easily provoked</em>-</p><p> see on <em><a href='B:510 15:39'>Act 15:39</a></em>. Faced by the heights of such challenges, we can easily despair. We are not like this, or not like it very often nor very deeply. But Paul felt the same, even though under inspiration he himself wrote the poem. Paul too realized his failure, the slowness of his progress. When he writes that love is not "easily provoked" (<em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em>), he uses the same Greek word which we meet in <em><a href='B:510 15:39'>Act 15:39</a></em> describing the provocation / contention he had with Barnabas which led to their division. Surely he had that on his conscience when he wrote that love is&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;like that.</p><p>Here we have an allusion to how slow God was to anger with Israel. As their loving husband He stuck with them for centuries, enduring what would have emotionally shattered many husbands if they endured it just for a few months, and putting up with what most men couldn't handle even for a year. God was slow to anger for centuries, and even then in that wrath He remembered mercy, even in His judgments He desperately sought to find a way to go on with Israel in some form. And we are asked to show that same slowness to anger.</p><p><em>Keeps no record of evil done-&nbsp;</em>The mind of love imputes no evil to others, as God doesn’t to us (<em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em>; AV “thinketh no evil”, s:w. to count / impute in Romans). The Greek word can also mean that love keeps no records or count of wrong done. We must forgive our brethren as God forgives us (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>). God expunges the spiritual record of the sin, and will not feed it into some equation which determines whether we can be forgiven. Christ "frankly" forgave the debtors in the parable. The frankness of that forgiveness does not suggest a process of careful calculation before it could be granted. God's frank forgiveness is seen too in <em><a href='B:230 130:3'>Psa 130:3</a></em>: "If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord who shall stand?". God does not "mark" sin, as our love for our brethren should keep no record of their past sins (<em><a href='B:530 13:5-7'>1Co 13:5-7</a></em> N:I:V:). If we refuse fellowship people because of the&nbsp;<em>effect</em>&nbsp;of past sins for which they have repented, then we&nbsp;<em>are</em>&nbsp;'marking' iniquity. God does not deal with us in a manner which is&nbsp;<em>proportional</em>&nbsp;to the type or amount of sin we commit (<em><a href='B:230 103:7-12'>Psa 103:7-12</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:6'>1Co 13:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Rejoices not in unrighteousness but rejoices with the truth-&nbsp;</em>What Paul is advocating is a conscious outgiving of ourselves to love. Not just being a nice enough person, a reasonable neighbour, partner, parent, a "top bloke", real decent guy. But a love which is actually beyond even that. A love modelled on God's love, and the love of Him who loved us and gave Himself for us crucifixion. Paul's poem personifies love as a person- love, e.g., "rejoices with the truth", hopes and endures. We too are to 'be' love. Not just occasionally, not just in ways which we are accustomed to, which are convenient to us, or are part of our background culture such as occasional hospitality to strangers. "Love is...", and we are 'to be' love, as if our very name and soul and heart is '<em>agape</em>'. Love is not an option- it's to be the vital essence of 'us'.</p><p>Another possibility here is that "unrighteousness" is being put for 'punishment for unrighteousness'. We will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked personally known to us, just as God likewise takes no pleasure in it (<em><a href='B:330 18:32'>Eze 18:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:330 33:11'>Eze 33:11</a></em>). But we will rejoice with "the truth", the just judgment of God which glorifies His Name.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:7'>1Co 13:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Carries all things-&nbsp;</em>Gk. 'is a roof over'. The idea is of covering over. Atonement means 'covering'. Because God covers our sins, we ought to cover those of others. The simple statement "love covereth all sins" (<em><a href='B:240 10:12'>Pro 10:12</a></em>) comes in the context of appealing for God's people not to gossip about each others' failures. And the passage is most definitely applied to us in the NT (<em><a href='B:670 4:8'>1Pe 4:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 5:20'>Jas 5:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:7'>1Co 13:7</a></em> RVmg. "love covereth all things"). "He that goeth about as a talebearer reveals secrets; but he that is of a faithful spirit conceals the matter" (<em><a href='B:240 11:13'>Pro 11:13</a></em>). Our natural delight in telling or brooding on the moral failures of others, as if life is one long soap opera, will be overcome if we have personally felt the atonement; the covering of our sins. "He that covers his own sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy" (<em><a href='B:240 28:13'>Pro 28:13</a></em>). The opposition is between owning up to our sins, and trying to cover them for ourselves. If we believe in the covering work of God in Christ, then we will own up to our sins the more easily, confident in His atonement.</p><p>The idea of love bearing / covering / carrying all things is the language of the cross- the Lord Jesus bearing, carrying our sins, and covering them. If we really grasp this, it ought to make us take a deeper breath. We are being asked to personally enter into the cross of Christ. To not just benefit from it ourselves, admire it from afar, look at it as Catholics glance at a crucifix over the door, pause for a moment in unthinking respect of tradition, and then go headlong through the door. No. We are asked to get involved in the cross, to participate in it, to bear it ourselves. The mind that was in the Lord Jesus at that time is to be the mind which is in us (<em><a href='B:570 2:5-7'>Phi 2:5-7</a></em>).</p><p><em>Believes all things-&nbsp;</em>This is not a call to naivety. The Bible asks us not to believe all things but to believe what is true. Paul's approach to the Corinthians was hardly one of believing all things they said or claimed. The word&nbsp;<em>pisteuo</em>&nbsp;also carries the idea of crediting or entrusting. I have shown in the commentary on this chapter so far that the various aspects of love often allude to God's love for us, shown by His imputation of righteousness to us in Christ. This we are indeed called to reflect; and Paul for sure had to do this in order to be able to write so positively about the weak Corinthians. But this is different to naive believing of whatever facts a human being proffers to us.</p><p><em>Hopes all things-&nbsp;</em>The idea of&nbsp;<em>elpizo</em>&nbsp;is not 'to hope for the best', nor to just take a generally positive outlook on life. It refers to a solid expectation. Again, Paul's attitude to the Corinthians was a parade example. He wrote, felt and acted towards them as if he certainly expected them to be in the Kingdom. If we are unable and not permitted to condemn our brethren, then we have to act according to our assumption that all in Christ shall indeed be saved.</p><p><em>Endures all things-&nbsp;</em>Paul again endured all manner of slander and abuse from the Corinthians, as will anyone who sets themselves to assist others towards salvation. But love endures- and endures all things, there is nothing, no incident, however cruel, that makes us give up. "He that endures to the end" (<em><a href='B:470 10:22'>Mat 10:22</a></em>) in practice means he that endures all unkindness, brickbats and slapdowns from those he seeks to serve. Paul uses the same word again in the context of our attitude to others: "I endure all things for the elect's sake" (<em><a href='B:620 2:10'>2Ti 2:10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:8'>1Co 13:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Love never fails-&nbsp;</em>This continues the idea of love enduring all things (see on :7). Love is never 'blown off course'; the end in view is our salvation, intertwined as it is with that of those whom we serve in love. All forms of burnout- a common experience in the Christian life- result from not keeping that end in view.</p><p><em>But whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away. Whether there be speaking in foreign languages, this shall cease. Whether there be the gift of knowledge, it shall be done away-&nbsp;</em>“But whether” suggests Paul recognizes there may be false claims to the prophetic gift. He is not going to go into this, but rather makes the larger case- that whether or not, they are going to pass away and are not the essential thing. The failing, ceasing, doing away of the miraculous gifts is contrasted to the love which does not fail- because see comment on&nbsp;<em>Love never fails</em>&nbsp;the end view of salvation at the last day is kept ever in view. Prophecy- both in the sense of prediction of the future and the speaking forth of God's word- shall not be needed in the Kingdom. Likewise the gift of knowledge will be obviated by being with the Lord; and there shall be no need to preach in foreign languages once the earth is filled with the knowledge of the Lord's glory as the waters cover the sea, as anticipated in the Old Testament prophecies of that age. This is not to say that this passage does not also anticipate the fading away of the miraculous gifts in the first century. That too is in view, especially in :11, but Paul is asking the Corinthians to adopt a Kingdom perspective, and not seek to display the miraculous gifts which would not play any role eternally. Love does and will play that role eternally. And this then is to be our focus. The focus on the three gifts of prophecy, foreign languages and knowledge is not incidental. These were the very things practiced and claimed in the religious cults of Corinth, and especially at the nearby shrine of Delfi. The Corinthians were basing their Christian life upon those cults, claiming to be able to do these things in the name of having the miraculous Spirit gifts. Paul could have directly confronted them over these issues- but instead he argues more subtly that the Christian life is supremely about love, about building others up so that they will enter God's Kingdom. At best, focus upon the miraculous gifts is therefore misplaced and immature- and that perhaps could be our starting point in dialogue with Pentecostals.</p><p>Paul didn't just start writing his poem about love in 1 Corinthians 13. It's wedged firmly in a context, a clearly defined unit of material about the use of the Spirit gifts spanning 1 Corinthians 12-14. Having clarified his own authority and personal experience of the miraculous gifts, he proceeds to shew the Corinthians "a more excellent way" (<em><a href='B:530 12:31'>1Co 12:31</a></em>). He uses a Greek word four times, although most English translations render it inconsistently. It's worth highlighting the words in your Bible, maybe with a note like "s:w." 'same word' next to them:-</p><p> "Prophecies shall&nbsp;<em>fail</em>" (<em><a href='B:530 13:8'>1Co 13:8</a></em>)-</p><p> The Spirit gift of "knowledge shall&nbsp;<em>vanish away</em>" (<em><a href='B:530 13:8'>1Co 13:8</a></em>)-</p><p> "That which is partial shall be&nbsp;<em>done away</em>" (<em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em>)-</p><p> "Now that I am become a man mature, I have&nbsp;<em>put away</em>&nbsp;childish immature things" (<em><a href='B:530 13:11'>1Co 13:11</a></em>).</p><p>I read this as Paul saying that he used the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit in his spiritual immaturity; but in his maturity, he chose not to use them, he "put them away". Paul also writes of how the miraculous gifts will be "done away" when "that which is perfect complete, mature is come" (<em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em>). He seems to be saying that his personal growth from childhood to manhood, from immaturity to maturity, is a reflection of how ultimately the gifts will be no more when the mature state has come; and he wishes to attain that state now in this life, and thus he ceased using the gifts. He asks us likewise in this context to follow his pattern, to be "mature" AV "be men" (<em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em>). This connects with how he speaks in <em><a href='B:580 3:14'>Col 3:14</a></em> of "above all" having love, which is the seal, the proof, of the mature state AV "the bond of perfectness". In his own way, John spoke of the same state when he wrote of "perfect / mature love", and how he who fears hasn't reached the 'perfected-in-love' stage (<em><a href='B:690 4:18'>1Jn 4:18</a></em>). Instead of flaunting the Spirit gifts, Paul sold his soul for love; he gave himself over to the life characterized by the kind of love about which he writes so powerfully in his poem. Paul laments that the Corinthians weren't mature nor Spirit filled (<em><a href='B:530 3:1-2'>1Co 3:1-2</a></em>), and wishes to be able to speak to them as "mature" (<em><a href='B:530 2:6'>1Co 2:6</a></em>). So often in the decisions we face in life, it doesn't come down to a right or wrong, a yes or no; rather it's a question of what is the mature Christian behaviour, and what isn't.</p><p>The same Greek word translated “fail… be done away…. vanish away” is used in many other places concerning the passing away of the Mosaic Law:-</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “We are&nbsp;<em>delivered</em>&nbsp;from the law” (<em><a href='B:520 7:6'>Rom 7:6</a></em>). We are like a woman&nbsp;<em>loosed</em>&nbsp;from her husband, i:e. the Law of Moses (<em><a href='B:520 7:2'>Rom 7:2</a></em>):&nbsp;-</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The glory of the Law was to be&nbsp;<em>done away</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:540 3:7'>2Co 3:7</a></em>)-</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Law&nbsp;<em>is being done away</em>&nbsp;at the time Paul was writing (<em><a href='B:540 3:11'>2Co 3:11</a></em> Gk:). It was&nbsp;<em>abolished</em>,&nbsp;<em>done away&nbsp;</em>in Christ (:13,14)-</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Christ&nbsp;<em>abolished</em>&nbsp;the law of commandments (<em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em>)</p><p>Likewise, the prophecy that “tongues shall&nbsp;<em>cease</em>” (<em><a href='B:530 13:8'>1Co 13:8</a></em>) uses the same word as in <em><a href='B:650 10:2'>Heb 10:2</a></em>, concerning how the sacrifices&nbsp;<em>cease</em>&nbsp;to be offered. The “perfect man” state of the church, at which the Spirit gifts were to be withdrawn (<em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>) is to be connected with how the Lord Jesus is the “greater and more&nbsp;<em>perfect</em>&nbsp;tabernacle” compared to the Mosaic one (<em><a href='B:650 9:11'>Heb 9:11</a></em>). The conclusion seems to be that the ending of the Spirit gifts was related to the ending of the Mosaic system in AD70:&nbsp;</p><p>Closer reflection upon 1 Corinthians 13 suggests that the time of the withdrawal of the gifts was in fact at the time when the Mosaic sacrifices ceased to be offered. There was an interim period between the death of the Lord Jesus and the destruction of the temple in AD70. During this time, various concessions were made to the Jewish believers; they were permitted to obey Mosaic regulations for the time being, even though the Spirit through Paul made it clear that they were unable to give salvation, and were in comparison to Christ “the weak and beggarly elements”. The early believers were guided through this period by the presence of the miraculous Holy Spirit gifts amongst them, pronouncing, prophesying, enabling preaching in new areas through the gift of languages, organizing the ecclesias etc. But once the ecclesia came to maturity, the written word replaced the gifts. Most if not all the New Testament was completed by AD70, and this was around the time the gifts were withdrawn. Paul uses the same Greek word several times in 1 Corinthians 13, even though it is somewhat masked in the translations. The following words in italics all translate the same Greek word: “Prophecies…shall&nbsp;<em>fail</em>…the gift of knowledge shall&nbsp;<em>vanish away</em>…that which is in part shall&nbsp;<em>be done away</em>…when I became a man, I&nbsp;<em>put away</em>&nbsp;childish things” (:8,10,11).</p><p>Paul is predicting how the gifts of the Spirit would be withdrawn once the church reached the point of maturity; but he says that he himself has already matured, and he has “put away” the things of his immaturity- i:e. he no longer exercised the gifts for himself. He presents himself, as he often does, as the pattern for the church to follow. Thus the gifts “shall be done away” in the future for the church as a whole when they are perfect / mature, but for him, he has already ‘done them away’ as he has himself reached maturity. In the same language as Ephesians 4, he is no longer a child, tossed to and fro and needing the support of the Spirit gifts. He laments that the believers were still children (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 5:13'>Heb 5:13</a></em>)- yet, using the same Greek word, he says that he is no longer a child, but is mature. In <em><a href='B:550 4:3'>Gal 4:3</a></em>, Paul speaks about how he had once been a child in the sense that he was under the Mosaic Law. But now, he has put that behind him. He is mature; and yet here in <em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em> he associates being mature with putting away the gifts of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:9'>1Co 13:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For we know in part and we prophesy in part-&nbsp;</em>I have argued above that Paul is seeking to position the miraculous Spirit gifts within a Kingdom perspective. They will not then be necessary. It is the love we show to others now which shall eternally endure in that age. Any Spirit gift of knowledge or prophesy was only a small part of the final knowledge which shall be revealed in the Kingdom age. The idea of 'partial' knowledge may be understood in this sense. But it may also allude to the fact that only some parts of the body of Christ had the gifts of knowledge and prophecy (<em><a href='B:530 12:27'>1Co 12:27</a></em> s:w:). Each "part" of the body contributes a measure towards the whole (<em><a href='B:560 4:16'>Eph 4:16</a></em> s:w:, also in the context of Spirit gifts). "The truth" refers to the Lord Jesus personally; the term is often used as if it refers to a saving body of doctrinal, theological knowledge upon which salvation is predicated. But we need to be aware that whatever truths we hold, this is just a part of the whole picture. And that whole picture, in the context of this chapter, the final maturity, is the life of love- rather than some even greater array of intellectual truths. The partial revelation of knowledge is only a part of the ultimate picture which is of the body of Christ in His maturity, "the perfect man". <em><a href='B:560 4:11-13'>Eph 4:11-13</a></em> make the same point. For He is love personified and embodied. But it is still so that only a small portion is heard of God (<em><a href='B:220 26:14'>Job 26:14</a></em>); to claim to 'have the truth' must be held always in the perspective of a rightful intellectual humility before the Almighty. The idea of knowledge being only partial connects with the figure of seeing only a hazy outline in the mirror of :12.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But when that which is perfect comes, then that which is in part shall be done away-&nbsp;</em>The perfect / mature is the man Christ Jesus, who is the embodiment of love (<em><a href='B:560 4:11-13'>Eph 4:11-13</a></em>). The coming of Christ will bring full knowledge, and all knowledge we have will then be revealed as having been so very limited and partial. But the mature or perfect state can be aspired to now, in individual life. For love is the bond of maturity- see notes on <em><a href='B:530 13:8-10'>1Co 13:8-10</a></em>. In the state of mature, Christ-centred love for others, the partial ministry of the miraculous gifts fades from significance.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:11'>1Co 13:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I am a man, I have put away childish things-&nbsp;</em>See notes on <em><a href='B:530 13:8-10'>1Co 13:8-10</a></em>. Speaking, feeling Gk. 'understanding' and thinking surely connect with the three gifts Paul is discussing- speaking in languages, knowledge and prophecy. He associates the use of those gifts with his spiritual immaturity. He is confessing that the public, dramatic work associated with possession of the miraculous Spirit gifts had taken him up; yet he likens that period to his spiritual childhood (note how he uses the same figure of childhood to describe the dispensation of&nbsp; miraculous gifts in <em><a href='B:560 4:11-16'>Eph 4:11-16</a></em>). He seems to have chosen not to use the gifts so much, because he realized that the real maturity was faith, hope and love; and the greatest of these, Paul came to realize, was love. And a true love must be the end point of our lives, as it was for Moses, as it was for Jacob. If Peter's list of spiritual fruits in <em><a href='B:680 1:5-7'>2Pe 1:5-7</a></em> has any chronological reference, it is significant that the final, crowning virtue is love- a love that is somehow beyond even "brotherly kindness". Love is above all things the bond of spiritual perfection (<em><a href='B:580 3:14'>Col 3:14</a></em>).