# comment

text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:11'>Rom 15:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And again: Praise the Lord all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise Him-&nbsp;</em>This quotation from <em><a href='B:230 117:1'>Psa 117:1</a></em> is understood as putting "the peoples" in parallel with "all you Gentiles". The "peoples" were the tribes of Israel, and they along with "all the Gentiles" would praise Yahweh. The writer looked forward to a time when the Gentiles along with Israel would unite in praise of Israel's God. I suggest this because the other quotations here in Romans 15 parallel the Gentiles with Israel. And this was Paul's context here- Jew and Gentile should praise the Lord together in the church at Rome. "All the Gentiles" is defined in <em><a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a></em> as "all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called". The language of all the world or all the Gentiles refers not to every single person, but to all those who have believed in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:12'>Rom 15:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And again Isaiah said: There shall be the root of Jesse and he that arises to rule over the Gentiles</em>- The 'arising' of the One who was the offshoot of Jesse was a reference to the Lord's resurrection. It was that which enabled all people to identify with His death and resurrection and thereby be saved. The "root of Jesse" rather than of David suggests that the Lord was prefigured by David himself.</p><p><em>On him shall the Gentiles hope-&nbsp;</em>"In Him"; by becoming in Christ by faith and baptism, the dead and resurrected Lord becomes the One through whom salvation is possible for anyone. Jew or Gentile.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:13'>Rom 15:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope, in the power of the Holy Spirit</em>- The "hope" is the certainty of salvation made possible for all men by becoming "in Christ" (:12). The certain hope ahead comes from having sin dealt with, and the subsequent peace with God. And this brings joy. But the God who is the source of that Hope fills believing human minds with that joy and peace, "in the power of the Holy Spirit". The arena of the Spirit's operation is therefore in the human heart- for that is where joy and peace is experienced. This 'filling' by the Spirit is that found in <em><a href='B:510 13:52'>Act 13:52</a></em>, where the believers "were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit". We note from that reference that 'filling' is an ongoing process, and not something which only occurs at baptism. The believers in Rome had already been baptized, and Paul wishes them to experience another 'filling', as happened in <em><a href='B:510 13:52'>Act 13:52</a></em>. Paul uses the same word in :14 concerning how he believed they had already been 'filled' with all knowledge and goodness; but he wished that filling to be ongoing.</p><p><em>So that you may abound in hope-&nbsp;</em>They already had hope (:12), but the work of the Spirit in their hearts was to help them feel that, so that they might abound in that hope. Following through Paul’s reasoning in <em><a href='B:520 15:9-13'>Rom 15:9-13</a></em>, he seems to be saying that “hope” (RV) leads to joyful praising, which in turn leads to hope and trust. It’s an upward spiral, a positive circle. And each of those fruits of the Spirit become more gripping upon us the more we develop them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:14'>Rom 15:14</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:480 4:8'>Mar 4:8</a></em>.</p><p><em>And I myself also am persuaded about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness</em>- Paul has just said that he is "persuaded" that there is nothing unclean of itself (<em><a href='B:520 14:14'>Rom 14:14</a></em>); and he is equally persuaded that those who don't agree with his persuasion the "weak" in the church were just as much filled with the Spirit "<em>full&nbsp;</em>of goodness". This is what we observed in chapter 14- Paul felt that they were all to be of the same mind, that of Christ, the Spirit, even if they had theological differences.</p><p><em>Filled with all knowledge, able also to encourage one another</em>- The Holy Spirit filled the hearts of each of them, those with the old view of the food laws, and those who understood better in Christ. Paul believed that therefore they were able to 'admonish' (Gk:) each other, in the power and wisdom of the Spirit given to each of them. This was quite some unity- that the weak in understanding could still admonish the more mature or correct in understanding by the power of the Spirit within them. This is indeed "the unity of the Spirit", whereby those who have defective understandings of some things can still admonish those who have better understandings. All this is of course impossible of understanding by those who insist that 'truth' in terms of correct understanding is the final arbiter as to a believer's standing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:15'>Rom 15:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But I write the more boldly to you in some way, as if putting you again in remembrance, because of the grace that was given me by God</em>- Again, having explained the intended unity between the two groups, Paul weighs in on one side of the debate as he did previously, in stating that indeed there is no food which is unclean of itself. He insists that he has the gift / grace of God to teach, and it has clearly been revealed to him that the Gentiles are to be accepted by God on the altar of Christ (:16). And moreover, he has been chosen to play a part in the acceptance of the Gentiles, and so his views about the food issue were not just his opinions but actually inspired by God.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That I should be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable</em>- See on :15. Throughout my commentary on Acts, I noted that Paul got himself into so much avoidable trouble through insisting on ministering to the Jews. His ministry was for the Gentiles. But he seems to have envied Peter's ministry to the Jews; for Paul was so much better qualified for that. But the Lord chose him for a ministry which he naturally appeared less suited for; because the Lord loves to work through human inadequacy. The double emphasis upon 'ministering' or serving shows that all Gospel preaching is a slave like service. All pride is thereby removed from any preaching work. Paul had had it revealed to him that the Jewish food laws were not to be binding upon Gentiles- and yet his calling was to make them an acceptable sacrifice. Therefore the acceptability of that sacrifice meant that his position on the Law was not just his opinion. They would be acceptable even without keeping the food laws. He uses the same word to explain how he hoped that his work for the Gentiles would be "acceptable" with the Jewish believers in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em>); he wanted them to accept the Gentile converts just as God accepted them. And this has been his theme in this section- that we should receive those whom God and His Son have accepted. The Gentile believers were to be 'offered up'; they were to be a sacrifice. By using that figure, Paul shows his understanding that every believer is called to a life of sacrifice. He was simply enabling their acceptability.</h4><p><em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em> speaks of the preacher as offering up his converts upon the altar note how <em><a href='B:510 11:7'>Act 11:7</a></em> uses the same image of ‘offering up’ sacrifices to describe preaching. And this connects with how Paul had earlier spoken in <em><a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a></em> of offering ourselves as living sacrifices in dedication. The aim of the preacher, therefore, is to provoke a sacrificial life in his or her converts, after the pattern of the Master whom they learn of.</p><p>When we read of ‘ministering’ in the NT, we are to generally perceive an allusion to the spirit of priesthood; for it was the OT priests who were understood as “ministers”. Paul speaks of preaching God's word, both in the world and to brethren and sisters, as ministering (<em><a href='B:580 1:23'>Col 1:23</a></em>; <em><a href='B:580 1:25'>Col 1:25</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:13'>1Co 9:13</a></em>). He saw himself as a minister of the Gospel "that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>). This is priestly language. Paul saw his efforts for others as preparing a sacrifice. He says that we are&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;ministers (cp. priests) of God, stewards of the true Gospel, and should act appropriately (<em><a href='B:530 4:1'>1Co 4:1</a></em>). Others gave money to poorer brethren, and again this is described as ministering, priest-ing (<em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:10'>Heb 6:10</a></em>). Reminding brethren of basic doctrines they already know is another kind of ministering (<em><a href='B:610 4:16'>1Ti 4:16</a></em>). Indeed, Peter says that we&nbsp;<em>each</em>&nbsp;have something to minister to each other, there is some way in which we can each serve each other (<em><a href='B:670 4:10-11'>1Pe 4:10-11</a></em>). We must bear one another's burden, as the priesthood bore the burden of Israel's iniquity (<em><a href='B:40 18:1'>Num 18:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:40 18:23'>Num 18:23</a></em>). This is the meaning of priesthood.</p><p>Paul speaks of his preaching as being like a priest bringing the offerings of the Gentile converts as an acceptable sacrifice to Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>). This is very much the language of the prophets concerning the Messianic Kingdom- as if to imply that the Kingdom is brought about by our successful preaching? Hence it is in keeping with this to think that there would be a burst of conversions to herald in the Kingdom.<br/>Paul speaks of his preaching work as offering up the Gentiles, as if he is a priest (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>)- and in the same figure, Peter is encouraged to preach to Gentiles by killing and eating animals in a peace offering (<em><a href='B:510 11:7'>Act 11:7</a></em>). The command that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel is referring back to how the priests had no material inheritance but lived off the sacrifices (<em><a href='B:40 18:11'>Num 18:11</a></em>). And for us, the honour and wonder of preaching Christ should mean that we keep a loose hold on the material things of this life. And as we are&nbsp;<em>all&nbsp;</em>priests, we are all preachers.</p><p><em>Being sanctified by the Holy Spirit</em>- The presence of the Spirit in their hearts made them acceptable, as he has argued since the start of chapter 14, and as he explained theologically in chapter 8. The presence of the Spirit is what makes a believer "one of His", i:e. Christ's. We are not to think that they are unacceptable because of a difference on theology or practice if they have the Spirit. This central role of the Spirit in Paul's theology and practice must be given far greater weight in our communities.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:17'>Rom 15:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I&nbsp;have therefore my boasting in Christ Jesus in things pertaining to God-&nbsp;</em>Paul has just argued that the presence of the Spirit in the hearts of the Gentiles makes them acceptable to God, and the Jewish Christians must accept this (see on :16). Now Paul goes on to demonstrate how that same Spirit has been manifest in a very public, even miraculous way in his entire mission to convert Gentiles to Christ. The "things pertaining to God" alludes to the Jewish language of sacrifice. Those sacrifices were the Gentile converts, and they were acceptable despite Paul's position on the Law.</p><p>No flesh may glory before God (<em><a href='B:530 1:29'>1Co 1:29</a></em>); but Paul, in his spiritual man, as counted righteous before God, could glory (<em><a href='B:520 15:17'>Rom 15:17</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed</em>- Paul saw himself as an agent of Christ. The Lord Jesus is not therefore passive. He is seeking to save others, He works through others to that end. He is trying to make Gentiles obedient. It is not enough to say that He has given them His word and it's just over to them now to obey or disobey. He works to persuade men towards obedience. And in the context here Paul is saying that this is done through the work of His Spirit.</p><p>Paul seems to have consciously modelled his life upon that of Moses; he evidently saw Moses as his hero. For example, he speaks of how he has been used to bring about God’s glory through “signs and wonders” (<em><a href='B:520 15:18-19'>Rom 15:18-19</a></em>), in the very language of Moses bringing “signs and wonders” upon Egypt (<em><a href='B:20 7:3'>Exo 7:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 7:9'>Exo 7:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:20 11:9-10'>Exo 11:9-10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 4:34'>Deu 4:34</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 6:22'>Deu 6:22</a></em>). See on <em><a href='B:530 14:3'>1Co 14:3</a></em>.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>In the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit-&nbsp;</em>The same Spirit active in the sanctifying or making holy of the hearts of Gentile believers had been more visibly active through the miracles he had performed, which were part of the efforts of the Lord Jesus to make the Gentiles obedient (:18). That the spirit does not just refer to the naked power of God is evident from <em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>: “the power of the spirit of God”.</p><p><em>So that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum-&nbsp;</em>His desire to go to Spain (<em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em> AV) indicates a commitment to taking the Gospel to the very ends of the world he then knew. He may well have been motivated in this by wishing to fulfil in spirit the Kingdom prophecy of <em><a href='B:290 66:18-19'>Isa 66:18-19</a></em>, which describes how Tarshish (which he would have understood as Spain) and other places which “have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory” will be witnessed to by those who&nbsp;<em>have</em>&nbsp;seen His glory and have “escaped” from God’s just condemnation by grace. Paul sees this as referring to himself. For he speaks in <em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em> of his ambition to take the Gospel to Spain; and in that same context, of how he will bring the Gentile brethren’s offering up to Jerusalem. This is precisely the context of Isaiah 66 - the offerings of the Gentiles are to be brought up to Jerusalem, as a result of how the Lord’s glory will be spoken of to all nations. So Paul read Isaiah 66 and did something about his Old Testament Bible study; he dedicated his life to taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, and he encouraged them to send their offerings to Jerusalem. He was no mere theologian, no academic missiologist. His study and exposition of Old Testament Scripture led to a life lived out in practice, to hardship, risk of life, persecution, loneliness, even rejection by his brethren. It is also significant in passing to note that <em><a href='B:290 66:19'>Isa 66:19</a></em> speaks of nations which occur in the list of nations we have in Genesis 10, in the context of the effect of Babel. It is as if Paul sees the spreading of the Gospel as an undoing of the curse of Babel and the establishment of the Kingdom conditions described in Isaiah 66. By his preaching of God’s Kingdom and the reign of Christ, he brought about a foretaste of the future Kingdom in the lives of his converts. And we can do likewise. Note how once again, the preacher preaches from his personal experience; Paul takes the vision of glory which he has beheld to those who have not seen nor heard. Paul speaks of how he had preached the Gospel from Jerusalem "as far round as Illyricum" (<em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>). This was a Latin-speaking province. Was he not implying that he had preached throughout the Greek speaking world, and now wanted to take it into the Latin-speaking world? He wanted to preach to the regions beyond his previous limits (<em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>); his aim was to spend some time in Rome and then preach in Spain.