</p><p>As noted earlier on this section, "put away" is the same word used three times for the ending or cessation of the miraculous Spirit gifts. Paul was seeking to live the Kingdom life right now. Those gifts would not figure in the future Kingdom experience; it is love, the love we show for others now, which shall be the dominant experience and reality of the Kingdom. And so he had moved on from public usage of the gifts to selling his soul&nbsp; for love.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 4:15'>Eph 4:15</a></em>.</p><p><em>For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then shall I know fully, even as also I have been fully known-&nbsp;</em>The reference is not strictly to a mirror but to a looking glass, polished to act as a mirror. Corinth was famous for such looking glasses. We see "dimly", literally, 'in an enigma'. Even now that the Mosaic law has ended, we see ultimate spiritual reality only through shadows and figures. This must always be the perspective in which we understand any idea of 'saving truth' if we understand that term as referring to intellectual purity of understanding. We are "fully known" to God, but we do not fully know Him. The joy of the Kingdom age will be a mutuality of understanding between us, surely comprehended in the idea of seeing God face to face.</p><p>1 Corinthians 13 and Ephesians 4 are difficult to interpret. A valid case can be made for them meaning that the dispensation of the Spirit gifts was partial, but the completed spiritual man was made possible once the New Testament was completed. I have outlined this in&nbsp;<em>Bible Basics</em>&nbsp;Ch:2. But Paul's description of the completed, "perfect" state is so exalted that it is hard to resist applying it ultimately to our position in the Kingdom. "<em>Then</em>&nbsp;face to face... then shall I know (fully, not from parts); but&nbsp;<em>now&nbsp;</em>(as opposed to then) abideth faith, hope and charity" (<em><a href='B:530 13:12-13'>1Co 13:12-13</a></em>) sounds like the Kingdom. So I would suggest we interpret those passages along these lines: 'Now, in the first century period of Spirit gifts, knowledge is partial; a completer state will come when the written word is finished. But even this is relatively partial, only a necessary step, towards the ultimate spiritual reality and knowledge of the Kingdom'. The parable of the talents speaks eloquently of all this:&nbsp;</p><p>Moses is the one who saw God face to face (<em><a href='B:40 12:8'>Num 12:8</a></em>). Surely Paul saw the depth of fellowship which Moses achieved in this life as indicative of the richness of felicity with the Father which we will all ultimately achieve. Remember that Paul so often presents himself as Moses; but at this point he says that he is like all Israel, seeing dimly through the veil, and still awaiting the status of seeing face to face.</p><p>To describe or ‘know’ the real self is ultimately impossible; we can’t write down an inventory of who we really are. Paul perceived this when he wrote that now he only knows himself partially, and only in the Kingdom “shall I know, even as also I am known” (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>). The aorist here really means "was known"; we shall then see ourselves as God now sees us, marvelling at His patience with our immaturity. We know Him now only partially,&nbsp;<em>ginosko;&nbsp;</em>whereas He knows us thoroughly,&nbsp;<em>epiginosko.</em>&nbsp;He knows us all around&nbsp;<em>epi</em>, understanding the total context of all our words and actions. This for me is one of the Kingdom’s joys; to truly know myself, even as I am presently known by the Father. Until then, we remain mysteries even unto ourselves; and who amongst us has not quietly said that to themselves... The question ‘Who am I?’ and especially 'Who and how am I to God?'&nbsp; must ultimately remain to haunt each one of us until that blessed day. It would be too simplistic to argue that the new man, the real self of the believer, is simply “Jesus Christ”. Our new man is formed in&nbsp;<em>His image</em>, but we are each a unique reflection of our Lord. He isn’t seeking to create uniform replicas of Himself; His personality is so multi-faceted that it cannot be replicated in merely one form nor one person. This is why “the body of Christ” is comprised of so many individuals both over time and space; and it is my belief that when that large community has manifested every aspect of the wonderful person of Jesus Christ, then we will be ripe for His return. This is why the spiritual development of the last generation before the second coming will hasten His return; for once they / we have replicated Himself in ourselves in our various unique ways to a satisfactory extent, then He will return to take us unto Himself, that where He ‘was’ as He said those words, in terms of His character and person, there we will be (<em><a href='B:500 14:3'>Joh 14:3</a></em>; note that read this way, this passage is clearly not talking about Him taking us off to Heaven). <em><a href='B:230 69:32'>Psa 69:32</a></em> RV says simply: “Let your heart live”. In our terms, God is saying: ‘Be yourself, let your inner man, the heart, come to the fore, and be lived out’. Even if we feel we haven't got there 100% in getting in touch with our real self, one of the joys of the Kingdom is that we shall know i:e. ourselves even as we are now known by God (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>). We never quite get there in our self understanding in this life- but then, we shall know, even as we are known.</p><p>Paul speaks as if he has in one sense matured into "love", no longer a child but a man; yet he writes as if he is still in the partial, immature phase, seeing in a mirror darkly, waiting for the day when he would see "face to face". Likewise "Now I know in part, but then shall I know..." (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>). It's the 'now but not yet' situation which we often encounter in Scripture. In a sense we have attained to the mature state of love; in reality, we are still far from it. Paul is alluding to <em><a href='B:40 12:8'>Num 12:8</a></em> LXX, where God says that He spoke with Moses face to face and not in dark similitudes. Paul felt that he wasn't yet as Moses, encountering God 'face to face' in the life of mature love. He was still seeing through a glass darkly. But some time later, Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he was now beholding the glory of the Lord's face as it is in Christ just as Moses did, "with unveiled face", and bit by bit, that glory was shining from him (<em><a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a></em> RV). And hopefully we feel the same- that bit by bit, we are getting there. So let's take Paul's urging seriously: to grasp the utter supremacy of the life of love, to "follow after love", to press relentlessly towards that state of final maturity which&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;love (<em><a href='B:530 14:1'>1Co 14:1</a></em>). Powerfully did Paul conclude his Corinthian correspondence: "Finally, brethren, farewell. Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you" (<em><a href='B:540 13:11'>2Co 13:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 13:13'>1Co 13:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now abides faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love-&nbsp;</em>In the future Kingdom of God, there will be no need for the miraculous Spirit gifts as they were in the first century. Love is "the greatest" because faith and hope will then have been turned to sight and will be no more (<em><a href='B:530 13:13'>1Co 13:13</a></em>). A theme of Corinthians is the ability of the believer to live on different levels- e.g. 1 Corinthians 7 advocates the single life of devotion to God as the highest level, but goes on to make a series of concessions to lower levels. It seems that in the matter of the use of the miraculous Spirit gifts, Paul is again presenting a higher level upon which the believer of his time could live- a "more excellent way". He wanted to live the Kingdom life now as far as possible. We "have eternal life" not in the sense that we shall not die, but in the way that we in Christ can live the kind of life we shall for ever live- right now.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:1'>1Co 14:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Pursue love, and in this pursuit therefore earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that of prophecy</em>-</p><p> I have suggested throughout this commentary that the Corinthians were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>); they had been given the Spirit but had not allowed it to work. They were basing their church services upon the religious cults around them, replete with use of church prostitutes in the name of being single unto the Lord, eating the Lord's supper as if it were a form of fellowship with idols, and copying the claims of ecstatic utterances, gifts of knowledge and prophecy which were rampant in the idol cults in the name of having Holy Spirit gifts. Paul could have directly confronted them. But He copied the style of the Lord Jesus when tackling the language of belief in demons / idols. He argued on a higher plane, with all the power which is inherent in using a subtler argument. Just as Paul doesn't mock nor condemn their idea of singleness in order to serve the Lord but decries their divorces and usage of church prostitutes which it seems to have involved, so he encourages their professed zeal for Spirit gifts such as prophecy. But he says, following on from the argument in chapter 13, that the motive for such gifts must be love, which as defined in chapter 13 means a desire for upbuilding others so that they might enter God's Kingdom. He has explained in <em><a href='B:530 13:8-11'>1Co 13:8-11</a></em> that the way of spiritual maturity will involve a focus upon love, and a de-emphasis upon the miraculous gifts. But Paul is aware that not all have reached that level, and so encourages them in going this lower road of wanting to use those miraculous gifts. But the comments he will make upon the usage of the gifts effectively condemn the Corinthians for using the ecstatic utterances of the idol rituals in the name of true speaking in foreign languages as a gift of the Spirit. They were doing what Pentecostals and the like do today- experiencing ecstatic utterances and claiming this is the Spirit gift of speaking in foreign languages. And Paul is explaining that they are deeply mistaken in doing so. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:2'>1Co 14:2</a></em><em>&nbsp;For he that speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God. For no one understands, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries-</em></p><p>&nbsp;I take this to be a description of how things were at Corinth, rather than a description of what true speaking in tongues was like. It is a criticism of the situation at Corinth rather than a general statement:&nbsp;<em>The Songs Of The Sabbath Sacrifice&nbsp;</em>was a document used in the Qumran community, claiming that the Angelic choirs of praise to God were reflected in the praises of the Qumran community. They saw themselves as praising God with the "tongues of Angels". A similar idea can be found in the&nbsp;<em>Testament Of Job</em>, which also uses the term "tongues of Angels" to describe how the praises of Job's daughters matched those of the Angels in Heaven. These two apocryphal writings include many phrases which are used by Paul in his argument against how the Corinthians were abusing the idea of 'speaking in tongues': "understand all mysteries (<em><a href='B:530 13:2'>1Co 13:2</a></em>)... in a spirit speaks mysteries (<em><a href='B:530 14:2'>1Co 14:2</a></em>)... speaking unto God (<em><a href='B:530 14:2'>1Co 14:2</a></em>)... sing with the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 14:15'>1Co 14:15</a></em>)... bless with the spirit (<em><a href='B:530 14:16'>1Co 14:16</a></em>)... hath a psalm (<em><a href='B:530 14:26'>1Co 14:26</a></em>)". It would seem therefore that the Gentile Corinthians were influenced by apostate Jewish false teachers, who were encouraging them to use ecstatic utterance with the claim that they were speaking with "tongues of Angels":&nbsp; And Paul's response is to guide them back to the purpose of the gift of tongues- which was to preach in foreign languages. My point in this context is that even in the Gentile church at Corinth, there was significant influence from Jewish false teachers. So it's no surprise to find that in the area of the nature and person of the Lord Jesus, which was the crucial issue in the new religion of Christianity, there would also be such influence by Jewish thinking. I have noted elsewhere, especially on the letter to Titus, that immoral Gentile Christians found Judaism and legalism attractive- keeping a few Jewish laws was felt to justify their living without any moral compass in other parts of their lives.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:3'>1Co 14:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But he that prophesises speaks to men, words of edification, exhortation and consolation-&nbsp;</em>Paul has previously laboured the point that building up others is love in action. Therefore the emphasis upon tongue speaking was not right. If they were keen on having the miraculous Spirit gifts, then the one they should be going for was prophecy, because through speaking God's word to illiterate people who had no Bible to read, they would be giving them the words of God which are able to build us up and give us an inheritance into the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:510 20:32'>Act 20:32</a></em>). "Edification", or building up, was a major concern of Paul for the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 14:5'>1Co 14:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:12'>1Co 14:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:26'>1Co 14:26</a></em>). But is God who builds up the church (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 3:9'>1Co 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>). He works through human mechanisms- in all our efforts to build others up, we have God Almighty behind us. Likewise "exhortation and consolation" are the work of the Lord Jesus and His Spirit as stated repeatedly in John 14-16, the comforter (also see <em><a href='B:490 2:25'>Luk 2:25</a></em>, where the Lord is called "the comforter of Israel"). But if we are to probe further as to&nbsp;<em>how</em>, mechanically, if you like, He achieves this- it is through the loving labour of others within the church. In the first century context, the gift of prophecy was a clear channel for this. And this, therefore, was the kind of gift they should be seeking if they were motivated by love.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:4'>1Co 14:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>He that speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he that prophesises edifies the church-&nbsp;</em>This has been the argument throughout Corinthians so far- that they were not focused upon building others up, but were spiritually selfish, because they were not possessed of the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). I have suggested above that the tongues they were speaking in were the ecstatic utterances associated with idol worship. But it could also be so that although there not Spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), the Lord still worked through them via the miraculous gifts. For He has worked through men who were total unbelievers, empowering them according as His purpose requires; the king of Assyria in Isaiah 10 being a parade example. Again as in :2, Paul is describing the state of things at Corinth. The gift of languages was in order to help others by preaching and teaching for them in their native tongue. Paul could have laboured that point. Instead he cuts to the heart of the matter by saying that when they speak in their ecstatic languages, in imitation of the idol cults, they were at best only building up themselves. This is an example of assuming for sake of argument that a false position is true- and then pointing out how if it were true then it must be wrong. The Lord did the same with His assumption, for sake of argument, that Beelzebub existed and the Jews really did do exorcisms. And so here Paul is saying that if love and upbuilding are of the essence, then one would not focus upon just taking in an ecstatic utterance; but on instead prophesying / speaking forth God's word to build up the church.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:5'>1Co 14:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now I would wish that you all speak with tongues, but especially I wish that you should prophesy; for greater is he that prophesises than he that speaks with tongues, unless he interpret, that the church may receive edification-&nbsp;</em>All the Corinthian Christians could have been prophets, all could have spoken with tongues (<em><a href='B:530 14:1'>1Co 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:5'>1Co 14:5</a></em>)- but the reality was that they didn’t all rise up to this potential, and God worked through this, in the sense that He ‘gave’ some within the body to be prophets and tongue speakers (<em><a href='B:530 12:28-30'>1Co 12:28-30</a></em>). He works in the body of His Son just the same way today, accommodating our weaknesses and lack of realization of our potentials, and yet still tempering the body together to be functional. The fact we fail to realize our potentials doesn’t mean God quits working with us. We see in all this the openness of God; He is open to our desire for particular ministries / gifts, whilst on the other hand He sets us within the body with our particular, intended gift. There is an echo of Moses' desire that all Israel were prophets (<em><a href='B:40 11:29'>Num 11:29</a></em>); so often Paul sets himself up as Moses. The context of Moses' comment was a challenge to his authority as if he were the only one endowed with prophetic gifts; and Paul was facing similar criticism from his wayward congregation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:6'>1Co 14:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now, brothers, if I came to you speaking with tongues, without speaking to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching- what shall I profit you?-&nbsp;</em>Again and again, the question is not whether we can or cannot do something, it is whether we profit others. "If I came to you" may be referring to his earlier time in Corinth when he first taught them the things of the Gospel. If he had just spoken in ecstatic utterance, they would not have learned the Gospel. Clearly the gifts of teaching others were of paramount importance in edifying others. We can take the lesson in passing that building others up involves teaching them something- too easily, liberal minded Christian folk can assume that engaging in social activity together is all that is required to build others up. But ultimately, there has to be some teaching ministry.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:7'>1Co 14:7</a></em><em>&nbsp;Even things without life which give a voice-&nbsp;</em>This is a rather laboured phrase if Paul means to simply refer to a musical instrument. Literally, 'Things without a soul which give a voice'. The idea was that the Corinthians lacked the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>); the ecstatic utterances were just noise. There was no Spirit animating them. Those utterances were no sign of spirituality.</p><p><em>Whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?-&nbsp;</em>Again the word for "distinction" is unusual and could appear out of place, as it essentially means a charge or commandment. The noises made were not saying anything, they were giving no message. In :6 Paul has established the point that the way of love will focus upon teaching others in order to profit them. Just making sounds with no message will not edify others. Making a noise of itself is not helpful- and this is Paul's comment on the ecstatic utterances going on at Corinth. He could have baldly stated that the true gift of tongues is the gift of speaking in foreign languages so that foreigners can understand the Gospel. And what the Corinthians were doing was nothing to do with that, and was merely mimicking the pagan religious practices around them. But Paul bases his argument on a higher level, and his subtly makes his point the more powerful and persuasive.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:8'>1Co 14:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle, who shall prepare himself for war?-&nbsp;</em>Again, the purpose of speaking or making a noise was for the benefit&nbsp;<em>of others</em>&nbsp;and not for any selfish reasons. "The battle" could refer to the day of the Lord, or the daily spiritual strife. The Old Testament use of 'trumpet' language relates to the following ideas:-</p><p> To prepare for war-</p><p> To indicate the need to move on-</p><p> Convicting others of sin (<em><a href='B:290 58:1'>Isa 58:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 4:19'>Jer 4:19</a></em>)-</p><p> Warning of invaders (<em><a href='B:330 33:3-6'>Eze 33:3-6</a></em>)-</p><p> A proclamation of the urgency to prepare for the day of the Lord (<em><a href='B:360 2:1'>Joe 2:1</a></em>)-</p><p> The certainty of salvation and God's response to prayer: "Ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the Lord your God (Old Testament idiom for 'your prayers will be answered'), and ye shall be saved" (<em><a href='B:40 10:9'>Num 10:9</a></em>).