</p><p>Preaching, on whatever scale, involves a certain spirit of spiritual ambition;&nbsp; for example, the hope and faith that a leaflet, a mere piece of paper, might be the means of directing someone on to the Kingdom road:&nbsp;That a scrappy piece of paper, a passing comment at a bus stop should really lead a small mortal towards the eternal glory of God's nature::. without spiritual ambition the preacher just wouldn't bother to start. Paul was the supreme model of ambition in preaching:&nbsp;“I have&nbsp;<em>fully preached</em>&nbsp;the gospel of Christ:&nbsp;Yea, so have I&nbsp;<em>strived</em>&nbsp;(been ambitious, RV mg:) to preach the gospel" (<em><a href='B:520 15:19-20'>Rom 15:19-20</a></em>). In his last days (or hours?) Paul's mind returned to these words:&nbsp;His swansong in <em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em> is a direct allusion to <em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>:&nbsp;"The Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the&nbsp;<em>preaching</em>&nbsp;might be&nbsp;<em>fully known</em>, and that all the Gentiles might hear". Paul's reference here to 'completing the Gospel from Jerusalem and in a circle as far as Illyricum' is a window into his ambition in preaching. He speaks of his ambition to preach in Spain; and so we get the impression of him planning a circle starting in Jerusalem, curving north-west, then further west to Rome, and then south-west to Spain. To complete the circle to Jerusalem would have involved him preaching in North Africa- where there were major Jewish centres, e:g. Alexandria. Perhaps he implies that his ambition was to preach there too, in order to 'complete the circle of the gospel'.</p><p><em>I have fully preached the gospel of Christ-&nbsp;</em>Paul speaks of having 'fulfilled' the Gospel by preaching it (<em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em> Gk:); the Gospel is in itself something which demands to be preached by those having it.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:20'>Rom 15:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Yes, making it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man's foundation</em>- Paul appears to have had a policy of breaking fresh ground for the Gospel and not getting involved where someone else had preached. It was his aim to spread the Gospel. He implies therefore that there were others preaching the Gospel apart from him. The metaphor of building is in context of Paul's teaching that they should be building one another up (a closely related word is used in <em><a href='B:520 14:19'>Rom 14:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:2'>Rom 15:2</a></em>). Always Paul consciously sets himself up as their example. He has reasoned that just as the Holy Spirit is at work in the hearts of the Gentile converts in Rome to sanctify them, so the same Spirit has been at work with him in his missionary work. He sees a huge unity of the Spirit throughout. And likewise he speaks of how they in Rome can build each other up, including the Jewish brethren building up the Gentiles, just as he is at work empire-wide building up the Gentile converts. When a person is baptized, they call upon themselves the name of the Lord Jesus. "Where Christ was already named" may therefore refer to areas where there had already been converts made.</p><p>Paul read the OT prophecies of how “to whom he was not spoken of, they shall see”; and he didn’t just see them as descriptions of what would ultimately happen. He realised that the fulfilment of this prophecy depended&nbsp;<em>to some extent</em>&nbsp;on our human freewill; and therefore he&nbsp;<em>strove&nbsp;</em>(against so many odds) to preach Christ where He had not yet been named (<em><a href='B:520 15:19-20'>Rom 15:19-20</a></em>). And he asks the Romans to&nbsp;<em>strive together&nbsp;</em>with him in prayer (<em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>)- i:e. to join him in the struggle to witness world-wide, in that they would pray for his success. It was God’s prophesied will that the Gospel would go world-wide; but it required the freewill strivings of Paul to enable it, and the strivings with God in prayer by the brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:21'>Rom 15:21</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 13:47'>Act 13:47</a></em>.</p><p><em>But, as it is written: They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came, and they who have not heard shall understand</em>- Paul's policy of preaching in fresh areas was guided by his understanding of this prophecy. We are to use our initiative in fulfilling Bible prophecies, rather than assuming the fulfilment shall come about anyway. Indeed it could be argued that God's purpose is so open ended that He as it were depends upon our initiative in fulfilling some of the prophecies. Here Paul appropriates a prophecy of how the news of the crucified Christ would spread to those who had never heard it. He didn’t just read those verses as prophecy; he saw in them an imperative to fulfil them. In <em><a href='B:520 15:21'>Rom 15:21</a></em>, Paul justifies his preaching by quoting from part of the suffering servant prophecy in Isaiah 52 / 53. That whole passage is set in a context of explaining “how beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings… all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (<em><a href='B:290 52:7'>Isa 52:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:290 52:10'>Isa 52:10</a></em>). The preaching of good tidings and the declaration of God’s salvation was through the crucifixion. Paul quotes <em><a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a></em>: “To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand”. This was Paul’s justification for taking the Gospel to where Christ has not been named. Note in passing how the Lord Jesus sees us as “beautiful” in our witness to Him (as in <em><a href='B:260 7:1'>Son 7:1</a></em>). Yet further into Isaiah 53, so much else jumps out at us as appropriate to Paul’s preaching: “Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high cp. Paul knowing how to be exalted and abased, themes that occur in Isaiah 53 about Jesus’ death. As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man cp. Paul’s thorn in the flesh?, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider”. Paul appeared before Agrippa, Festus, and one or two Caesars, with a visage marred by his evangelistic sufferings.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:22'>Rom 15:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore I was hindered these many times from coming to you</em>- Paul could now see why he had been hindered from visiting the church in Rome- for they were converts of others, not his. He saw that it had been the Lord's wish that he continued his policy of breaking fresh ground for the Lord. His final insistence on going to Rome was not blessed- it could be argued. The Lord kept trying to hinder him, the wind / spirit blew against him as he voyaged there::. but the Lord allowed Paul his insistence.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:23'>Rom 15:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now, there is no need for me in these regions, and having these many years a longing to come to you-&nbsp;</em>The regions are of :19. He seems to be saying that he has done his shot in preaching to the Gentiles by preaching in an arc that began at Jerusalem; and now he is free, so he thinks, to come to Rome. But I would suggest that he was obsessed with a trip to Rome, capital of the empire. He speaks of how he had tried so hard to come to them previously (:19, and in <em><a href='B:520 1:9-11'>Rom 1:9-11</a></em>). The Lord had hindered him- because his work was to break fresh ground for Christ (:20). I suggest that he talked himself into thinking that he had done his work in breaking fresh ground for Christ. But surely that was wishful thinking. That work was not done fully, nor could one man ever surely come to a point where he could say that he has taken the Gospel to all the Gentiles. In commentary on Acts, I point out repeatedly that Paul's journey to Rome was not blessed, and he didn't find there what he had hoped for. The Lord of course worked with him in his desire, but I would take his argument here as an example of self-justification.</p><p>There can be no doubt that the emphasis in the life of Paul was upon the geographical spread of the Gospel as far as possible. In around ten years, he established ecclesias in the four provinces of Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. And then he speaks as if his work was done in that part of the world, he had spread the word from Jerusalem round to Illyricum i:e. throughout the Eastern half of the Empire, and therefore “I have no more place in these parts” (<em><a href='B:520 15:19'>Rom 15:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:23'>Rom 15:23</a></em>). He speaks as if he has fulfilled the “line” or geographical apportion of areas to him, and now he was turning his attention to the Western side of the Roman empire, going to Rome, planning a visit to Spain. In some ways, this is surprising, for his letters indicate that the ecclesias he had already established were weak indeed. All in Asia turned away from him, and he warned the Ephesian elders of this. Ecclesias like Corinth were hopelessly weak in doctrine and practice, and many were turning away, either to the world, or back to Judaism as in the Galatian ecclesias:&nbsp; He could so easily have spent his life running around the Eastern half of the Roman empire, seeking to strengthen what remained. But he seems to have considered his work to have been done, and presses ahead with fresh witness in another part of the world. He wrote letters and made occasional visits to address the problems as they arose, but his stress was repeatedly on pushing forward with the work.</p><p>This comment that Paul no longer “had any room for work in these regions” may not necessarily mean that he had preached the Gospel to completion; rather could it be a sad admission from Paul that opposition from the Judaist wing within the church meant that he could no longer work for the Gospel sensibly without causing division, and so he proposed opening a new front of work in Spain. And this wouldn’t have been the first time when division between brethren has actually led to the Gospel spreading further, such is the way God works through the dysfunction of His children.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I hope to see you during my journey, and to be helped on my way by you, if first I may enjoy your company for a while</em>- His obsession was to "see Rome". I suggest that his appeal to Caesar was a desperate attempt to as it were force the Lord's hand and let him go there, when the Lord had hindered him several times from doing so (<em><a href='B:520 1:9-11'>Rom 1:9-11</a></em>). If he had not done so, he could have been set free and continued his work amongst the Gentiles. He makes out that he just wants to drop in and see them en route to Spain (:28). But Rome was not particularly en route to Spain. If Spain was his destination, there were more direct routes there, not least via Alexandria. But he clearly had an obsession with Rome, and broke away from his intended mission to only break fresh ground for the Lord. "To be helped on my way" is a phrase used to mean 'Fellowshipping me in my missionary journey' (<em><a href='B:710 1:8'>3Jn 1:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:6'>1Co 16:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:11'>1Co 16:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 15:3'>Act 15:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:14-15'>Act 17:14-15</a></em>). He was trying to get them to participate in the work of preaching to the Gentiles- see on :20.</p><h4>The AV mentions his ambition for Spain- his spiritual ambition at a time when most men scarcely travelled 100km. from their birthplace, is just superb (<em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a></em>).</h4><p>He says that if he is "satisfied" by the fruit of the converts in Rome, then he could move on to preach in Spain, if he could seal the spiritual fruit of unity between Jewish and Gentile converts in Jerusalem (<em><a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a></em> RV). This is the spirit of <em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>, where Paul told the Corinthians that "when your faith is increased", then the measure or extent of his missionary work could be geographically expanded.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:25'>Rom 15:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints</em>- The Jerusalem welfare project had been another project Paul tried in order to bring Jewish and Gentile believers together in the work of the Spirit. And he was hoping to get the Roman church to in essence get involved in something similar; see on :20 and :24.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:26'>Rom 15:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For it has been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem</em>- This was a very positive take on the project. For it ran into big difficulties; the believers in Achaia didn't come up with their promised contributions, even though Paul had boasted that they were going to make those donations (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). And there is no record of what was raised being received positively; all we read of in :31 is Paul's doubt as to whether it would be received. Rather it seems did the Jewish Christians betray Paul into the hands of the orthodox Jews and Romans. Again we sense an obsessive side to Paul, a desire to make things work out, to prove that Jew and Gentile were in fact harmoniously united in Christ.</p><p>God is believer-centric; to Him, His 'world' is the believers. He speaks of "Macedonia and Achaia" as meaning 'the believers in Macedonia and Achaia' (<em><a href='B:520 15:26'>Rom 15:26</a></em>). “Samaria… received the word of God” (<em><a href='B:510 8:14'>Act 8:14</a></em>)- not everyone in Samaria, but those who did are counted as “Samaria” to God. The field of the ecclesia is “the world” to God; and note how the Corinth ecclesia were “God’s field” (<em><a href='B:530 3:9'>1Co 3:9</a></em> Gk:). Often Scripture speaks as if "all men" will be raised. <em><a href='B:520 2:6-9'>Rom 2:6-9</a></em> speaks of "every man" being judged at the second coming. We know that literally "all men" will not be.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:27'>Rom 15:27</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>.</p><p><em>They were pleased to do it,&nbsp;and indeed they owe it to them</em>- The believers in Achaia had to be cajoled by Paul to come up with what they had promised, according to 2 Corinthians 9-11. And clearly there was much opposition from them towards Paul and his welfare project.</p><p><em>For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister to them in material things</em>- Again this is Paul rightly perceiving that Jew and Gentile both have the Spirit within them and working through and with them; and they ought therefore to work together. See on :20,&nbsp; :24 and :25. But he seems to wish to paint a picture of this actually happening on the ground, when in fact it was not at all like that. Human dysfunction was too strong.