</p><p><em>All</em>&nbsp;of these elements ought to feature in the work of our twenty first century priests:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:9'>1Co 14:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech easily understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air-&nbsp;</em>This verse is a clear enough condemnation of ecstatic utterances being claimed as Spirit gifts. The speech must be "easily understood". Th<em>e&nbsp;</em>principle of course goes wider- that if we have the love which upbuilds, then we will consider the style of our presentation to others. For our aim will be their understanding and subsequent growth. "Understood" translates<em>&nbsp;semaino</em>, usually translated "signify". There must be significance to what is spoken. The "tongue" being spoken must be significant to the hearers. Ecstatic utterance simply lacks such significance:The hearer must be able to "know what is spoken". In no way is this true of ecstatic utterances which were and are passed off as 'speaking in tongues'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:10'>1Co 14:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There are, surely, many languages in the world and none is without meaning-&nbsp;</em>This is quietly making the point that the gift of tongues was the ability to speak the "languages in the world", and every language has meaning to the native hearer. The words spoken must therefore have meaning; the hearers must "know what is spoken" (see on :9). But there is a word play going on here. "Languages" translates&nbsp;<em>phonos</em>, and "without meaning" translates&nbsp;<em>a-phonos</em>, literally 'non-language'. So Paul is saying that there are many world languages, and not one of them is a non-language. This seems a pointless tautology until we consider that in saying this, he was likely answering the false claim made by ancient Corinthians and modern Pentecostals alike- that actually, even if we can't understand the language spoken, it is actually a language of some other country unknown to us. But Paul is saying that a language is a language, not a non-language. Analysis of the ecstatic utterances of Pentecostalism show them to be the same as those of pagan religions. The syntax of the utterances, the repetition of the same sounds, is not that of language. it is mere sound. Hence Paul's apparently obvious point- that a tongue language is not a non-language.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:11'>1Co 14:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If then I do not know the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaks a barbarian and he that speaks will be a barbarian to me-&nbsp;</em>"The meaning<em>"&nbsp;</em>translates<em>&nbsp;dunamis</em>, which has the sense of 'power'. The suggestion surely is that their speaking in ecstatic utterances was not at all by the power of the Spirit; remember that the Corinthians were without the Spirit (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). If speaker and hearer do not understand each other, then they will be set apart from each other. For "barbarians" and those within the Roman empire were seen as deeply opposed to each other, if not in conflict. The practice of unintelligible speaking was in fact a re-creation of Babel, acting as if under Divine curse rather than His blessing, and would result in division rather than the unity which would upbuild. The Greek&nbsp;<em>barbaros</em>&nbsp;comes from the word&nbsp;<em>barbar</em>, which was a reference to the perceived harshness and coarseness of language amongst those outside the empire- they were said to speak&nbsp;<em>bar-bar</em>. This kind of tension would be introduced within the church by talking to each other in unintelligible sounds.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:12'>1Co 14:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to excel in edifying the church-&nbsp;</em>Paul seems to want to inculcate the spirit of ambition in preaching when he told Corinth that they should be ambitious to gain those Spirit gifts which would be most useful in public rather than private teaching of the word (<em><a href='B:530 14:1'>1Co 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:12'>1Co 14:12</a></em>). In similar vein Paul commends those who were ambitious (from the right motives) to be bishops (<em><a href='B:610 3:1'>1Ti 3:1</a></em>). Perhaps men like Jephthah (<em><a href='B:70 11:9'>Jdg 11:9</a></em>) and Samson (<em><a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a></em>) were not wrong to&nbsp;<em>seek</em>&nbsp;to be the judges who delivered Israel from the Philistines. But we must note throughout this chapter that Paul has prefaced it all with <em><a href='B:530 13:8-11'>1Co 13:8-11</a></em>, where he argues that the miraculous gifts are something to be discarded as immature. But he concedes to their weakness, and urges them to at least seek those gifts which can edify others. It was clear enough that their motive for desiring the gifts was probably in order to appear like the religious cults around them. But Paul doesn't specifically accuse them of the obvious; rather he seeks to redirect their self-proclaimed zeal to the great goal of love, which is articulated in terms of building up others:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:13'>1Co 14:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore let him that speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret</em>-</p><p> Paul could have baldly stated that their ecstatic utterances were not at all the Spirit's gift of speaking in foreign languages, and they should just shut up. But he gently says that if this is indeed what they claim to be 'speaking in tongues', then they ought to pray for the gift of interpretation- so that they can communicate something to others with the aim of upbuilding them. "Interpret" can indeed mean to translate from one language to another; but the Greek word more commonly means to explain or expound. If indeed God was making them speak in ecstatic utterances, then they had better make a priority of asking Him to give them the ability to explain the utterances to others. For the preface to all this teaching is the poem about love in chapter 13. To love is to build up others. It is explanation and engagement with others which does this- and not making ecstatic sounds. The GNB has it right: "The person who speaks in strange tongues, then, must pray for the gift to explain what is said".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:14'>1Co 14:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful</em>-</p><p> This is not to say that tongues are to be used when praying. For the gift of foreign languages or tongues was clearly in order to preach the Gospel to those speaking foreign languages, as witnessed by the account in Acts 2. Paul is stating the hypothetical situation- if he, as the Corinthians were doing, were to pray as they prayed, in ecstatic utterances, then at best his spirit would be praying but he himself would not understand what he was saying. Again the GNB has the idea right: "For if I pray in this way, my spirit prays indeed, but my mind has no part in it". The connection between tongues and prayer was because this was what happened in the surrounding idol cults; prayer was supposedly made through the ecstatic utterances. Whereas Biblically, tongues / languages were in order to spread the Gospel in public preaching as Paul will go on to point out. Note that the term "unfruitful" is elsewhere used of those who fall away from faith and shall not be saved finally (<em><a href='B:470 13:22'>Mat 13:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:11'>Eph 5:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:720 1:12'>Jud 1:12</a></em> etc:). Even if it were claimed that such utterances were 'the Spirit praying within me', Paul says that because there is no good done for others, such behaviour is unfruitful, it does not bear the fruit of the Spirit. So the Spirit can hardly be really within the behaviour if it doesn't bear the fruit of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:15'>1Co 14:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What is it then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also. I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also</em>-</p><p> Prayer and praise must be with the understanding, or Gk. the mind. Any mindless, out of control behaviour is simply not of the Spirit. But this was exactly the kind of behaviour which was going on in Corinth and which is to be seen in Pentecostalism today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:16'>1Co 14:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Else if you bless with the spirit, how shall he that is in the place of the unlearned say the Amen at your giving of thanks, seeing he does not understand what you say?</em>-</p><p> We note the practice of saying "Amen" at the end of prayers. It could be that the "unlearned" sat separately from the baptized members. The Lord invited sinners and unbelievers to His table, and this separate seating arrangement reflects the pagan practice of making those not yet affiliated or initiated into the cult to sit separately in a specific "place of the unlearned". Paul's hope was that the visitor would say "Amen", in agreement to the blessings / prayers spoken. This of itself indicates Paul's hope that the unbelieving visitor would have some participation in the worship. But if they were speaking in ecstatic utterances, it would not be possible nor legitimate for a visitor to express agreement, to utter the Amen, because the visitor would not have understood what was being said. However, the "unlearned" could refer to believers who didn't understand- they were "unlearned" in the sense that they were unlearned in the language being spoken. We note however that :23,24 speak of the "unlearned" as those entering the congregation, but they are differentiated from the "unbelievers". Perhaps they referred to those still undergoing teaching. The references there to 'coming in' certainly suggest a literal entrance to the church and having to literally sit in a particular "place".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:17'>1Co 14:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For you truly give thanks well, but the other is not edified</em>-</p><p> Again, Paul is being generous. If they were uttering unintelligible sounds and calling that 'prayer', acting just as the surrounding religious cults did, then they were hardly to be commended for praying well. So I think Paul effectively means us to read in an ellipsis: 'You may think that you truly give thanks well, but you would have to admit that the other is not edified'. And the whole argument turns around whether our actions are building others up or not. Paul's whole approach here is masterful, and should be given due weight by those who believe that God's truth is best served by a belligerent, confrontational approach, ever seeking to set up a much headlined showdown between truth and error.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:18'>1Co 14:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all</em>-</p><p> As a missionary, Paul would have used the Spirit gift of speaking in foreign languages far more than any of them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:19'>1Co 14:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>However in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue</em>-</p><p> The contrast is between the tongue speaking of :18, and "in the church". Because the gift of tongues or speaking in foreign languages was not to be used within the church but in order to evangelize the unbelievers. Five intelligible words directed to building up the church, revealing an "understanding" or knowledge given from the Lord, were preferable to 10,000 words in a language which could not be understood. There may be some connection with Paul's comment that they had ten thousand would be teachers in Christ (<em><a href='B:530 4:15'>1Co 4:15</a></em>); they all claimed to be teachers of each other, but there was no message.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 18:2'>Mat 18:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em>.</p><p><em>Brothers, be not children in your thinking. Yet in malice be babes; but in thinking be men-&nbsp;</em>This kind of malice has been mentioned in <em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>; malice characterized their breaking of bread services. Paul sees this as immaturity; whereas we would rather consider "malice" to be something which would end our relationship with a person who is malicious. Paul here prefers to see this as immaturity, and urges their maturity. The way he has to repeatedly ask his converts to not be malicious shows this was a major problem amongst the immature churches of the first century (s:w. <em><a href='B:560 4:31'>Eph 4:31</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 3:8'>Col 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 3:3'>Tit 3:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:1'>1Pe 2:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 2:16'>1Pe 2:16</a></em>). The contrast between "babes" and "men" is misleading;&nbsp;<em>teleios</em>, translated "men", means mature, and this is the whole thrust of the argument- that the mature state mentioned in <em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:28'>Col 1:28</a></em> really could be attained by the Corinthians. And that maturity would have no particular use for the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. "Be babes" is the same word used by Paul in describing how when he was a "babe", in spiritual immaturity, he used the miraculous Spirit gifts; but he had matured beyond them, to the maturity of love (<em><a href='B:530 13:11'>1Co 13:11</a></em>). The same figure of progressing from childhood to manhood is used of moving on from trusting in the Mosaic law for salvation (<em><a href='B:550 4:3'>Gal 4:3</a></em>) It could be that these manifestations of immaturity were related- a legalistic trust in the Law for salvation inculcated a mindset that sought for evidence of salvation through the external and visible possessing the miraculous gifts rather than the internal- the things of the Spirit, culminating in the life of love as described in chapter 13.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:21'>1Co 14:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In the law it is written: By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak to this people, and not even thus will they hear Me, says the Lord-&nbsp;</em>The New Testament has examples of our being expected to deduce things which at first glance we might find somewhat demanding. <em><a href='B:530 14:21'>1Co 14:21</a></em> rebukes the Corinthians for speaking to each other in languages which their brethren didn’t understand. Paul considered that they were immature in their understanding because they hadn’t perceived that <em><a href='B:290 28:11-12'>Isa 28:11-12</a></em> states that it will be the Gentile non-believers who will speak to God’s people in a language they don’t understand. And this experience for Israel was part of their judgment for not having listened to God's prophetic words. So by talking to each other in language they did not understand, the Corinthians were living out their condemnation. Such an argument is subtle, but more powerful than a head on confrontation with them over the fact they were not really speaking in tongues as given by the Spirit, but were just copying the babbling of the mystery cults around them. The argument however presupposes a familiarity with the Hebrew scriptures, which would indicate that they were influenced by Judaizers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:22'>1Co 14:22</a></em><em>&nbsp;Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe but to the unbelieving; but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving but to those that believe</em>-</p><p> Speaking in foreign languages was to be used for preaching to the unbelieving. The only time speaking in unintelligible language was envisaged, as explained in :21, it was a sign of condemnation to an unbelieving Israel. By doing this to each other, they were thereby proclaiming themselves to be unbelievers. But despite the logic of that position, Paul refuses to condemn the Corinthians and feels and writes towards them as if they are believers. We too may perceive that the logical position required by the behaviour of some 'believers' is that they in fact have lost faith. But all the same, it is not for us to condemn them. There is no example of Paul deciding to block disfellowship a whole group of baptized believers because of their moral or doctrinal errors:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:23'>1Co 14:23</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>If therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak with tongues-&nbsp;</em>The Greek suggests they assembled together "in one place" (AV). I suggested on chapter 1 that the church in Corinth was comprised of house churches, who at times gathered together in one place for the breaking of bread.</p><p><em>And there come in-&nbsp;</em>The missionary drive of Paul was such that he saw in every outsider a potential insider, rather than merely a person to be separate from. Thus <em><a href='B:530 14:23'>1Co 14:23</a></em> implies that the early ecclesial meetings were open for passers by to casually attend; indeed, the breaking of bread seems to have been used as a means of public witness “to shew proclaim / preach the Lord’s death” and His coming again.</p><p><em>Unlearned or unbelieving people, will they not say that you are mad?-&nbsp;</em>The "unlearned" may refer to those not fully instructed in the Lord's way; unbelievers would be those with no faith at all. If they saw a group of people babbling away, they would indeed think they were mad, and that comment is made upon Pentecostal meetings where just the same happens.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:24'>1Co 14:24</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:650 11:7'>Heb 11:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned-&nbsp;</em>Paul will later command that the gift of prophecy should be used by only two or three at any one time (:29). But he has earlier said that he wishes they would all have the gift of prophecy: "I would wish that you all speak with tongues, but especially I wish that you should all prophesy" (:5). He is so eager to go along with them as far as he can. They sought the Spirit gifts for the wrong reasons, but he runs with that and suggests they seek especially to prophesy. But he envisages here, for the moment, all of them prophesying. And he imagines the great positive impact this would have upon an unbeliever. Again, he thinks in terms of the good which could be done for the edification of others- which is the essence of his poem about love with which he has introduced this section in chapter 13:&nbsp;</p><p><em>He is reproved by all, he is judged by all-&nbsp;</em>The purpose of speaking forth God's word as intended was to lead unbelievers to repentance. "Reprove... judge" mean just that. The intention was to convict unbelievers of sin and lead them to repentance. Jabbering in unknown sounds would not do this. We are to note the intention of Gospel preaching- to bring others to repentance, to convict them of their moral need for the Lord Jesus. This is a far cry from the very tame profering of background Biblical information and other 'softer' approaches which characterize so much outreach work in our age.<em></p><p></em></p><p>Paul warned the Corinthians that only a church which was manifestly united, with each member using his or her gifts in an orderly, sensitive and respectful way… only such a church could convict the unbeliever of Truth. And this was all building on the Lord’s clear statements in John 17 - that the united church would lead to all men knowing of His grace and truth. This is why the Acts record describes the spectacular growth of the early church in the same breath as noting the intense unity and “all things common” between the believers. The mass conversions stopped after the politics of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, and the division over welfare matters in Acts 6. While that incredible and genuine unity prevailed, converts were made by the thousand.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:25'>1Co 14:25</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 3:13'>1Co 3:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:11'>2Co 9:11</a></em>.</p><p><em>The secrets of his heart are revealed-&nbsp;</em>This must be understood in the context of the person having been convicted of sin by the powerful preaching of God's word (:24). The secrets of the heart therefore refer to sins, and Paul uses the phrase in that way in <em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em> and earlier to the Corinthians he has said that the secrets of human hearts will be revealed and judged at the Lord's return (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). But for those who respond to God's word now, they can have that experience ahead of time. Whenever we come before the call of God in His word, whenever we hear the ‘judgments’ of God, we effectively come before His judgment. The Lord's preaching to the Samaritan woman had the same effect- she went and told others that He had revealed to her all the sins she had ever committed.