</p><p>All nations of the land were to be blessed because of Abraham and his seed, his one special seed Jesus and also his natural descendants. His children were intended to be a blessing to the other nations who lived around them, especially in that they were intended to bring them to Abraham’s God and Abraham’s faith. Now this is not to say that ultimately, Abraham and his seed will not bring blessing on literally the whole planet. <em><a href='B:520 4:13'>Rom 4:13</a></em> interprets the promise of the land of Canaan as meaning ‘the whole world’. But this was by later development, and on account of the universal blessing achieved by the sacrifice of Abraham’s greatest seed, the Lord Jesus. In the first instance, the blessing was to be upon all the families who lived on the ‘earth’ / land (<em><a href='B:520 12:3'>Rom 12:3</a></em>). There is a paradox here. For those already living in the land promised to Abraham, their land would be taken from them but they would be blessed. God was telling Abraham: ‘You will possess the land and all nations of that land will be blessed’. They were to give up their physical inheritance to receive a spiritual one- this was the ideal. Paul applies this idea to us when he says that if Gentiles have received the spiritual blessings of Abraham’s seed, ought they not to give their physical blessings to that same physical seed of Abraham? This is how and why he tells Gentile converts in Rome to send donations to the poor Jewish brethren in Jerusalem: “For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things… I shall come in the fullness of the&nbsp;<em>blessing</em>&nbsp;of the gospel of Christ” (<em><a href='B:520 15:27-29'>Rom 15:27-29</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a></em>&nbsp;<em>When therefore I have accomplished this, and have given to them this fruit, I will leave for Spain by way of Rome</em>- We rather wish Paul would have added 'God willing'. For this was not how things worked out. He was arrested and imprisoned in Jerusalem, nearly killed, spent at least 2 years in prison, and then forced his way to Rome by choosing to appeal to Caesar rather than being set free. And there is no Biblical evidence he ever made it to Spain. This situation also shows that having access to miraculous Spirit gifts didn't enable people to foretell their own futures. "Given to them this fruit" is not the best translation. The idea is that he wanted fruit sealed for them. The idea is as in <em><a href='B:570 4:17'>Phi 4:17</a></em> where he says he asked the Philippians for a gift not because he needed it, but because it would be a spiritual fruit for them with the Lord. For all his obsessive characteristics, this was a lovely move of Paul. He wanted the Spirit within the converts to bring forth fruit which would be to their credit before the Lord. We too need to consider how best we can encourage fruitfulness in others.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:29'>Rom 15:29</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And I know that, when I come to you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ</em>- The language is very similar to that of <em><a href='B:520 1:11'>Rom 1:11</a></em> "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to strengthen you". Paul seemed to think that his personal presence in Rome would result in their receiving some spiritual gift. Indeed he speaks of a fullness of blessing, as if he had something spectacular in mind. But there is no record of his doing anything of the sort when he finally arrived in Rome. So I am inclined to read this as I do his certain talk about going to Spain etc. He appears to have been "sure" (AV) of things which were not at all confirmed by the Lord- in his obsessive enthusiasm for 'Rome'.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:580 2:1'>Col 2:1</a></em>.</p><p><em>Now I beseech you brothers</em>- Paul was so earnest for their prayers because he knew that prayer for others does really affect outcomes. Prayer for others either works or it doesn't, and each person must simply pray for their issues alone. But seeing that clearly prayer for others does 'work', Paul urges their prayers for his project. And we should have the same attitude.</p><p><em>By our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit</em>- The idea of&nbsp;<em>dia</em>&nbsp;here is more 'for the sake of:::'. He wanted their prayers for the Jew-Gentile fellowship project because he was doing it for the sake of the Lord Jesus. He knew it would please the Lord, such unity and expression of love was what He died in order to achieve and enable. And it was for the sake of the love inculcated by the Spirit working within their hearts. Elsewhere Paul defines the fruit of the Spirit in the singular- simply, "love" (<em><a href='B:550 5:22'>Gal 5:22</a></em>). The love brought forth by the Spirit was what would motivate their prayers for the fellowship project. Paul's idea so far in this chapter has been that the Spirit is within both the weak and the stronger in Rome, it is operating in and through Paul too; and he asks that they channel the love brought forth by the Spirit into praying for his work with the Gentiles.</p><p><em>That you strive together with me in your prayers to God for me-&nbsp;</em>The allusion may be to Jacob's wrestling with God in prayer. Paul had so many times been hindered in coming to the Romans (<em><a href='B:520 1:9-11'>Rom 1:9-11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:22-23'>Rom 15:22-23</a></em>); and he thinks those hindrances were from God, who had wanted to keep him focused on breaking new ground for the Lord Jesus. A visit to the church in Rome would not achieve that. And it seems Paul was as it were praying, even struggling with God, to be released from his calling to preach to the Gentiles, for his existing work to be counted as if he had fulfilled the ministry completely- so that he could then visit the existing church in Rome with God's blessing. Their prayers were so that Paul could come to Rome "through the will of God" (:32), with God's will behind it. So he believed that prayer could alter or at least affect God's will.</p><p>Paul read the OT prophecies of how "to whom he was not spoken of, they shall see"; and he didn't just see them as descriptions of what would ultimately happen. He realised that the fulfilment of this prophecy depended&nbsp;<em>to some extent</em>&nbsp;on our human freewill; and therefore he&nbsp;<em>strove&nbsp;</em>(against so many odds) to preach Christ where He had not yet been named (<em><a href='B:520 15:19-20'>Rom 15:19-20</a></em>). And he asks the Romans to&nbsp;<em>strive together&nbsp;</em>with him in prayer (<em><a href='B:520 15:30'>Rom 15:30</a></em>)- i:e. to join him in the struggle to witness world-wide, in that they would pray for his success. It was God's prophesied will that the Gospel would go world-wide; but it required the freewill strivings of Paul to enable it, and the strivings with God in prayer by the brethren.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That I may be delivered from those in Judea who do not believe</em>- He is asking them to pray the Lord's prayer for him: "Deliver us from evil" (<em><a href='B:470 6:13'>Mat 6:13</a></em>). Paul realized he faced a real threat from the Jews who did not believe in Jesus. If he had focused upon his ministry to the Gentiles, he need not have run the risk of engaging with them. It could be argued that these prayers were not answered; Paul was not delivered from this element, who got him imprisoned for at least 2 years, and his plans to jet off to Spain from Jerusalem via Rome::. simply didn't happen. I have argued that his appeal to Caesar was a way of trying to force the Lord's hand in letting him achieve his obsession with visiting Rome.</p><p><em>And that my service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints</em>- He has just used this word about the Gentile converts being an acceptable sacrifice on the Christ altar (<em><a href='B:520 15:16'>Rom 15:16</a></em>). He uses the same priestly language about his 'service' of bringing an offering to Jerusalem, which he hoped would be acceptable&nbsp;<em>to the believers there</em>. He seems to be confusing acceptability to God, and acceptability to men. The idea of his Gentile-Jewish welfare project was that the Jewish Christians would accept the Gentiles and be deeply grateful to Paul personally, and accept him. His exclusion by the Jerusalem Jews, including it seems the Jewish Christians there, was painful beyond words for Paul. And he was trying to by all means find a way to end it, whilst at the same time being genuinely committed to producing unity between Jew and Gentile in Christ. In the end, there is no evidence that what offerings he did cobble together were accepted by the Jerusalem Jewish Christians. Rather have I suggested in my commentary on Acts that they in fact played a large part in his arrest and imprisonment. So these prayers and desires were not in fact answered, or at least not as Paul hoped.</p><p>After all his spiritual diplomacy in raising the fund, he had to ask the Romans to pray with him that the Jerusalem ecclesia would accept it (<em><a href='B:520 15:31'>Rom 15:31</a></em>). Presumably they didn't want to accept help from Gentile converts whom they despised. And if they didn't accept it, then Paul would look as if he had got them to raise the money just to give to him. There must have been times when he thought of quitting the Christian community because of slander in the church. Paul was not a larger than life figure in the eyes of the early church. They didn't see him as we do. The harder he worked, the more he was slandered, and the more painfully.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:32'>Rom 15:32</a></em>&nbsp;<em>That I may come to you in joy through the</em>&nbsp;<em>will of God</em>- See on :30&nbsp;<em>Strive together</em>. Paul asked them to pray that he could come to Rome according to God's will; so he believed that the will of God was not the inflexible 'will' of a false god like Allah, but the willing of God- which is an emotion, a feeling, which is thereby open to change and influence.</p><p><em>And together with you find rest</em>- The fact nobody from the Roman church stood with Paul at his trial, and he had to ask Timothy to bring him a warm jacket and writing equipment, all rather indicates that his hope and prayer for this was not finally realized. I suggest he had an obsession with the situation at Rome, albeit mixed with good motivations about the work of the Spirit and Jew-Gentile unity.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 15:33'>Rom 15:33</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen</em>- "Peace" in Roman means peace with God through the Lord's work, and it is a fruit of the work of the Spirit which is given to all believers. "With you&nbsp;<em>all</em>" refers to the divide between weak and strong, Jew and Gentile within the church. He wished them each, regardless of their misunderstandings or misplaced dogmatism, to experience the peace of sin forgiven and the knowledge that our salvation is assured.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:1'>Rom 16:1</a></em> - see on :23.</p><p><em>I commend to you Phoebe-</em>&nbsp;Paul in 2 Corinthians seems to criticize the idea of letters of commendation and the practice of wanting to have some external commendation. He is not simply saying 'I converted you at Corinth, so you know me, and it is inappropriate for you to demand third party commendations of me'. He is saying that, but he says so because of his belief that it is only the Lord's commendation which means anything (<em><a href='B:540 10:18'>2Co 10:18</a></em>). And yet he goes along with this idea in the case of Phoebe, because he goes along with their weakness and culture on this point. And we can take that wider principle.</p><p><em>Our sister</em>- Paul argues to Philemon that if Philemon considers Paul a brother in fellowship, then he must also consider Onesimus such. Because Paul considers Onesimus a brother. And the same logic applies here; Phoebe was Paul's sister in Christ, and the Romans were to likewise accept her as a sister. It could be of course that she was his literal sister; for we know that his sister's son was supportive of Paul.</p><p><em>Who is a servant of the church</em>- She was indeed a 'deacon' but the word simply means a servant and it is impossible to argue whether this referred to an official church position or not. Paul has just described himself in chapter 15 as a minister to the Gentiles, and it would seem he is extending that idea to Phoebe. So he is asking the 'weak' who were tacitly against the work with the Gentiles to accept another who was working likewise for the Gentiles- for the church at Cenchreae were likely Gentiles.</p><p><em>That is at Cenchreae</em>- The port of Corinth, from where it seems Paul was writing.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:2'>Rom 16:2</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 11:7'>Luk 11:7</a></em>.</p><p><em>That you may welcome her in the Lord</em>- This is the same idea as the exhortation to 'receive' the 'weak' in fellowship (<em><a href='B:520 14:1'>Rom 14:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:7'>Rom 15:7</a></em>) exactly because they too were "in the Lord". We suspect there was some opposition to receiving her- hence Paul's raising of the matter. Perhaps because she was a woman, or perhaps because she too was engaged in the ministry to the Gentiles. For Paul has just written of both the Lord Jesus and himself as being ministers of the Gentiles; and now he states that Phoebe is also a minister. Active fellowship of the kind envisaged here is predicated upon being "in the Lord". It is therefore utterly wrong to accept on one hand that a person is "in the Lord", but to deny them fellowship for reasons of church politics.</p><p><em>In a way worthy of the saints</em>- "The saints" is a term used about the final acceptability of the believers in God's future Kingdom. Being 'worthy' or 'not worthy' is likewise the language of the last judgment (<em><a href='B:470 22:8'>Mat 22:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 13:46'>Act 13:46</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 1:32'>Rom 1:32</a></em> etc:). Accepting our fellow believers is the "way" to eternal life; this is a characteristic of those who will be 'worthy' or appropriate to be saints eternally. Likewise those who refuse to fellowship their brethren are behaving as the unworthy of being saints.</p><p><em>And I ask that you assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you-&nbsp;</em>"Assist" is a legal term, used of presenting witnesses in a court (see <em><a href='B:510 24:13'>Act 24:13</a></em>). Paul uses the word of how the Lord Jesus stood with him in his trial (<em><a href='B:620 4:17'>2Ti 4:17</a></em>).</p><p><em>For she herself also has been a helper of many, and of my own self</em>- Or, "succourer":&nbsp; According to Barnes: "The word used here means properly “a patron, a help,” and was applied by the Greeks to one who “presided” over an assembly; to one who became “a patron” of others; who aided or defended them in their cause; and especially to one who undertook to manage the cause of “strangers” and foreigners before the courts". The Cambridge commentary adds: "Lit. a champion; one who stands before another. The word conveys a graceful allusion to the request that they would “stand by” Phœbe: she had “stood before” many a needing and suffering Christian". The legal language used here leads me to think that she was in Rome on legal business on behalf of the Christian brotherhood. Perhaps she needed witnesses to testify, and Paul urges the Romans to participate. But we note from 2 Timothy 4 his lament that when he had to stand trial in Rome, none of them stood with him. Phoebe may simply have been noted as a patron or supporter of Paul and others; for clearly his work had to have been funded by someone. But it would seem there is more to it than that. A theme of chapter 16 is not only the mixture of Jewish and Gentile names, but also of slave and free, rich and poor. And further, the role of women is emphasized. It's as if Paul seeks to demonstrate that in the way the Spirit has worked with the Romans and those associated with his ministry, there was exhibited an amazing unity and breaking down of social barriers.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:3'>Rom 16:3</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus-&nbsp;</em>Priscilla is usually mentioned first in the records, perhaps because she played the leading role in the ministry. And as noted on :2, the collapse of barriers between male and female, as well as between Jew and Gentile, was a feature of the Spirit's movement in Paul's circle of ministry.