</p><p>I’ve pointed out elsewhere how Paul so often alludes to and further interprets the words of the Lord Jesus. In <em><a href='B:480 4:22'>Mar 4:22</a></em> the Lord says: "For nothing is hidden, except to&nbsp;be revealed; nor has anything been&nbsp;secret, but that it should&nbsp;come to light". Paul’s inspired allusions to this can be found as follows: <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>: "who will bring to light the&nbsp;secrets&nbsp;of darkness and will&nbsp;make public&nbsp;the purposes of the heart"; <em><a href='B:520 2:16'>Rom 2:16</a></em>: "God judges the&nbsp;secrets&nbsp;of people, according to my gospel through Jesus Christ"; and, significantly for our context, <em><a href='B:530 14:25'>1Co 14:25</a></em>: "The&nbsp;secrets&nbsp;of his heart are made&nbsp;public / revealed". The context of 1 Corinthians 14 is of behaviour at the memorial meeting, following on from Paul’s concerns about this in 1 Corinthians 11, 12. The point of the connections is this: As the secret / hidden matters of the heart will be judged at the last day, so they are revealed at the memorial meeting. For there, we stand before the cross, and the hidden thoughts of our hearts are revealed.</p><p><em>And so he will fall down on his face and worship God-&nbsp;</em>The falling on the face in worship of God is because the man is having his experience of judgment day ahead of time. The same language is used in <em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em> of sinful man bowing before God in worship at judgment day.</p><p><em>Declaring that God is among you indeed-&nbsp;</em><em><a href='B:530 14:23-25'>1Co 14:23-25</a></em> seem to imply that unbelievers came into house churches and ought to have been so deeply impressed that they declared that “God is in you of a truth”. They were to be the living exemplification of how, as the Lord had prayed in John 17, the witness of Christian unity ought to be enough to convert the world. We need to give His words there their true weight. To see slaves and masters, men and women, Jew and Gentile, all sitting at the same table celebrating their salvation in the same Lord, with offices of leadership and responsibility distributed according to spiritual rather than social qualifications… this would’ve been astounding to the Mediterranean world of the first century. The way men mixed with women and the poor with the rich would’ve been especially startling.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:26'>1Co 14:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What is it then, brothers? As it is, when you come together, each one has a Psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. But let all things be done to edify-&nbsp;</em>I have suggested that what in fact was happening was that the Corinthians were imitating the religious cults around them, falsely claiming to have Spirit gifts when in fact they were just copying the ecstatic utterances and irrelevant exclamations of supposed revelations which were common in those cults. But Paul doesn't specifically say that. He instead argues for the paramount importance of doing things in love, which means with the aim of edifying others. As it was in Corinth, all the babble of supposed claims, including perhaps Judaist influenced members reciting Psalms, was not going to edify anyone and would not convict any unbeliever of their sin and need for the Lord Jesus. I noted on :2 that their behaviour was partly influenced by Judaizers, and this would explain the significance of Psalms being thrown into the terrible confusion which was going on.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:27'>1Co 14:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three; and even then in turn, and let one interpret-&nbsp;</em>The proper gift of tongues was in order to communicate in foreign, intelligible language to those who were hearing the Gospel, as happened at Pentecost. It would be most unlikely that there would be more than two or three distinct language groups present at any one church service who needed this gift. Or perhaps the "two or... three" refers to speaking only two or three sentences at a time and then waiting for the interpretation to be given. There would be no point in talking over each other- otherwise the message would be drowned out in confusion, and no edification could occur. The insistence upon an interpreter could mean that the message given in one language must be translated into the language of others present. But the Greek translated "interpret" more naturally means to expound or explain. The consistent theme is that God's word must be explained to people in order to build them up. The practice of all speaking in ecstatic, unintelligible utterances was clearly not going to achieve that. "In turn" is a fair translation; but&nbsp;<em>meros</em>&nbsp;has been used in the context of this passage for the "parts" of the body of Christ, to whom the gifts were distributed in order to build up the entire body. Possibly the idea was that only the legitimate members of the body of Christ should be displaying this gift.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:28'>1Co 14:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God-&nbsp;</em>The true gift of tongues was that of publicly speaking forth God's word in a foreign language, intelligible to the hearers. Anything else was just a pathetic attempt to mimic the ecstatic utterances of the idol cults- in the name of having a Spirit gift. But we have repeatedly noted Paul's gentleness and wisdom in not directly confronting the Corinthians over this abuse. He seems to be saying that if, as he has established in chapter 13, love of others and concern for their upbuilding is paramount- then there is no place for speaking in an unintelligible way. And if they felt that indeed they had such a gift- well OK, speak to yourself and to God, in silence, so you don't disturb the edification of others. His reasoning is exactly as one might use to children, who appear unable to hear their cherished belief shot down. If this is what you think you have or who you think you are- then do your thing quietly and don't disturb the church. So here again we have a case of Paul allowing something whichseems to go against the tenor of his previous explanation of the&nbsp;<em>ideal</em>&nbsp;use of that gift. See on <em><a href='B:530 7:11'>1Co 7:11</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:29'>1Co 14:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And let the prophets speak by two or three, and let the others discern them-&nbsp;</em>The limitation of the prophets to "two or three" is similar to that concerning the limitation of tongue speakers to "two or three". Perhaps the connection is in the fact that if only two or three were giving messages from God, speaking forth His word, then there would only be the need for two or three to speak in languages, assuming each prophet has his own dedicated inspired 'translator' into other languages.</p><p>How did it come about that the early church knew which books were inspired and which weren’t? Paul and Peter were aware that there would be false prophets within the early church as well as true ones (<em><a href='B:680 2:1'>2Pe 2:1</a></em>). These false prophets wrote down their false teachings and claimed they were inspired. So there had to be a system of deciding whether a prophet was true, or false. There was a Holy Spirit gift which enabled the early church to ‘discern the spirits’- to know for sure who was inspired and who wasn’t (<em><a href='B:530 12:10'>1Co 12:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 4:1'>1Jn 4:1</a></em>). <em><a href='B:530 14:29'>1Co 14:29</a></em> suggests that as soon as a person claimed to be ‘prophesying’ from God, then the person with the gift of discerning spirits was to be present with them and to confirm their words. And Paul goes on to say that anyone who doesn’t submit to this, doesn’t really have the Holy Spirit gifts. The scenario presented here is radically different to the idea of all present speaking in ecstatic utterances out of their control- which was the picture in the surrounding religious cults at Corinth, and is the Pentecostal scene to this day.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:30'>1Co 14:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence-&nbsp;</em>This may seem to contradict the idea that the spirits of the prophets were subject to them&nbsp;<em>(</em>:32). Prophecy was not a gift which could not be controlled and which led to interrupting another inspired speaker. And we have just read that the prophets were to speak by turn (:29). So why then does Paul appear to contradict the spirit of these principles by saying that if a prophet has a revelation, then the first speaker should fall silent? I would suggest that he is again making concession to their weakness, despite having established the true principles; and is answering ahead of time their likely objections. In this case, the objection would be that as inspired speakers they could not help but speak forth. Paul is saying that OK, in that case, the other inspired speaker, who likewise 'can't help but speak', should fall silent The contradiction and tension is&nbsp; purposeful. Because Paul has chosen to deal with their apostacy by indirect and subtle argument, pointing out the contradictory nature of their positions- rather than by direct confrontation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:31'>1Co 14:31</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:560 1:22'>Eph 1:22</a></em>.</p><p><em>For you all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be exhorted</em>-</p><p> The mention of "all" prophesying connects back to Paul's wish that they would all have the gift of true prophecy (:5). The prophetic message was to be given by one speaker at a time- otherwise, the confusion would be such that learning and exhortation would not happen. And the guiding principle in all these judgments is the upbuilding of the church. "Can" is&nbsp;<em>dunamis</em>-</p><p> the power or ability is what is in view. Although they had each been given their potential gift and part to play in the church body, Paul is open to the idea that they could seek other, higher gifts. In his view, speaking forth God's word was the highest gift. And he was prepared to accept that potentially, each member of the church could get that gift. Another angle on "you call can..." is that Paul is arguing that the true Spirit gifts are under the control of the believer. It was not good enough to claim that they were all possessed by a spirit which made them prophesy and carried them beyond personal self control. You&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;prophesy one by one-&nbsp;<em>if&nbsp;</em>of course the gifts they had were the real thing and not just the imitation of the idol cult. And this is the theme of the next verse.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:32'>1Co 14:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets</em>-</p><p> See on :31&nbsp;<em>For you all can... :&nbsp;</em>The Corinthian idol cults claimed that worshippers were possessed by the spirit of the demon / idol, to the extent that they were not in control of themselves. And this had been wrongly imported into the Christian church at Corinth. The gift of the Spirit from the Father and Son did not remove freewill or consciousness of behaviour from those who received it. It was not legitimate to claim that their trance like behaviour was because they were out of their minds under some overpowering supernatural influence. The prophet was in control of him or her self. It could be however that the reference is to the command to the prophets to "discern" each other in :29. Any prophetic word was subject to the discernment of other prophets.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:33'>1Co 14:33</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 1:2'>1Co 1:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints-&nbsp;</em>If the situation in the combined church meetings was from God, then it would not be characterized by confusion. Because, as repeatedly stated in this chapter, it is God's intention to build us up towards an inheritance in His Kingdom. The building up of believers will only be achieved within a background of "peace". We should therefore strive towards peace at the local church level because this is the environment which enables growth; and building up of others is the outworking of love. "As in all the churches" may be a counter to the claim that they at Corinth were a special case and special allowance should be made for them. Paul's comment is that these Divine principles are universal across all churches.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:34'>1Co 14:34</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 7:17'>1Co 7:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>Let the women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak</em>-</p><p> The spirit of the prophets was subject to them (:32- see notes there). It was therefore quite possible for women to exercise silence; again the evidence would be that the genuine Spirit gifts were not the same as the 'possession' experience of the idol shrines. This controversial verse may mean no more than that the women were not to chatter during church services- as was the habit in many synagogues. Their excuse that they were just asking for more clarification about the message is then answered in :35.</p><p>We must give full weight to the intentional contrast with Paul's discussion of women prophesying and praying in chapter 11. He clearly accepted that women should prophecy in the church. And there are New Testament examples of this. But I have noted throughout this chapter that there was a huge difference between the actual possession of the real Holy Spirit gifts, such as prophecy; and the farce that was going on in the Corinthian church, whereby they acted like the surrounding idol cults, imitating their speaking in ecstatic utterances and claims to possessing the gift of supernatural prophecy or speaking forth a supernatural, divine word. These claims were false. They didn't really have the gifts of true Holy Spirit. But this was not to say that there were no sincere Christians in Corinth. Clearly there were some; and there were some women, according to chapter 11, who did have the gift of prophecy. So the key would seem to be in the command for "<em>Your&nbsp;</em>women" (Gk:) to be silent. Whose women? The "you" of the context (e.g. :36) are those who in the wrong on these matters, claiming to have the Holy Spirit gift of tongues when they were merely babbling:&nbsp;<em>Their</em>&nbsp;women / wives were false claiming to speak by the Holy Spirit gift of prophecy; for in the surrounding idol cults, female prophetesses were popular. The Christian church at Corinth was clearly imitating the cult at nearby Delphi, based around the temple of Apollo. This cult was characterized by women claiming to be prophetesses. And it would seem that the women of the church pretended to the same office. This is why Paul is uncharacteristically blunt and direct on this point- they were to shut up. They were not true prophetesses. I have noted several times that the Corinthians were also under the influence of Judaizers. And so Paul now plays their own logic against themselves- he quotes Jewish scripture and Jewish synagogue reasoning back to them, as if to say: 'If you are really as Jewish and Mosaic Law compliant as you claim- well then in any case, your women should be in subjection to their husbands; "the law" says so'. They could not on one hand claim to be compliant with Judaism and the Jewish law, whilst on the other hand allowing their women to act as the prophetesses of Delphi, but under a Christian guise. I noted on 1 Timothy 2 that a similar problem arose at Ephesus, with the women in the church acting as the priestesses of Diana, but under colour of Christianity.</p><p>There are of course other possibilities. Perhaps we are to read this command about women specifically in the context of the memorial meeting, which appears the context here in 1 Corinthians 14. However, it is evident that women did possess the gift of teaching by 'prophecy' in other contexts:-</p><p> To teach other women after the pattern of Elizabeth teaching Mary, and Miriam the women of Israel- both by the gift of prophecy (cp. <em><a href='B:630 2:3-4'>Tit 2:3-4</a></em>). The reference in <em><a href='B:610 2:9'>1Ti 2:9</a></em> to how women should “also” pray publicly in an appropriate way suggests that there was an organised ‘sisters class’ movement in the early church. It has been observed: “Where women were kept secluded in Greek society, sisters would be the only ones who could teach them. Teaching by brethren would be difficult in such circumstances”:&nbsp;-</p><p> To teach in 'Sunday Schools' (there is ample Old Testament precedent for women teaching children):&nbsp;-</p><p> To teach unbelievers. This clearly occurred in the early church. Euodia and Syntyche had “laboured side by side” with Paul in the work of the Gospel (<em><a href='B:570 4:2-3'>Phi 4:2-3</a></em> NIV). Priscilla helped Aquila teach Apollos the Gospel (<em><a href='B:510 18:26'>Act 18:26</a></em>). At least eight of the sisters mentioned in Romans 16 are described as workers / labourers. Philip’s seven daughters were prophetesses- presumably not speaking the word to baptized brethren, but either to the world or to other sisters. &nbsp;</p><p>There's even evidence that there was an organized women's missionary movement in the early church. Clement of Alexandria commented: "The Apostles, giving themselves without respite to the work of evangelism... took with them women, not as wives but as sisters, to share in their ministry to women living at home: by their agency the teaching of the Lord reached the women's quarters without raising suspicion".</p><p>All these references to women in the early church teaching would have been anathema to many of the surrounding cultures in which the Gospel spread in the first century: “Not only the arm, but the voice of a modest woman ought to be kept from the public, and she should feel shame at being heard…she should speak to or through her husband” (Plutarch,&nbsp;<em>Advice to Bride and Groom</em>&nbsp;31-32). Likewise the encouragement for a woman to “learn in silence” was a frontal attack on the position that a woman’s duty was to follow the religion of her husband and concern herself with domestic duties rather than religious learning. The way the Lord commended Mary rather than Martha for her choice to learn and her rejection of domesticity similarly challenged the prevailing gender perception. There is no doubt that a 1st century Christian woman was far more liberated than in any other contemporary religion. In our societies too, our sisters mustn’t&nbsp; concern themselves&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;with domestic duties.</p><p><em>But let them be in subjection, as also said the law-&nbsp;</em>But the word translated "in subjection" has just been used in :32 for how the Spirit would be subject to the prophet. The question is therefore to what or whom should the woman be subject; and where does "the law" state that. The same word for "subjection" is used about a Christian married woman's subjection to her believing husband (<em><a href='B:560 5:22'>Eph 5:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:630 2:5'>Tit 2:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 3:1'>1Pe 3:1</a></em>). And within this same section, Paul has taught that the head of the married woman is the man husband (<em><a href='B:530 11:3'>1Co 11:3</a></em>). In this case, the Old Testament reference to female subjection to the husband would be to <em><a href='B:10 3:16'>Gen 3:16</a></em>. This seems the obvious reference; but see my comments on&nbsp;<em>Let the women keep silence</em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:35'>1Co 14:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if they would learn anything, let them ask their men at home-&nbsp;</em>A woman was to keep silent and ask her husband Gk. ‘man’ ‘at a home’ if she had any questions (<em><a href='B:530 14:35'>1Co 14:35</a></em> Gk:). Generations of mystified yet Godly women have read that verse and thought ‘But I don’t have a man at home to ask. I’m not even married’- or ‘But my hubby doesn’t know a thing about the Bible’. Read in the context of a house church scenario, it makes perfect sense. The women weren’t to interrupt the combined gatherings with disruptively asked questions from the floor. They were to ask the elders back in their house churches. And that’s why the Greek in <em><a href='B:530 14:35'>1Co 14:35</a></em> strictly makes a distinction, between the woman not speaking / publicly asking questions in the church, but asking the brethren in a house church.