</p><p><em><a href='B:510 18:2'>Act 18:2</a></em> explains that Aquila was a Jew, born in Pontus, who had resided at Rome, and who had left Rome, and come to Corinth, when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome; so there is an internal consistency when we read that they have returned to Rome, as the decree was rescinded.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:4'>Rom 16:4</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Who for my life laid down their own necks. To whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles-&nbsp;</em>This suggests they at some point (perhaps in Ephesus) had been willing to take Paul's death sentence. According to Deissmann, this Greek term refers to the possibility of being murdered in the place of someone condemned to death. But 1 Clement 55 speaks of Christians serving prison terms for each other: “We know many among ourselves who have given themselves up to bonds, in order that they might ransom others”. They did this, presumably, because they believed Paul's freedom would result in the Gospel spreading further than it would by their own continued freedom. Therefore Paul goes on to say that "the churches of the Gentiles" were grateful for this. The context in Romans 15 is of Paul's ministry to the Gentiles, and his desire that the Romans participate fully in it. So it would appropriate to mention the great example of Priscilla and Aquilla in this matter. We likewise may sacrifice money or even more to enable another to do work which we know we cannot do so well. If indeed they served a prison sentence on Paul's behalf, this might explain why they were back in Rome. Although :5 says that they had a house church.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:520 16:5'>Rom 16:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And greet the church that is in their house-&nbsp;</em>The first of several mentions in this chapter of house groups. There is no archaeological evidence of dedicated Christian meeting places in the first century; the believers met as house groups, occasionally coming together as larger groups. If all the Roman house groups are mentioned in this chapter, then the size of the church in Rome may not have been larger than 100 members at the most- probably far less.</h4><p><em>Greet Epaenetus my beloved, who is the firstfruits of Asia to Christ-&nbsp;</em>It depends how we define "Asia", because <em><a href='B:530 6:15'>1Co 6:15</a></em> says that “the household of Stephanas was the first-fruit of Achaia”. Perhaps Epaenetus was one of that extended family, perhaps a slave within it. The first convert in Asia, therefore, was an obscure slave. This is typical of how God works with the small things in human eyes.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:6'>Rom 16:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on you-&nbsp;</em>Some manuscripts have the Hebrew form, Mariam; in any case, this is a Hebrew name. So she was a Jewish Christian in Rome who had done much for Paul personally, although Paul had never visited Rome. It seems all those in Rome whom he greets were in fact known to him personally, and had for various reasons ended up in Rome:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:7'>Rom 16:7</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Andronicus and Junias-&nbsp;</em>Junia could be Joanna:&nbsp;</p><p><em>My kinsmen-&nbsp;</em>Their names are Greek and Latin (respectively) as was common for Jews living in the empire. But they were "kinsmen". Perhaps his relatives, maybe from the tribe of Benjamin, but the point was- they were Jews. And Paul has been writing earlier about how the Jewish element were "the weak", still tempted to rely on legal obedience for justification. And yet it now emerges that a number of the Jewish element were in fact well known to Paul and actually his friends. His position on them was therefore purely from principle, as his natural desire would have been to cut his friends some slack, understanding their culture and where they came from.</p><p><em>And my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me-&nbsp;</em>Paul mentions elsewhere that he had "often" been imprisoned. The Acts record is very abbreviated, and most of them we are unaware of. It could be that even at Corinth, from where Paul wrote Romans, he was in prison- and these who were in prison in Rome were his fellow prisoners. Or perhaps at some previous point they had been imprisoned along with him.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:8'>Rom 16:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Ampliatus my beloved in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>Tertius was a “scribe” (:22), which was a learned profession; Luke (:21)&nbsp;a doctor. Yet next to these brethren are listed the likes of Ampliatus, which was a common slave name. Romans 16 is an essay in the unity between rich and poor in the early ecclesia.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:9'>Rom 16:9</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Urbanus our fellow-worker in Christ-</em>&nbsp;“A common Roman slave name found among members of the household” (Sanday and Headlam).</p><p><em>And Stachys my beloved-&nbsp;</em>A rare Greek name, but recorded as being used among members of the imperial household. "My beloved" suggests that Paul knew this person from his previous missionary work- and now somehow this believer was in Rome and perhaps in Caesar's household. Paul's point is that the Gospel has united Jew and Gentile, and penetrated the most strongly Gentile places. And he asks the Roman church to participate in that mission which clearly was of the Lord through His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:10'>Rom 16:10</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Apelles the approved in Christ-&nbsp;</em>A name used among Jews and the name of a famous tragic actor. If this individual is referred to, then the point would be that his approbation was from Christ, and not because of his secular fame. And he is listed alongside petty slaves, at the other end of the social spectrum, but all together in Christ.</p><p><em>Greet them that are of the household of Aristobulus-&nbsp;</em>Paul writes to them as if there was one church in Rome, and yet he mentions the house groups of Aristobulus and Narcissus (<em><a href='B:520 16:10-11'>Rom 16:10-11</a></em>). Indeed, in <em><a href='B:520 16:14-15'>Rom 16:14-15</a></em> we have lists of names of brethren, and then the comment “and all the saints which are with them”. It could be that the long list of greetings to named individuals was more like a list of greetings to the various house churches which comprised the larger ‘ecclesia’ in Rome. Robert Banks observes: “Justin in his&nbsp;<em>First Apology</em>&nbsp;refers to several distinct house-based meetings in Rome as much as a century after the New Testament”.</p><p>Lightfoot suggests that this Aristobulus may have been the grandson of Herod the Great. But the reference to his "household" may not require that he himself was converted. For Paul doesn't greet him, but rather those of his household. So here we have a Roman of considerable distinction who had Christians among his servants or his slaves. He may have been dead, and the slaves continued to be known by their association with his extended family. Again we have the picture of slaves being a significant part of the Rome ecclesia. The metaphors in Romans related to slavery, and the message of radical freedom in Christ, would have been the more meaningful to them.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:11'>Rom 16:11</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Herodion my kinsman</em>- Probably one belonging to the Herod family, but a Jew like Paul. Again Paul is seeking to demonstrate the very wide range of the Spirit's work with Jew and Gentile alike.