</p><p><em>For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church-&nbsp;</em>As noted above, we must balance this against Paul's encouragement of women to use the gift of prophecy in the church in chapter 11. And chapter 11 would appear to be in the context of the breaking of bread service. So we simply cannot read this as a blanket forbidding of women "to speak in the church". I earlier outlined the case for thinking that the Corinthians were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), and their claims to speak in tongues and prophecy were mere imitations of what was going on in the surrounding idol cults. Those cults in Corinth, especially at Delphi and the temple of Apollo, featured female prophets. Paul gently goes along with the immaturity of the Corinthians on many points, but as in his attitude in other places, he will not tolerate false teaching, people claiming to speak forth God's word when they are doing nothing of the sort. He clamped down on a similar situation in Ephesus in 1 Timothy 2 see notes there. And so here he continues the allusion to early Genesis see on :34&nbsp;<em>the law</em>&nbsp;by saying that these women were no better than Eve in her shame in Eden. They were bringing shame on themselves and others by what they were doing; those women in Corinth, at that place and time and context, were bringing 'shame' by speaking in the church. Although of course if they had legitimate Holy Spirit gifts of prophecy then Paul was happy for them to use them, as he has made clear in chapter 11. Hence he encourages the Corinthians to prophesy (:39)- but he refers to the true gift of Holy Spirit prophecy and not some imitation of the ecstatic 'prophecies' of the surrounding religions.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:36'>1Co 14:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>What? Was it from you that the word of God went out? Or came it to you alone?</em>-</p><p> God's word "went out" from those inspired by His Spirit. They were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>), and their female prophets were not really speaking God's word. God's true word had gone out to many apart from the Corinthians, and they should therefore speak in accordance with it; rather than pleading they were some special case. Paul's comment about "in all churches" (:33) likewise suggests that Corinth were claiming they were a special, unique case- and could therefore do as they wished. This kind of reasoning is often encountered, on an individual and church level. But Paul is saying that God's word is universal in reference and did not come to them "alone" as some unique revelation. He has structured his sentences to allude to how the word of God "went out" from Jerusalem- not Corinth. The word of God going out is used to refer to preaching in <em><a href='B:590 1:8'>1Th 1:8</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:37'>1Co 14:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandment of the Lord</em>-</p><p> "Spiritually gifted" is literally "spiritual", and the same word is used in <em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em> where Paul says that they are not spiritual. Again Paul takes the most non-confrontational approach he can. He writes that if anyone thinks himself to be a 'spiritual', then seeing that it would be the same Spirit inspiring that person as was inspiring Paul, then he would agree with what Paul is teaching here. This is a very gentle way of approaching the terrible problems which these false prophets were causing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:38'>1Co 14:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant-&nbsp;</em>This recalls his comment in <em><a href='B:530 11:16'>1Co 11:16</a></em> about head coverings: “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have&nbsp; no such custom, neither the churches of God”. Paul seems to allow for the possibility of some in the church remaining in disagreement with his inspired teaching. His desire, it seems, was to state Divine truth and not to cause division in the ecclesia by insisting that all he said about these procedural issues in church life should be enforced at all costs. Considering he was inspired, this is quite some concession. Paul opened this section in <em><a href='B:530 12:1'>1Co 12:1</a></em> by writing that he didn't want them to be "ignorant" about spiritual gifts. But now he says that if after all he has written they want to ignore it, well, ignore it. This is not coarseness nor sarcasm. It is grace really, to allow others to be ignorant of what Paul knew was inspired teaching from God. His lack of threat or consequence is noteworthy; and he certainly never threatens excommunication or a break in relationship with them. After all, he has reasoned earlier that his salvation is bound up with theirs.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:39'>1Co 14:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore my brothers, desire earnestly to prophesy and forbid not to speak with tongues</em>-</p><p> "My brothers" reaffirms that he is not breaking off relationship with them. And he still urges them to continue desiring to prophesy, although he means with the legitimate gifts of the Spirit and not in mere imitation of the idol cults. He is at pains to say that despite his own view that the use of the miraculous gifts was immature (<em><a href='B:530 13:8-11'>1Co 13:8-11</a></em>), he was not forbidding them. This is quite some insight into his wonderful tolerance, arising from the love he felt towards them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 14:40'>1Co 14:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But let all things be done decently and in order</em>-</p><p> This reflects the multiple appeals in this chapter to do all things with the love which builds up, as defined in the love poem which is the basis for all this teaching about tongues. An orderly rather than a random approach to church life is required, in order to achieve the end of building up others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:1'>1Co 15:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, wherein also you stand-&nbsp;</em>The classic chapter about the resurrection of body, 1 Corinthians 15, is also about the resurrection of Jesus. And it is not just a doctrinal treatise which Paul throws in to his letter to the Corinthians. It must be viewed in the context of the entire letter. He has been talking about the correct use of the body- not abusing it, defiling it, in whatever way. And he has spoken specifically about sexual issues. And then in summary, at the end of his letter, he speaks at such length about the resurrection of the body. Seeing that God intends resurrecting our body, our body means so much to Him that Christ died and rose again to enable our bodily resurrection, therefore it matters a lot what we do with our body right now</p><p>The material in chapter 15 stands alone in terms of style, and is clearly a discreet unit. It could be that it is a body of material which Paul had earlier preached to them, and is now as it were transcribing in written form, with a few extra comments thrown in.</p><p>"Which also you received" means that they received the same message which Paul had also received. He says this explicitly in :3. What he "received", he asked them to also "receive"; and he uses this same word and concept frequently (<em><a href='B:530 11:23'>1Co 11:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:9'>Gal 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:12'>Gal 1:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:570 4:9'>Phi 4:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:13'>1Th 2:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 4:1'>1Th 4:1</a></em>). <em><a href='B:600 3:6'>2Th 3:6</a></em> speaks specifically of the "tradition received from us". All this suggests a specifically defined body of knowledge given to Paul and then faithfully relayed. We therefore have here a unique transcript of the body of doctrine received and passed on by Paul as the basic Gospel. Yet that body of teaching may not be the entire chapter, but rather the simple fact that Christ had died for our sins and risen again (:3,4). For much that follows, such as the mention of unrecorded appearances of the Lord to James, Peter and 500 others, can hardly be described as core Gospel information.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:2'>1Co 15:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>.</p><p><em>By which also you are saved-&nbsp;</em>We are saved&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;the Gospel, and this presupposes knowing it. The knowledge required is hardly very detailed, but all the same there is a content to it; for faith is axiomatically faith&nbsp;<em>in&nbsp;</em>something. There has to be a content to faith.</p><p><em>If you hold fast the word which I preached to you-&nbsp;</em>'Holding fast the word' is a phrase used in the parable of the sower (<em><a href='B:490 8:15'>Luk 8:15</a></em>). The word Paul preached was therefore the seed sown by the sower- the basic Gospel. The word preached and sown by the Lord Jesus was therefore that also preached by Paul. The preaching of Jesus was largely practical and had little what we might call theological content. The Greek for "Hold fast" is related to the Greek verb for catechize; and inevitably the illiterate would have been taught the Gospel records by catechism, committing them to memory by repetition. But Paul is saying that they must as it were continue repeating those things in their minds. The wonder and reality of the Lord's death and resurrection and their own salvation was to be continually repeated or catechized within their minds- and likewise with us.</p><p><em>Unless you believed in vain-&nbsp;</em>"Belief" can mean just that; but the Greek can also carry the idea of being entrusted with something. The Gospel is entrusted to us- and if we forget it or are no longer transformed by it, then it is been entrusted to us in vain.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:3-7'>1Co 15:3-7</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 23:55'>Luk 23:55</a></em>.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 15:3'>1Co 15:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I delivered to you first of all that which also I received</em>-</p><p> As noted on :1, Paul is ever seeking to build bridges of common experience between him and his readership. What they had received, he too at one point had also received and believed. And he asks them to follow his pattern of further response to it. "First of all" means 'most importantly'. The most important aspect of the Gospel is not the Kingdom of God on earth but the fact that Christ died for our sins.</p><p><em>That Christ died for our sins</em>-</p><p> This was the "first" or most important aspect of the Gospel. Those who are not deeply convicted by their moral guilt and desperate need for forgiveness will never really see any urgency in the Gospel, nor behold the utter wonder of Chris's death for those sins. The Lord died "for our sins" and also "for us", as so often testified in the NT. Our identity with "our sins" must not be forgotten. We are not to see our sin as some abstraction, somehow separate from us.</p><p><em>According to the scriptures-&nbsp;</em>It is tempting to assume that this refers to the Old Testament. But the same term is going to be used in :4 regarding how His burial and resurrection on the third day were also "according to the Scriptures". There is little direct reference to these things in the Old Testament. So I suggest that the&nbsp;<em>graphe</em>, the written things, may refer to the early Gospel records which were already in circulation. If indeed Paul refers to the OT, then he would be expecting them to have figured things like Christ's burial and third day resurrection from the inferences of types and shadows- surely a big ask of illiterate, newly converted Gentiles with little access to the OT scriptures.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:4'>1Co 15:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That he was buried, that he rose on the third day in accordance with the scriptures</em>-</p><p> See on :3&nbsp;<em>According to the scriptures,&nbsp;</em>where I give reason for thinking that the "scriptures" in view are the early Gospel records. They all emphasize His burial, and the third day resurrection.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:5'>1Co 15:5</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 16:9'>Mar 16:9</a></em>.</p><p><em>That he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve</em>-</p><p> The graciously unrecorded appearing of the risen Lord to Peter (<em><a href='B:530 15:5'>1Co 15:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:34'>Luk 24:34</a></em>) may have involved the Lord simply appearing to Him, without words. It was simply the assurance that was there in the look on the face of the Lord. Mary was the first to see the risen Lord (<em><a href='B:470 28:1'>Mat 28:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 24:10'>Luk 24:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 20:1'>Joh 20:1</a></em>). But Paul speaks here in <em><a href='B:530 15:5'>1Co 15:5</a></em> as if Peter was the first witness of the risen Jesus. From his other writings and practice, it’s evident that Paul wasn’t simply ‘anti-women’. But here he’s surely making another concession to weakness- for in the first century world, the witness of a woman wasn’t acceptable. And so Paul speaks of the first man who saw the resurrected Lord, rather than mention Mary.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:6'>1Co 15:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he appeared to above five hundred believers at once</em>-</p><p> This is not recorded in the Gospels. The inspired writers were careful to avoid any form of sensationalism, just as we should be. Were there 500 believers at the time of the Lord's death? Probably not; so perhaps these 500 became believers after His appearance to them, and remained so at the time Paul was writing. Or perhaps there were 500 who so believed His words about reappearing in Galilee that they went there, and were rewarded by an appearance. 500 people at one time is quite something- and there was no major Jewish feast at any time between the Lord's death and ascension.</p><p><em>Of whom the greater part remain until now (but some have fallen asleep)</em>-</p><p> One of the features of newly baptized converts is that they are generally young- often under 25. There are many Biblical examples for young people. The very first converts of the early church were comprised largely of the same age group- and yes, it's possible to Biblically prove this. <em><a href='B:530 15:6'>1Co 15:6</a></em> states that the majority of the 500 brethren who saw the risen Lord Jesus were still alive when Paul wrote to Corinth, about 25 -30 years later. Seeing that life expectancy in first century Palestine was around 50, it would follow that the vast majority of those first witnesses of the risen Lord were under 25.</p><p>“Fallen asleep” may not necessarily refer to death, although the NT does envisage the death of believers as a sleep. The Greek term is also used about the spiritual slumbering of those who fall away. The 'remaining' would then refer to abiding in the faith, and that Greek word is also used in that context.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:7'>1Co 15:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles-&nbsp;</em>Again this is unrecorded in the Gospels. James was at one stage seen as the leader of the early church; but the point is being made that he was not the first to whom the Lord appeared. The order of appearance seems significant to Paul, for he labours the fact that the very last appearance of the risen Lord was to himself, and he was the least of all. We may ask why Paul here lists specifically the appearances of the risen Lord which are not recorded in the Gospels (to Peter, James and 500 brethren at once). Maybe his point was that the risen Lord had appeared to more than they might have realized; and He through the Spirit can likewise appear albeit in a different form to His people today.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:8'>1Co 15:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And last of all</em>-</p><p> Paul places the appearance to Peter as coming first, even though the Lord first appeared to Mary (:5). He is framing things in this way to place Peter first and himself last. He so often alludes to Peter's words and actions. Paul the intellectual rabbi shows a parade example for all time in his deep respect for Peter, the illiterate fisherman from Galilee.</p><p><em>As to the abnormally born</em>-</p><p> The Greek term means an abortion. Paul felt himself to have been an aborted child, who although aborted, somehow miraculously lived. The LXX uses the word for a stillborn child (<em><a href='B:40 12:12'>Num 12:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 3:16'>Job 3:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 6:3'>Ecc 6:3</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:230 58:8'>Psa 58:8</a></em>). Paul's conscience had been struggling against the Lord Jesus for some time before he accepted Him in Damascus. He had surely heard the call of Christ a long time before he responded to it; the new man had been potentially formed but he had aborted it, and he saw huge grace in the fact he the self-aborted spiritual child should have come to live birth (:10). The LXX references tend to associate 'an abortion' with shame and revulsion. The term was used as an expletive to describe a despised person; it had surely been used about Paul, and he agrees with it.</p><p>The whole idea of conversion and changing, even transforming, ones basic personality was deeply unpopular in the culture against which the Gospel was first preached in the first century. Ben Witherington comments: "Ancients did not much believe in the idea of personality change or development. Or at least they did see such change- a conversion, for example- as a good thing; it was rather the mark of a deviant, unreliable person... Greco-Roman culture valued stability and constancy of character... the virtuous Stoic philosopher was one who "surmises nothing, repents of nothing, is never wrong, and never changes his opinion". Of course, this mindset was attractive because human beings never like changing- we're incredibly conservative. And whilst we may live amidst an apparent mindset that 'change is cool', we all know how stubborn we are to changing our basic personality, or even seeing that we need to be transformed. And yet, despise the cultural background, the Gospel of conversion and radical personal change spread powerfully in the first century. The radical change in Saul / Paul's life was proclaimed by him as programmatic for all who truly are converted (<em><a href='B:610 1:16'>1Ti 1:16</a></em>)- and for him, this involved a radical re-socialization, seeing the world in a quite opposite manner, losing old friends and considering former enemies his beloved family. Quick, radical, 180 degree change was especially unpopular in the first century- proselytes, e.g., had to go through a lengthy process to become such. Yet Paul presents the change in him as being dramatic and instant on the Damascus road. Perhaps he alludes to how sceptically this was received by others when he answers the charge that he is an&nbsp;<em>ektroma</em>, a miscarriage, one born too quickly (<em><a href='B:530 15:8-9'>1Co 15:8-9</a></em>). And he says that indeed, this had been the case with him.</p><p><em>He appeared to me also</em>-</p><p> Note that the same Jesus who appeared to the apostles appeared also to Paul, some time after His ascension to Heaven. He is not any fundamentally different to the literal, bodily Jesus who appeared to men after His resurrection. Paul saw that same Jesus. And truly He is the same yesterday, today and for ever. He is not now existing in some nebulous, non bodily form.</p><p>When Paul speaks of his sinfulness and weakness, it is nearly always in the context of writing about the privilege and wonder of our commission to preach Christ. He humbly wonders at the trust God places in him, to entrust him with the Gospel. He senses a privilege and responsibility in having been entrusted with the Gospel, to the extent that he can say that his preaching is done more by the grace of God he has received than by the natural Paul (<em><a href='B:530 15:8-10'>1Co 15:8-10</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I am the least of the apostles-&nbsp;</em>"Least" could as well be translated "smallest" or "shortest". Hence when Paul embarked on his missionary work, he changed his name from Saul (the tall king of Israel who persecuted David-Jesus) to Paul, 'the little one'. Despite having withstood Peter to his face, according to Galatians, Paul still considered that he was less than them all.</p><p>Clearly perception of sinfulness grew in Paul after his conversion. He considered himself blameless in keeping the law (<em><a href='B:570 3:6'>Phi 3:6</a></em>); and yet chief of sinners. He realized that sin is to do with attitudes rather than committed or omitted actions. I'd paraphrase Paul's personal reminiscence in <em><a href='B:520 7:7-10'>Rom 7:7-10</a></em> like this: "As a youngster, I had no real idea of sin. I did what I wanted, thought whatever I liked. But then in my early teens, the concept of God's commandments hit me. The command not to covet really came home to me. I struggled through my teens and twenties with a mad desire for women forbidden to me (AV, conveniently archaic, has "all manner of concupiscence"). And slowly I found in an ongoing sense (Gk:), I grew to see, that the laws I had to keep were killing me, they would be my death in the end". Paul’s progressive realization of the nature of sin is reflected in <em><a href='B:520 7:18'>Rom 7:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:21'>Rom 7:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:23'>Rom 7:23</a></em>. He speaks there of how he came to&nbsp;<em>know</em>&nbsp;that nothing good was in him; he&nbsp;<em>found</em>&nbsp;a law of sinful tendency at work in him; he came to&nbsp;<em>see</em>&nbsp;another law apart from God’s law at work in his life. This process of knowing, finding and seeing his own sinfulness continued throughout his life. His way of escape from this moral and intellectual dilemma was through accepting the grace of the Lord Jesus at his conversion. Here in one of his earliest letters, Paul stresses that he felt like the least of the apostles, he honestly felt they were all better than he was (<em><a href='B:530 15:9'>1Co 15:9</a></em>). However, he reminisces that in his earlier self-assurance, he had once considered himself as not inferior to "the very chiefest apostles" (<em><a href='B:540 11:5'>2Co 11:5</a></em>). Some years later, he wrote to the Ephesians that he felt "less than the least of all saints" (<em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>). This was no Uriah Heep, fawning humility. He really felt that he was the worst, the weakest, of all the thousands of believers scattered around the shores of the Mediterranean at that time. As he now faced his death, he wrote to Timothy in <em><a href='B:610 1:15'>1Ti 1:15</a></em> that he was "chief of sinners", the worst sinner in the world, and that Christ's grace to him should therefore serve as an inspiration to every other believer,&nbsp;<em>in that</em>&nbsp;none had sinned as grievously as he had done. It could well be that this is one of Paul’s many allusions back to the Gospels- for surely he had in mid the way the publican smote upon his breast, asking God to be merciful “to me&nbsp;<em>the</em>&nbsp;sinner” (<em><a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a></em> RVmg:). Note that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" is rooted in the Lord's words that He came to call sinners and to seek and save the lost (<em><a href='B:470 9:13'>Mat 9:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 18:11'>Mat 18:11</a></em>).</p><p><em>Who is unworthy to be called an apostle</em>-</p><p> Inadequacy is the characteristic required for being used in the Lord's public service, and the Corinthians needed to learn from Paul's example.</p><p><em>Because I persecuted the church of God</em>-</p><p> The Lord had accused Paul of persecuting&nbsp;<em>Him</em>, and Paul would have perceived that all those in Christ were Him, and Paul's behaviour to them was his actions to the Lord Jesus personally. With his knowledge of the Gospels he would have reflected upon the Lord's teaching that whatever was done to "the least of these my brothers, you did it to Me" (<em><a href='B:470 25:41'>Mat 25:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 25:45'>Mat 25:45</a></em>). And it is therefore no accident that he uses this very word to describe himself now as "the least".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 23:6'>Act 23:6</a></em>.</p><p><em>But by the grace of God</em>-</p><p> See on :8&nbsp;<em>Abnormally born</em>. Paul saw himself as a stillborn, self-aborted child who somehow by God's grace had a live birth in his baptism by Ananias.</p><p><em>I am what I am</em>-</p><p> We are, in the very end, Yahweh manifested to this world, through our imitation of the Lord Jesus. Paul was alluding to the Yahweh Name (as he often does) when he wrote: “... by the grace of God&nbsp;<em>I am what I am</em>” (<em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>). Paul was especially chosen to bear the Name (<em><a href='B:510 9:15'>Act 9:15</a></em>). ‘Yahweh’ means all of three things: I am who I am, I was who I was, and I will be who I will be. It doesn’t&nbsp;<em>only&nbsp;</em>mean ‘I will be manifested in the future’ in a prophetic sense; that manifestation has been ongoing, and most importantly it&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;going on through us here and now. Paul felt Yahweh’s insistent manifestation of the principles of His Name through and in himself and his life’s work. We are right now, in who we&nbsp;<em>are</em>, Yahweh’s witnesses to Himself unto this world, just as Israel were meant to have been. Thus he felt “jealous with the jealousy of God” over his converts (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>); jealousy is a characteristic of the Yahweh Name, and Paul felt it, in that the Name was being expressed through him and his feelings. His threat that “I will not spare” (<em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>) is full of allusion to Yahweh’s similar final threats to an apostate Israel. “As&nbsp;<em>he is</em>&nbsp;another reference to the Name so&nbsp;<em>are we</em>&nbsp;in this world” (<em><a href='B:690 4:17'>1Jn 4:17</a></em>). Appreciating this means that our witness is to be more centred around who we essentially&nbsp;<em>are</em>than what we&nbsp;<em>do</em>:&nbsp;The fact God’s Name is carried by us, the righteousness of it imputed to us, should lead us to a greater awareness of His grace. Paul alludes to how he carried the Yahweh Name when he says that “by the grace of God&nbsp;<em>I am what I am</em>” (<em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>). And his response was therefore to labour abundantly. A theme of Malachi is that Israel failed to appreciate God's Name of Yahweh, and&nbsp;<em>therefore</em>&nbsp;they were half-hearted in their service. They gave the minimum to God, they were partial in their generosity, because they despised His Name. The fullness and richness of the Name, of who God is, a God&nbsp;<em>full&nbsp;</em>of grace and truth (<em><a href='B:20 34:6'>Exo 34:6</a></em> RV), should lead us to a fullness of response. For the sake of the Name, believers labour (<em><a href='B:730 2:13'>Rev 2:13</a></em>). To know the name of Yahweh is an imperative to serve Him (<em><a href='B:130 28:9'>1Ch 28:9</a></em>). The greatness of the Name should have led to full and costly sacrifices (<em><a href='B:460 1:6-11'>Mal 1:6-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 1:14'>Mal 1:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 2:2'>Mal 2:2</a></em>). Thinking upon the Name led the faithful to pay their tithes and fellowship with each other (<em><a href='B:460 3:6'>Mal 3:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:460 3:10'>Mal 3:10</a></em>). Giving unto Yahweh the glory due to His Name is articulated through giving sacrifice (<em><a href='B:230 96:8'>Psa 96:8</a></em>).</p><p>There is an interplay between God’s calling of men, and human participation in that outreach. The case of Paul exemplifies this. Without the vital work of Ananias, he wouldn’t have been able- in one sense- to come to Christ. And yet it was God who called Paul. ‘Ananias’ means ‘the grace of God’. And several times Paul alludes to this, saying that “By Gk. ‘on account of’ the grace of God i:e. Ananias I am what I am” (<em><a href='B:530 15:10'>1Co 15:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:550 1:15'>Gal 1:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:610 1:14'>1Ti 1:14</a></em>). His conversion was by both God and Ananias. And thus we see the seamless connection in every conversion between God’s role, and that of the preacher.</p><p><em>And His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain-&nbsp;</em>"Bestowed upon" translates the simple word&nbsp;<em>eis</em>, "in". The gift of grace was internal; after baptism we receive the gift s:w. "grace" of the Spirit, which is essentially an internal influence. But we must let it operate. Paul is setting himself up as an example to the Corinthians, who had likewise received the same gift see chapter 1, but who were not "spiritual" (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). Paul is ever concerned that the Corinthians had believed "in vain" (:2), and he holds himself up to them as an example of one who had&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>believed in vain.</p><p><em>But I laboured more abundantly than all of them. Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me</em>-</p><p> As noted above, God's grace worked within Paul's mind. But it so dominated him that it can be put for he himself personally:&nbsp;<em>Sun</em>, "with", can carry the idea of possession. God's grace possessed him, and brought forth the labour for others which was the outworking of the love poem of chapter 13. <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, in <em><a href='B:530 7:10'>1Co 7:10</a></em>: “And unto the married I command, yet not I the natural Paul, but the Lord the man Christ Jesus in the spiritual Paul, Let not the wife depart from her husband”.</p><p>He surely isn’t boasting that he was worked and preached harder than others. Rather Paul sees a direct connection between the grace of forgiveness that so abounded to him to a greater level than to others, and his likewise abounding preaching work. He speaks as if a man called ‘The grace of God’ did the work, not him. So close&nbsp;was and is the connection between receipt of grace and labour in the Gospel (he makes the same connection in <em><a href='B:560 3:8'>Eph 3:8</a></em>). Note that in the context of 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is demonstrating the reality of the Lord’s resurrection. Because of it, he received grace and therefore he preached it.</p><p>When Paul speaks of how he laboured more abundantly than all, he seems to be making one of is many allusions back to incidents in the Gospels, this time to <em><a href='B:490 7:47'>Luk 7:47</a></em>, where the Lord comments that Mary loved much, because she was forgiven much. It was as if the Lord didn’t need to have knowledge of her sins beamed into Him by a bolt of Holy Spirit; He perceived from her great love how much she had sinned and been forgiven. Paul really felt that Mary was his example, his pattern. And so should we feel. The much love which she had for her Lord was, in Paul’s case, articulated through preaching Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:11'>1Co 15:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Whether I or they</em>-</p><p> If it is God's grace which motivates all preaching work, then it matters not which channel was used- whether Paul or other apostles. This is what he has already laboured in chapter 1, explaining that it matters not who preached to a person or baptized them. All was a manifestation of the essential grace of God, and the channel used should not make any difference.</p><p><em>So we preach and so you believed</em>-</p><p> “Our preaching” and “your faith” are paralleled in <em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>. We see here the degree to which individual initiative in preaching is related to the faith and salvation of others. This is the force of the word "so". Salvation is in some sense dependent upon third party efforts (<em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). God has delegated His work to us, and to some degree, the extent of its progress depends upon us. Note that faith or belief is predicated upon hearing the Gospel of Christ's death and resurrection. Not upon following the detailed scientific arguments made for creationism, nor by any other attempt to make science 'prove God'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:12'>1Co 15:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now if Christ is preached that he has been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?</em>-</p><p> Some among them, perhaps just a minority of false teachers, were teaching that there was no resurrection at all. This sounds like a version of the beliefs of the Sadducees, the only group mentioned in the NT who denied any resurrection (<em><a href='B:470 22:23'>Mat 22:23</a></em>); and it was a group of Sadducees who were bent on killing Paul and obsessed with destroying his work (<em><a href='B:510 23:7-10'>Act 23:7-10</a></em> and context). Perhaps their agents were influencing Corinth. &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:13'>1Co 15:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised</em>-</p><p> If dead people don't resurrect, then Christ was not raised as claimed. We note here the implicit assumption that the Lord Jesus was a human being, and not some Divine 'special case', let alone God in a Trinitarian sense. And likewise if Paul had believed in an immortal soul or conscious survival of death, he would not have deployed this argument, nor insisted upon the critical importance of believing in a bodily resurrection both of Christ and those in Him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if Christ has not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain</em>-</p><p> He preached, and&nbsp;<em>so&nbsp;</em>the Corinthians believed (<em><a href='B:530 15:11'>1Co 15:11</a></em>); his preaching and their faith are so closely related, because there is a degree to which the belief and salvation of others has been placed in our hands (cp. <em><a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a></em>). Because Christ rose, we have not believed and preached "in vain" (<em><a href='B:530 15:14'>1Co 15:14</a></em>). Because He rose, therefore "awake to righteousness and sin not" (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>)- for He is our representative. We labour for Him because our faith in His resurrection is not “in vain". Our faith in His resurrection is not in vain (:2,14), and our labour is therefore not in vain (:58) because it is motivated by His rising again. The grace of being able to believe in the resurrection of Jesus meant that Paul "laboured abundantly" (:10). And he can therefore bid us follow his example- of labouring abundantly motivated by the same belief that the Lord rose (:58).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:15'>1Co 15:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Yes, we are found false witnesses of God</em>-</p><p> Paul expresses this in terms of breaking the Decalogue "you shall not bear false witness" because of the evident Judaist influences at work. We too should try to be all things to all men, reasoning in their terms as far as we can. If Paul had witnessed that God had raised Christ, but actually He had not raise Him, then Paul had witnessed falsely about God. Note that Paul doesn't say that he had taught a wrong message; his belief in the resurrection was a matter of personal witness. For he claimed to have met the risen Lord.</p><p><em>Because we witnessed of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised</em>-</p><p> The "we" refers to the apostles and all who had seen the risen Lord. Paul again sees their witness as united and not divided; and therefore no factions should develop following various apostles.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:16'>1Co 15:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised</em>-</p><p> A repetition of the argument in :13, so powerful is it. See notes there.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:17'>1Co 15:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain, you are still in your sins</em>-</p><p> Paul had earlier written of his fear that they had believed in vain if they no longer held fast to their initial belief in the Lord's death and resurrection (:2). Their profession to believe, their semblance of religion, was vain if Christ was still dead. This was the whole problem at Corinth- they were basing their Christian services upon those in the surrounding idol cults, replete with church prostitutes, eating idol food and claims to ecstatic utterances and prophecies. But this 'faith' or religion was in vain- it was mere religion, if they didn't actually believe the core issue of Christianity, the bodily resurrection of Christ. Any who deny His bodily, literal resurrection are liable to the same rebuke from Paul- that whilst indeed they may be religious, their faith and religion is vain. The point of our faith is that we are no longer 'in our sins'. His resurrection and not just His death is what enabled forgiveness of sins. The implication is that the Christian faith is all about the message of forgiveness of sins made possible because of the Lord's death&nbsp;<em>and resurrection</em>. And any faith or religion which gives no such forgiveness of sins is vain. And the other way around, the attraction and power of true Christianity is the solid assurance of forgiven sin and all the eternal&nbsp; consequences of sin through the death and body resurrection of Christ. Such good news will not be attractive to those who are not convicted of their sins and are looking for mere religion (see on <em><a href='B:530 14:24-25'>1Co 14:24-25</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:18'>1Co 15:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And therefore also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished</em>-</p><p> The reference may primarily be to those who had seen the risen Lord but had now "fallen asleep" in death (:6). Paul sees no other form of salvation apart from sharing in the bodily resurrection of Christ; for baptism into Him means that His resurrection shall ultimately be ours (<em><a href='B:520 6:3-5'>Rom 6:3-5</a></em>). Paul simply would not have reasoned this way if he believed in an immortal soul going to eternity at death. Without the hope of bodily resurrection which is predicated upon the Lord's resurrection, then we have "perished". The Lord Himself had promised that those in Him would not "perish" s:w. but should be raised up again at the last day (<em><a href='B:500 6:39'>Joh 6:39</a></em>). Indeed John's Gospel several times uses this word for "perish" in the context of the Lord promising eternal life instead of 'perishing'. The articulation of that eternal life will be through the resurrection of the body, Paul is arguing. And that in turn is predicated upon the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, to which we are connected by faith and baptism into it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:19'>1Co 15:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all people the most pitiable-&nbsp;</em>"Pitiable" translates 'mercy'- the ones to whom mercy should be shown. The hint could be that they needed the Gospel again preaching to them. They were as many religious people- their 'faith' was just for this life. There was no solid connection to a hope beyond the grave, in the resurrection of the body. They were indeed no better than the surrounding religious cults which they emulated.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:20'>1Co 15:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now has Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep</em>-</p><p> "But now" implies 'right now'. The historical resurrection of Jesus can become new and fresh in our lives. Right now, the Lord has risen. His resurrection is the guarantee that those asleep in Him shall also be raised as He was. But we are not just waiting in hope for that great day of resurrection to dawn. "We have the firstfruits of the Spirit" and therefore eagerly await "the redemption of the body" in the resurrection of the last day (<em><a href='B:520 8:23'>Rom 8:23</a></em>). The Corinthians refused to recognize the gift of the Spirit which they had been given (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). This in turn led to them not realizing that there was actual proof within them that the Lord's resurrection was for real, and guaranteed their own. The new man created within us by the Spirit, which came to us through the Gospel, "the word of truth", means that we have the firstfruits already within us; we are already the firstfruits of the creation we shall become (<em><a href='B:660 1:18'>Jas 1:18</a></em>). And we in turn are the firstfruits of a greater harvest yet to come (<em><a href='B:730 14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em>)- perhaps referring to those redeemed in some way around the time of the Lord's return, or those converted during some 'Millennial' reign. The Lord's resurrection to life eternal was the first-fruit or guarantee of our resurrection (as in <em><a href='B:580 1:18'>Col 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 1:5'>Rev 1:5</a></em>). And our resurrection to life at the last day will likewise be&nbsp; first-fruit of some even greater redemption or harvest. In this we may have some hint at the resurrection of others to some opportunity of hearing the Gospel and becoming part of the harvest, if they so desire. For if we are the firstfruits (<em><a href='B:730 14:4'>Rev 14:4</a></em>), then we must ask who constitutes the greater harvest after us. I have discussed in Revelation 20 the difficulties of the classical view of the Millennium- for that is the common answer given to this question.</p><p>Another perspective would be that because we are in Christ, and because God sees the gap between His exaltation and ours as irrelevant, we are called "the firstfruits" too. This is why <em><a href='B:520 1:4'>Rom 1:4</a></em> Gk. and <em><a href='B:540 5:14-15'>2Co 5:14-15</a></em> RSV speaks as if ultimately there is only one resurrection: that of the Lord Jesus, in which we had a part as being in Him. The appearing of Christ is paralleled with our appearing with Him in glory (<em><a href='B:580 3:4'>Col 3:4</a></em>)- because effectively, when He returns, we will appear with Him in the same moment.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:21'>1Co 15:21</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:730 20:5'>Rev 20:5</a></em>.</p><p><em>For since by a man came death, by a man came also the resurrection of the dead</em>-</p><p> Paul now makes a series of extended allusions to the events of early Genesis. This, along with references to "first-fruits", suggest there were some in his audience who were aware of the Jewish scriptures. He has alluded to them throughout his arguments to the Corinthians. I have mentioned often how Gentile, illiterate, immoral Corinthians were attracted to Judaism because it offered an apparent way of justification by a few specific works, freeing them up to be immoral in other matters. This was why Judaism was attractive to such an immature Gentile Christian audience. We must emphasize how death and resurrection both came by "a man"- Adam and the Lord Jesus. Clearly enough, the Lord was a man; we see here clearly taught the necessity of the Lord's humanity and representative sacrifice. Trinitarianism makes a fair mess of this clear teaching.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:22'>1Co 15:22</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:500 5:21'>Joh 5:21</a></em>.</p><p><em>For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive</em>-</p><p> "In" Christ speaks of baptism into Him and abiding in Him. All in Him shall be made alive; which makes being in Him by baptism a requirement for salvation. I noted on :20 that the language of resurrection used here is not only limited to the resurrection of the body at the last day. We are to be "made alive" right now by the Spirit; for the Lord Jesus is a life giving Spirit right now to those who will accept it (:45). The "spiritual" state spoken of in :46 is true in some sense for us now who have received the Spirit; hence Paul's lament that the Corinthians were not "spiritual" when they ought to have been (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). The Lord had taught that "it is the Spirit that makes alive" and thus guarantees our bodily resurrection (<em><a href='B:500 5:21'>Joh 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em> s:w. "be made alive"). It is the same Spirit of Christ which now dwells in us which shall also be the means whereby our bodies are made alive at the last day (<em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em> is explicit about this). The Lord Himself was made alive by the Spirit (<em><a href='B:670 3:18'>1Pe 3:18</a></em>). So we can see how it was in fact logical that people who refused to accept the work of the Spirit within them would come to reject the idea of bodily resurrection. In this sense, "the Spirit gives life", right now, once we have rejected the way of legalism which "kills" (<em><a href='B:540 3:6'>2Co 3:6</a></em>). Our Spirit is to become the Lord's Spirit; our essential personality must therefore be immortalized, and this therefore requires the resurrection of the body. For we personally shall be saved.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:23'>1Co 15:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But each in his own order</em>-</p><p> "Order" is the word used in the LXX for a troop of soldiers or people (<em><a href='B:40 10:14'>Num 10:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:22'>Num 18:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:25'>Num 18:25</a></em>). The parade starts with the Lord Jesus, then with us, and then (:24) another undefined cohort at "the end". Paul looks from the perspective of eternity upon these three cohorts:&nbsp; I have suggested on :20 who this last cohort might be, although it is intentionally left undefined.</p><p><em>Christ the firstfruits, then they that are Christ's, at his coming-&nbsp;</em>"At his coming" is proof enough that the time of glorification is not at death, which is unconsciousness, but at His return. Preterism has a big problem with this- for if His "coming" was at AD70 then all who are Christ's should have had their resurrection then. We become Christ's by baptism into Him (<em><a href='B:550 3:29'>Gal 3:29</a></em>). and so Paul assumes that all the Corinthians "are Christ's" (<em><a href='B:530 3:23'>1Co 3:23</a></em>). Even if they did not properly understand or therefore believe in the correct nature of the Christian hope, he still assumes that as baptized into Him, they would receive the promised outcome of His resurrection. This has huge implications for how we treat others who clearly have left the faith or fail to understand it, despite having earlier been baptized into Christ. We cannot condemn them ahead of the judgment seat of Christ, so we can only assume their salvation and feel towards them accordingly.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:24'>1Co 15:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Then comes the end-&nbsp;</em>"Comes" is not in the original. Literally, "then- the end". On :23 I suggested that we are being presented with three orders or standard bearers / troops of people. Firstly Christ, then those who in this life are His "at His coming", and now we have in view a third group. I suggested on :20 whom they might be. If indeed "the end" refers to the end of a Millennial reign (although see on :20), when He will have put down "all rule and all authority and power", He will have reigned until "all enemies" are subdued. This would mean that there will still be enemies of Christ throughout the Millennium; and there will also be human rulers and powers opposed to Him, to some degree, until they are finally subdued at "the end" of the Millennium. As Solomon's reign featured local rulers still existing in surrounding lands, so Christ's Kingdom would still feature local human rulers of some kind, who may not be forced to be subject to Him. It takes time for the little stone to destroy the kingdoms of men, and totally establish God's Kingdom. <em><a href='B:430 3:19'>Zep 3:19</a></em> speaks of the Jews getting glory and praise in every nation which have persecuted them. The lands of their dispersion, Russia, Germany, the Arab world etc:, will then recognize the spiritual status of God's people. This in itself implies that humanity will not be one homogeneous mass. The&nbsp;<em>nations</em>&nbsp;will decide to go up to worship God at Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:450 14:16'>Zec 14:16</a></em>); hinting at some kind of high level national decision by their leaders, as well as the individual desire of ordinary people from all nations?</p><p><em>When he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father-&nbsp;</em>There seems an emphasis here upon the Lord's inferiority to the Father. "Even the Father" seems to stress the point, having said that He shall give up the Kingdom to God. I suggested in&nbsp;<em>The Real Christ</em>&nbsp;that wrong thinking about the Lord Jesus was already developing in the churches at this time, wishing to present Jesus as another god; which is how the pagan cults around them would have perceived Him, for they considered every cult to worship a god. This error came to full term in the doctrine of the Trinity; but Paul here is arguing against it right at its incipient stage.</p><p><em>When he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power</em>-</p><p> Absolutely all kinds of authority apart from that of the Father and Son will be removed. "Abolish" translates a word elsewhere used about the abolition of the Mosaic law (<em><a href='B:520 7:2'>Rom 7:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:6'>Rom 7:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:7'>2Co 3:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:11'>2Co 3:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 3:13-14'>2Co 3:13-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 2:15'>Eph 2:15</a></em>), as well as the rule of sin (<em><a href='B:520 6:6'>Rom 6:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em>). Paul has used the word in his opening chapter to the Corinthians about how all worldly structures and systems shall be "abolished" (<em><a href='B:530 1:28'>1Co 1:28</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:6'>1Co 2:6</a></em>). This was a radical thing to put in writing, in a society where the "rule... authority and power" of Caesar was what structured society. All such things were to pass away right now in the experience of the believer. The words are used about sin, about the power of the Mosaic regulations, and also about the authority of Rome. The Father and Son were to be all and in all for all believers; submission to their rule, power and authority words often used by Paul about the authority of the Lord Jesus is the way to ultimate freedom from all the secular ties that bind. Even the authority of the miraculous Spirit gifts was to be abolished (s:w. <em><a href='B:530 13:8'>1Co 13:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:10'>1Co 13:10</a></em>), and the mature believer was to likewise abolish or put away such things (<em><a href='B:530 13:11'>1Co 13:11</a></em> s:w:). Clearly, in the life of the believer right now, the Kingship of Christ is to mean the abolition of all other authorities and principles, be they of sin or the Mosaic law. The reality of Christ as Lord is to be supreme. It is this process of getting people to be like this which shall progress onwards until "the end":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:25'>1Co 15:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For he must reign until He has put all his enemies under his feet</em>-</p><p> Having things and persons 'under the feet' doesn't necessarily mean they were to be killed or destroyed. It can mean simply submission before the one enthroned. "All things", a phrase often used for all God's people, are to be placed under the feet of the Lord Jesus (<em><a href='B:230 8:6'>Psa 8:6</a></em> - quoted here in :27; <em><a href='B:560 1:22'>Eph 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 2:8'>Heb 2:8</a></em>, which teach that it is the church who shall be under the Lord's feet. <em><a href='B:730 12:8'>Rev 12:8</a></em> may teach the same). I noted on <em><a href='B:470 22:44'>Mat 22:44</a></em> and <em><a href='B:510 2:35'>Act 2:35</a></em> that the making of the Lord's enemies His footstool means that they shall repentantly accept Him, rather than being destroyed by Him. "We were enemies" of God, but are now reconciled in grateful, humble submission (<em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>). This is the whole message of the preceding :24- that all things shall progressively be subjected under Christ's authority and Kingship, thereby becoming part of His Kingdom. To achieve this on a universal level, He shall have to come to earth and destroy those who refuse to submit. But the end in view is that the earth and all upon it shall be His Kingdom, under the dominion of His Kingship. And that process is to begin in the hearts of believers right now.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:26'>1Co 15:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The last enemy that shall be abolished is death</em>-</p><p> "Last" doesn't have to have a chronological reference, as if death is the enemy destroyed at the end of a period. It can simply mean the one great enemy. Just as all forms of power and authority shall be abolished (:24), so shall death. The same words are used in <em><a href='B:620 1:10'>2Ti 1:10</a></em> of how the Lord Jesus has right now "abolished death"; for through His death He has "destroyed s:w. 'abolished' the devil which has the power of death" (<em><a href='B:650 2:14'>Heb 2:14</a></em>). This is not only a case of 'Now but not yet'. It is the case rather that for those in Christ, death has been abolished by the Lord's death and resurrection; for our hope of conquering death is certain. That hope is to be spread progressively to others, and by the elimination of all who refuse it, there will come "the end" when death shall have been abolished not just for us but for all on this planet.</p><p>As in our own day, literature and thought of Bible times tried to minimize death. Yet in both Old and New Testaments, death is faced for what it is. <em><a href='B:220 18:14'>Job 18:14</a></em> calls it "the king of terrors"; Paul speaks of death as the last and greatest enemy (<em><a href='B:530 15:26'>1Co 15:26</a></em>). Humanity lives all their lives "in fear of death" (<em><a href='B:650 2:17'>Heb 2:17</a></em>). Facing death for what it is imparts a seriousness and intensity to human life and endeavour, keeps our sense of responsibility to God paramount, and the correct functioning of conscience all important. We see this in people facing death; but those who've grasped Bible truth about death ought to live like this all the time, rejoicing too that we have been delivered from it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:27'>1Co 15:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For He put all things in subjection under his feet-&nbsp;</em>In the end, all the enemies of Jesus will be placed "under His footstool" (<em><a href='B:510 2:35'>Act 2:35</a></em> etc:). Yet we were all His enemies, due to the alienation with Him caused by our sin (<em><a href='B:520 5:10'>Rom 5:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:21'>Col 1:21</a></em>). The Lord's footstool is the place where His people are figuratively located, praising Him there (<em><a href='B:230 99:5'>Psa 99:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:230 132:7'>Psa 132:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:310 2:1'>Lam 2:1</a></em>). Ultimately, all things will be subjected under Jesus, placed at the Lord's footstool, under His feet (<em><a href='B:530 15:27'>1Co 15:27</a></em>). Submission to Him is therefore the ultimate end of both the righteous and the wicked; the difference being, that the righteous submit to Him now, rather than in the rejection and final exaltation of the Lord over them in the condemnation process.</p><p><em>But when He said all things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject all things to him-&nbsp;</em>We may well enquire why this point is being made and so laboured. I suggested on :24 that Paul is arguing against a wrong view of Jesus as being God Himself. But Paul is arguing also against the idea that Christianity is a religion just for this life. He therefore highlights the fact that the whole work of the Lord Jesus in this age is all towards a final glorious end, when He will be subject to the one true God, who shall then be thereby fully manifested ("all in all", :28). That point has not yet come- and this is a powerful argument against Preterism as well as any tendency we may have towards living as if our 'faith' is just to ease our passage through this life, with nothing at the end. Paul picks up from this apparent digression in :29, which is again about resurrection of the body. So the argument about the Son's final submission to the Father should also be read in the context of a series of reasons why the final resurrection of the body is a necessary Christian belief.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:28'>1Co 15:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And when all things have been subjected to him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to Him that did subject all things to him-&nbsp;</em>Being under the Lord's feet is therefore parallel with being subjected to Him. And we are to be subject to Him now (s:w. <em><a href='B:520 10:3'>Rom 10:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 1:22'>Eph 1:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 5:24'>Eph 5:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 12:9'>Heb 12:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:660 4:7'>Jas 4:7</a></em>). The same word is used in the context of the resurrection and glorification of the body in <em><a href='B:570 3:21'>Phi 3:21</a></em>: "Who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to his glorious body, according to the working by which he is able even&nbsp;<em>to subdue&nbsp;</em>all things to himself". Through the Spirit, He is now at work within us to subdue us unto Himself, and that same Spirit shall transform our bodies into immortality. This is exactly the context of 1 Corinthians 15; see on <em><a href='B:530 15:20'>1Co 15:20</a></em> and <em><a href='B:520 8:23'>Rom 8:23</a></em>.</p><p><em>That God may be all in all-&nbsp;</em>God will be "all in all" through the full expression of His Name. But <em><a href='B:560 1:23'>Eph 1:23</a></em> says that right now,&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>the fullness of God fills "all in all" in the church; in other words we should now be experiencing something of that total unity which will then be physically manifest throughout all creation. <em><a href='B:560 4:8'>Eph 4:8</a></em> states that Jesus ascended in order to give the Spirit gifts to men, as He stressed in His discourse in the Upper Room. Then <em><a href='B:560 4:10'>Eph 4:10</a></em> says that He ascended "that He might fill (s:w. Him that fills all in all with the fullness, <em><a href='B:560 1:23'>Eph 1:23</a></em>) all things" (the saints). Note in passing how the phrase "all things" and "all in all" are used about the saints. "All in all" is used solely in this context of the saints (<em><a href='B:580 3:11'>Col 3:11</a></em> is a good example), and this is how we should read <em><a href='B:530 15:28'>1Co 15:28</a></em> "God may be all in all"- i:e. that God may be manifested completely in all His&nbsp;<em>saints</em>&nbsp;(not just 'in all creation generally'), whenever they lived and died. So the Spirit was given in order for us to be filled, to come, to the "stature of the fullness of Christ"- which is God's fullness (<em><a href='B:560 4:13'>Eph 4:13</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:29'>1Co 15:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are people baptized for them?</em>-</p><p> According to the&nbsp;<em>Bible Knowledge Commentary</em>, baptism for the dead was practiced by the surrounding religious cults in Corinth to preserve the dead from a bad afterlife, especially at Eleusis. The practice is referenced in Homer's&nbsp;<em>Hymn to Demeter&nbsp;</em>478-79:&nbsp;So again we see the Corinthian Christians emulating the surrounding religious cults (as with using church prostitutes, eating idol food at the breaking of bread meeting, making ecstatic utterances and prophecies in the name of having Holy Spirit gifts etc:). They had no personal belief in a future resurrection, yet they could not escape the nagging doubt about what fate awaits us beyond death. And this led them to baptizing themselves in the hope of giving their dead relatives a better afterlife, even a 'better resurrection'. This is a useful window into the contradictions evident within many religious people. They may personally deny any interest in a resurrection of the body, and yet they act as if they are actually concerned about these issues, especially when it comes to the loss of their loved ones.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:30'>1Co 15:30</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Why do we also stand in jeopardy every hour?-&nbsp;</em>This is an allusion to <em><a href='B:490 8:23'>Luk 8:23</a></em>. Paul felt that if he gave up his faith, he'd be like those faithless disciples in the storm on Galilee. Paul found that every hour of his life, he was motivated to endure by Christ’s resurrection; this was how deep was his practical awareness of the power of that most basic fact. It could be that Paul felt he was in peril "jeopardy" of missing out on salvation if Christ was not raised. But he uses the same word to describe his constant "perils" whilst serving the Lord (<em><a href='B:520 8:35'>Rom 8:35</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 11:26'>2Co 11:26</a></em>). He endured these things every hour, directly because of the Lord's resurrection and the hope of a resurrection like his. This motivated him every hour to endure what he had to. Every hour of his life was a "peril", and only faith in the Lord's resurrection empowered him to endure it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:31'>1Co 15:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I protest by that boasting in you, brothers, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord: I die daily</em>-</p><p> By this he perhaps means that because he was daily crucified with Christ and rose with Him, he was thereby able to rejoice in them; to overcome the pain and hurt which their treatment of him would naturally give rise to, because he could be another person. That new person could rejoice in the Corinthians and view them so positively, all because Christ had risen and opened up the hope for the Corinthians to be saved, which was Paul's great hope and boast.</p><p>Baptism is in a sense ongoing; we live in newness of life, continually dying and resurrecting. Out of each death, there comes forth new life. For His resurrection life, the type of life that He lived and lives, becomes manifest in our mortal flesh right now (<em><a href='B:540 4:11'>2Co 4:11</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:290 22:13'>Isa 22:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 19:10'>Rev 19:10</a></em>.</p><p><em>If after the manner of men I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die-&nbsp;</em>Paul's hometown of Tarsus had been founded by Sardanapalus, whose statue was in a nearby town with the inscription: "Eat, drink, enjoy thyself. The rest is nothing". This is incidental confirmation that the Biblical record was not made up. This kind of language usage, reciting a phrase encountered during youth, would be utterly realistic and appropriate for Paul as the author. However it seems that he is also quoting a form of Solomon's words in <em><a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a></em> as the words of those who have no faith that there will be a resurrection. The rich fool likewise effectively disbelieved in the resurrection, and his words also allude to those of Solomon (<em><a href='B:490 12:19'>Luk 12:19</a></em> = <em><a href='B:250 2:24'>Ecc 2:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:250 11:9'>Ecc 11:9</a></em>).</p><p>It is in the context of talking about our hope of bodily resurrection at Christ’s return, Paul says that this hope was what had given perspective to his wrestling with wild beasts at Ephesus. The context surely requires that we understand this as referring to how he had been in danger of losing his physical life because of this wrestling, but he endured it with a mindset which looked ahead to the resurrection of the body. The wrestling with wild beasts, therefore, appears to be a literal experience which he had, rather than using ‘wrestling with wild beasts’ in a figurative sense. There was at Ephesus an amphitheatre, and we also know that there were cases where convicted criminals were forced to fight wild animals; if they killed the animal, then they went free. It seems this is what happened to Paul. He speaks in <em><a href='B:540 1:8-10'>2Co 1:8-10</a></em> of an acute crisis which he faced in Asia (and Ephesus was in Asia) which involved his having been given a death sentence, and yet being saved out of it by “the God who raises the dead”. This emphasis on bodily resurrection is the same context we have in <em><a href='B:530 15:32'>1Co 15:32</a></em>. As he faced his death in <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>, Paul reminisced how the Lord had earlier saved him “out of the mouth of the lion”; and the context there is of literal language, and we are therefore inclined to consider that he was literally saved from a lion in the arena at Ephesus. This also helps us better understand his earlier reference in Corinthians to having been exhibited as a spectacle, as a gladiator at a show, “appointed unto death”, in the presence of God and men (<em><a href='B:530 4:9'>1Co 4:9</a></em>). Note that despite this traumatic experience, Paul chose to continue at Ephesus even after that, because he saw a door had been opened to him for the Gospel, despite “many adversaries” (<em><a href='B:530 16:8-9'>1Co 16:8-9</a></em>). We who are so shy to put a word in for the Lord in our encounters with people ought to take strength from Paul’s dogged example in Ephesus.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:33'>1Co 15:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Be not deceived-&nbsp;</em>This sounds like an appeal not to be deceived by false teachers.</p><p><em>Evil companionships corrupt good moral habits</em>-</p><p> This and :34 are in the midst of an argument about the importance of believing in the Lord's resurrection and focusing ourselves upon our own future resurrection at His coming. So we must understand these moral appeals in the resurrection context. "Evil companionships" is only one possibility in translation; AV "evil communications" is not too far wrong. The Greek&nbsp;<em>homilia&nbsp;</em>means literally 'homily. The communications or homilies in view would then be the false teaching against which Paul was warning them: "Be not deceived". It was this evil teaching being communicated to them which would corrupt morality. For if Christ is not raised and we shall not be, then there was no longer any binding moral compass upon Christians- for judgment day and the second coming would never happen, and there was no ultimate outcome of our moral behaviour in this life. The same word for "corrupt" will be used in <em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em> of Paul's fear that false teaching would "corrupt" the Corinthians just as the serpent beguiled Eve.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 4:14'>1Co 4:14</a></em>.</p><p><em>Awake to soberness righteously, and do not sin. For some among you have no knowledge of God-&nbsp;</em>We died and rose with Christ, and if Christ really did rise again, and we have a part in that, we must therefore abstain from sin, quit bad company and labour with the risen, active Lord. As noted on :33, this teaching is about the result of listening to false teaching which denied the resurrection, both of the Lord and ourselves. The end result of it was sin, and not knowing God; although&nbsp;<em>agnosia</em>&nbsp;really means 'ignorance'. Belief in the Lord's awaking would result in their moral awakening. To not believe in the Lord's resurrection was to not know God. There is actually no valid belief in God, or theism, if it is not predicated upon belief in the Lord's resurrection. Nobody can come to the Father except through the Son. "Knowledge of God" may well refer to relationship with God, rather than simply a lament that they did not know the right theology.</p><p>One of the greatest false doctrines of all time is the trinity- which claims that there are three "persons" in a Godhead. Trinitarian theologians borrowed a word-&nbsp;<em>persona</em>&nbsp;in Latin,&nbsp;<em>porsopon</em>&nbsp;in Greek- which was used for the mask which actors wore on stage. But for us, God doesn't exist in personas. He exists, as God the Father. And we practice the presence of that God. The real, true God, who isn't acting, projecting Himself through a mask, playing a role to our eyes; the God who is so crucially real and&nbsp;<em>alive</em>, there at the other end of our prayers, pulling at the other end of the cord... What we know of Him in His word is what and who He really is. It may not be&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;He is, but it is all the same the truth of the real and living God. And this knowledge should be the most arresting thing in the whole of our existence. So often the prophets use the idea of "knowing God" as an idiom for living a life totally dominated by that knowledge. The new covenant which we have entered is all about 'knowing' Yahweh. And <em><a href='B:300 31:34'>Jer 31:34</a></em> comments: "They shall all know me… for I will forgive their iniquity". The knowledge of God elicits repentance, real repentance; and reveals an equally real forgiveness. It is possible for those in Christ to&nbsp;<em>in practice</em>&nbsp;not know God at all. Thus Paul exhorted the Corinthian ecclesia: "Awake to righteousness and sin not: for some have no knowledge of God" (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em> RV). The knowledge and practice of the presence of God ought to keep us back from sin. <em><a href='B:330 43:8'>Eze 43:8</a></em> RV points out how Israel were so wrong to have brought idols into the temple: "in their setting of their threshold by my threshold, and their door post beside my door post, and there was but the wall between me and them". How close God was ought to have made them quit their idolatry. But their cognizance of the closeness of God was merely theoretical. They didn't feel nor respond to the wonder of it. And truly, He is not far from every one of us.</p><p><em>I speak this to move you to shame-&nbsp;</em>As in <em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>; but on other matters, Paul did not seek to shame them (<em><a href='B:530 4:14'>1Co 4:14</a></em>). We note his sensitive approach to them, taking a different approach over different issues, just as we should. The "shame" was on "you"- that their collective attitudes had led to some amongst them having "no knowledge of God". We are all in this together; it is not for us to shrug at the spiritual failure of some amongst us. Just as Ezra and others blushed at their collective shame for the behaviour of the community they were members of (<em><a href='B:150 9:6'>Ezr 9:6</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:35'>1Co 15:35</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But someone will say: How are the dead resurrected? And with what type of body do they come forth?-&nbsp;</em>Where and when and how the salvation of the Father and Son will be finally manifested and outplayed isn't the most important thing. The&nbsp;<em>essence&nbsp;</em>of their salvation is what needs to concern us. Tragically Bible students have all too often been like the foolish questioner Paul envisages in <em><a href='B:530 15:35'>1Co 15:35</a></em>; he was preoccupied with&nbsp;<em>how&nbsp;</em>the body would come out of the grave, rather than on the essence of the fact that as we sow now, as we now allow God's word to take root in us, so we will receive in the nature of the eternal existence which we will be given at the judgment. I'm not saying that how we are raised etc. is unimportant; but it's importance hinges around its practical import for us. All too easily we can bat these questions around with no attention to their practical relevance for us.</p><p>I mentioned earlier that the only group mentioned in the NT as denying the resurrection were the Sadducees; and these objections from "someone" were typically theirs. Clearly Corinth were under the influence of Judaism, and particularly from the Sadducees who hated Paul because he had been born a Pharisee. I have mentioned throughout commentary on Titus and also here on Corinthians that such Judaism was strangely attractive to immoral, immature Gentile Christians who likely had never read the Mosaic law. Because a few acts of ritual obedience apparently freed them up to continue an immoral life in other areas.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:36'>1Co 15:36</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You foolish one</em>-</p><p> For all his gentleness and tolerance towards the Corinthians, Paul is quite sharp with the false teachers: "You fool" translates a fairly coarse term in Greek. This should be our pattern- patience and endless gentle reasoning with the weak, but standing up to false teachers. Hence the policy of an open table but a closed platform.</p><p><em>What you sow does not come to life unless it dies</em>-</p><p> Death is necessary in the wider plan of salvation; the coming to life must be at some point after death, for we are but a seed sown. Death is the gateway to a 'coming to life' at the last day not immediately after death. The necessity of resurrection is therefore Paul's answer to the detailed questions as to how mechanically the dead shall be raised. And it is important to grasp that logical and spiritual necessity of bodily resurrection- and the details and mechanisms then become irrelevant. The Greek for 'come to life' is used of our being spiritually quickened now after baptism (<em><a href='B:500 5:21'>Joh 5:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 6:63'>Joh 6:63</a></em>), when we figuratively die and rise again. The Lord Jesus is now a life giving Spirit (:45; <em><a href='B:540 3:6'>2Co 3:6</a></em>). Hence Paul can write of how he dies daily (:31). Note that a seed does not die in the earth, but Paul is using this as a figure of death, a burial in the ground. The external body of the seed decays but the germ within lives. Paul is not teaching here the immortality of the soul, but rather than the very essence of a believer, which is the spirit, shall determine the nature of our resurrected existence. See on :22. It is the same Spirit of Christ which now dwells in us which shall also be the means whereby our bodies are made alive at the last day (<em><a href='B:520 8:11'>Rom 8:11</a></em> is explicit about this). It is of the Spirit that we reap eternal life at the last day (<em><a href='B:550 6:8'>Gal 6:8</a></em>). The Lord had likened Himself to a seed falling into the ground and dying, and then bringing forth much fruit when it rises from the earth (<em><a href='B:500 12:24'>Joh 12:24</a></em>). Paul is alluding to this because his whole argument is that baptism makes the Lord's death and resurrection a pattern for our own.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:37'>1Co 15:37</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And what you sow is not the plant body that shall later be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or some other grain</em>-</p><p> The allusion is clearly to the Lord's parables of sowing; the requirement is that there shall come a harvest when the seed comes out of the ground. It is not the mature plant which is sown and then reappears. The seed sown is "bare", or "naked". Paul uses the same figure in <em><a href='B:540 5:3'>2Co 5:3</a></em>, where he likens the immortalizing of our bodies to our naked s:w. "bare" body being clothed upon with immortality. But there is something in common with our life now, just as there is a connection between the seed and the plant. And just as there are different types of crop, so there are different types of people who shall be immortalized- grain, wheat or some other crop which gives the bread of life to others. This may assist us in coping with the widely differing types we find within the church- one may be wheat, another grain.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:38'>1Co 15:38</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But God gives it a body just as it pleases Him; and to each seed a body of its own</em>-</p><p> There is a connection between the seed we are in this life, and who we shall eternally be. In this lies the eternal consequence of the personality we develop now. And yet on the other hand, the body given us, the nature of our eternity, will be a gift from God according to His will or pleasure. Those two elements are brought together in this verse. We shall each be unique- each seed has a body of its own, just as each plant is unique. The word of God / the Gospel is as seed (<em><a href='B:670 1:23'>1Pe 1:23</a></em>); and yet we believers end our lives as seed falling into the ground, which then rises again in resurrection to be given a body and to eternally grow into the unique type of person which we are now developing (<em><a href='B:530 15:38'>1Co 15:38</a></em>). The good seed which is sown is interpreted by the Lord both as the word of God (<em><a href='B:490 8:11'>Luk 8:11</a></em>), and as “the children of the Kingdom” (<em><a href='B:470 13:38'>Mat 13:38</a></em>). This means that the word of the Gospel becomes flesh in us as it did in our Lord.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:39'>1Co 15:39</a></em>&nbsp;<em>All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes</em>-</p><p> Paul labours this point over the next verses. He has introduced the idea of the unique, individual nature of our reward in writing of how each plant has a unique body (:38) and how there are different types of grain. The diversity of the natural creation will be reflected in the spiritual creation, and therefore there is going to be diversity amongst us within the church now- a point which needed making to a group as diverse as Corinth.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:40'>1Co 15:40</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly is one and the glory of the earthly is another</em>-</p><p> Perhaps Paul is referring to Angels as the "heavenly bodies", and in so doing making another stab at the teaching of the Sadducees who denied both resurrection and Angels (see on :35; <em><a href='B:510 23:8'>Act 23:8</a></em>). We shall become as Angels at the resurrection (<em><a href='B:490 20:35-36'>Luk 20:35-36</a></em>), and their varying glories shall be reflected in our own. The supreme heavenly body is that of the Lord Jesus, and we shall receive a body like His heavenly body (:48,49). An alternative is to understand the heavenly bodies as the planets which will now be listed in :41. Just as there are varying glories amongst the diversity of earthly bodies which comprise the natural creation (:39), so there are amongst the heavenly bodies (:41). This variation of glory will be reflected in the diversity seen amongst the glorified believers after their resurrection.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:41'>1Co 15:41</a></em>&nbsp;<em>There is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars, for one star differs from another star in glory</em>-</p><p> The different types of glory will be reflected in the diversity of believers both now and eternally. Clearly Paul envisaged a gradation of glory amongst the believers. Some make more of God's truth than others. This would have been a most necessary point to labour in a church which was so diverse, with some strong and committed, and others extremely weak. The stronger ones could only relate to the weaker ones by understanding that they would be saved, although their glory might be less than that of others. The Lord likewise taught that some would have more cities to rule over than others; some will trade His talents better than others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:42'>1Co 15:42</a></em>&nbsp;<em>So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption</em>-</p><p> By "the dead" Paul understands "the dead in Christ", for he is predicating resurrection upon association with Christ's resurrected body. "Corruption" has moral undertones- see on :43 and :44. In this case, we have in view not an emergence in immortal form, but rather the idea would be that the corruptible the prone to sin, will be raised in a form which cannot sin, which is incorruptible.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:43'>1Co 15:43</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 8:9'>1Co 8:9</a></em></p><p><em>It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power</em>-</p><p> "Dishonour" has moral connotations, the same word being translated "vile affections" (<em><a href='B:520 1:26'>Rom 1:26</a></em>), and used of the "dishonour" of condemnation at the last day (<em><a href='B:520 9:21'>Rom 9:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:620 2:20'>2Ti 2:20</a></em>). Paul has recently used the word about the weaker members of the church whom we might consider to be dishonourable (<em><a href='B:530 12:23'>1Co 12:23</a></em>). "Weakness" is likewise used of moral weakness (<em><a href='B:470 8:17'>Mat 8:17</a></em>). These spiritually weak ones will be resurrected in power; yet the same words are used in <em><a href='B:650 11:34'>Heb 11:34</a></em> of how the spiritually? weak are "made strong", literally 'made of power', in this life. This theme of morally weak being raised spiritually strong is continued in :44, and in :42 the idea of 'corruptible' being raised incorruptible is introduced. Paul's reasoning here connects with one of the hardest issues posed by the Corinthian correspondence: Paul writes as if all the Corinthians shall be saved, for they are "in Christ". He feels warmly towards them and believes in their final salvation- for he will not ever state they are to be condemned at the last day. And yet he clearly reveals that their behaviour was in serious denial of basic Christianity, in doctrine and practice- and he urgently pleads with them to change lest they lose their salvation. Paul and those who were 'spiritual' in Corinth must have struggled hard over these issues. Paul is speaking in this section of the resurrection of the body at the last day, but he clearly does so in terms which refer to the moral weakness of the weaker ones at Corinth. He can only assume that if they are to be saved, then they shall die in moral weakness and dishonour but be resurrected in a spiritually stronger form. Even though those changes in a moral sense ought to be happening now. This speaks powerfully to us today. For we too wonder at the apparently non-Christian behaviour and beliefs of those who have been baptized into Christ and we therefore have to assume are "in" Him and in hope of salvation. For it is not for us to say they are non-Christian or have fallen from grace to the point they shall not be finally saved. For we are not to judge in that ultimate sense. We can only therefore assume their salvation. And that will mean they at their deaths are sown in moral corruption and dishonour but shall be saved at the resurrection, when they shall be changed. And this of course is a question we have likely asked ourselves too- is the resurrection just going to mean a change of physical nature for me, so that I shall be immortal? Or shall I be changed morally, spiritually, as well? Such change is sadly necessary for us all. But we wonder to what extent it shall be possible... will character and personality be totally transformed by the resurrection process? Or just as it were touched up? And if we hope for such a change in our own cases, to what extent can we deny such hope to weak believers who die in Christ whilst still so terribly immature in faith and behaviour? Paul's approach here is indeed a comfort. The transformation from weakness to power, from corruption to not corruption, in moral terms, must of course be happening now. But we need the resurrection to make it complete. And like Paul with Corinth, we have to assume that resurrection shall mean moral as well as physical transformation for our brethren. And this frees us from the need to condemn and separate from our brethren in this life. We must assume that resurrection shall transform them to how the must be- as it will us. For none of us surely can claim that we are perfect now and just need immortality to get us to salvation.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 15:44'>1Co 15:44</a></em>&nbsp;<em>It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body</em>-</p><p> See notes on :43 regarding the element of moral transformation which will be part of the resurrection process. Paul has drawn the tension between natural and spiritual in <em><a href='B:530 2:14'>1Co 2:14</a></em>; the Corinthians were still natural when they ought to be spiritual, and Pail laments they are not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). <em><a href='B:720 1:19'>Jud 1:19</a></em> speaks likewise of weak believers as being "sensual s:w. "natural", having not the Spirit" as they ought to have. The transformation from natural to spiritual ought to be now; but the final transformation at the resurrection will also have to include this element for us all, and shall not solely be a changing of our nature from mortal to immortal. This is great comfort for those who feel their transformation is not complete and that they go to their grave not fully transformed in moral terms.</p>