</p><p><em>Greet them of the household of Narcissus, that are in the Lord-</em>&nbsp;Not all the extended family had been converted. Suetonius and Tacitus both mention a notorious Narcissus, a freedman of Claudius, who became one of Nero’s bad favourites. But within the household slaves of that man, there were baptized Christians, who it seems had been known by Paul personally at some other place in the empire. Again, the scope, range and penetration of the Spirit's work amongst the Gentiles is being emphasized. For these Gentiles of the Gentiles are listed along with Paul's "kinsman" Herodion, a Jewish believer.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:12'>Rom 16:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Greet Persis the beloved, who laboured much in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>The two sisters were labourers in the Lord, but sister Persis is commended for labouring much. The aorist may refer to some special occasion in the past, some particular great work she had done. Or maybe she had lost her labouring zeal and therefore laboured no more, or was too infirm to do the kind of labour she had once done.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:13'>Rom 16:13</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:470 27:32'>Mat 27:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>.</p><p><em>Greet Rufus the chosen in the Lord</em>&nbsp;<em>; and his mother, who also was as a mother to me-&nbsp;</em>A very common slave name, perhaps the Rufus of <em><a href='B:480 15:21'>Mar 15:21</a></em>. Paul the Roman citizen considered a slave’s mother to be his mother, who presumably was dead or had rejected him. Again we see the closeness of the new relationships in Christ.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:14'>Rom 16:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the believers that are with them-&nbsp;</em>Asyncritus is a name on an inscription in Rome, referring to a freedman of Augustus. If it is the same person, then he is significantly listed next to Hermes, a very common slave name. Paul would be demonstrating the truth of <em><a href='B:550 3:27-29'>Gal 3:27-29</a></em> - slave and freedman were all together in Christ. Likewise there is an inscription in Rome mentioning&nbsp;<br/>Patrobas as a freedman of Nero. And this name is followed by Hermas, a common slave name. Slave and free are therefore being purposefully juxtaposed together. See on :23&nbsp;<em>Quartus</em>. "The believers that are with them" would suggest that there was a small house church associated with each of them. The slaves could feasibly run a house church comprised perhaps of other slaves and household members, right within the premises they lived and worked in:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:15'>Rom 16:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Greet Philologus-&nbsp;</em>Another common slave name.</p><p><em>And Julia</em>- The commonest name for female slaves in the imperial household because of Julius Caesar. Perhaps the wife of Philologus.</p><p><em>Nereus</em>&nbsp;<em>and his sister and Olympa</em>- This name is found in inscriptions from the imperial household. Along with Julia, there is reason to think that there was a house group of Christians right in Caesar's household, comprised of believers whom Paul had personally known or maybe converted in other parts of the empire. Remember he had never yet visited Rome. We marvel how many slaves Paul knew personally. He, the Jewish rabbi, the intellectual, the educated and literate- had mixed with and converted those at the very lowest level of the social ladder. Many slaves could not easily get away from their masters, and so we imagine Paul entering the wealthy homes where they worked and lived.</p><p><em>And all the saints that are with them-&nbsp;</em>As noted on :14, this would seem to refer to house churches connected with each name.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:16'>Rom 16:16</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:510 2:46'>Act 2:46</a></em>.</p><p><em>Greet one another with a holy kiss-&nbsp;</em>There is repetition of the command to&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;ecclesial members to greet&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the other members with a "holy kiss" (<em><a href='B:520 16:16'>Rom 16:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 16:20'>1Co 16:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:12'>2Co 13:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 5:14'>1Pe 5:14</a></em>). It's hard to translate into our terms the huge meaning of this in the first century world. It would've been unthinkable for a slave to take such initiative to kiss their master, or indeed any free person. This practice of all kissing everyone else in the congregation would've been arresting and startling. Sociologically, it stood no chance of ever being done. And yet these social and inter-personal miracles were what made Christianity stand out so noticeably- and in essence, our overcoming of social and inter-personal barriers ought to do the same for our community in the present world. But does it? Are we&nbsp;<em>so</em>&nbsp;markedly different from others::. ? Is our love and unity of such an evidently deep and different quality? The implication is that all these various slaves from different households did meet each other for fellowship. We can imagine the issues they faced with shifts, getting free time off, permission to leave the household etc. And the same effort is required by us to achieve face to face fellowship in Christ.</p><p><em>All the churches of Christ greet you</em>- Just as Rome was comprised of house churches who met together occasionally, so it seems the church at Corinth from where Paul was writing was likewise composed of a similar network. And Paul would have made the effort to tell all in Corinth that he was writing to Rome, and solicited the greetings from the various house groups where he was.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now I urge you brothers, mark those that are causing divisions-&nbsp;</em>The article with each noun points to some well-known division; and the teaching in chapters 14 and 15 has made clear that the division related to issues between Jew and Gentile, and whether the Jewish food laws should still be kept by the Gentiles. It is not judgmental to note that certain individuals are divisive. Christianity is no call to naivety. We are not to judge in the sense of condemning, but we are indeed asked to be wise:&nbsp;</p><p><em>And create obstacles&nbsp;contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught-&nbsp;</em>Those who cause divisions cause “occasions of stumbling” (RV) and should therefore be avoided- because, the implication is, division causes stumbling. A&nbsp;<em>skandalon&nbsp;</em>referred to the twig on a trap which causes it to open. Divisions within the church may be over trivial matter, as trivial as a twig. But they cause people to stumble from the path to the Kingdom. It’s as simple as that. People stumble, in Paul’s experience, because of divisive people within the ecclesias. To be disunited was contrary to the doctrine taught; the specific teaching in view may simply be the commands relating to unity.</p><p><em>Turn away from these-&nbsp;</em>And yet has not Paul been speaking about the all-important need for unity? There are different levels of being out of fellowship with other believers. Any analysis of the NT teaching about ecclesial discipline will make this clear. Some brethren should be simply&nbsp;<em>avoided</em>, kept away from, not&nbsp;<em>necessarily</em>because they themselves are teaching any false doctrine (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em> Gk:). More seriously, <em><a href='B:600 3:15'>2Th 3:15</a></em> speaks of some cases where we should not count a brother as an "enemy", 'an opposing one', but admonish him as a brother, while&nbsp;<em>separate</em>&nbsp;from him; whilst <em><a href='B:470 18:17'>Mat 18:17</a></em> describes other cases where the errant brother should be treated as we would a worldly Gentile (although note: “Let him be unto&nbsp;<em>thee</em>” singular; this is talking about personal decisions, not ecclesial withdrawal); and, going a stage further, <em><a href='B:530 5:11'>1Co 5:11</a></em> suggests we should not even keep social company with a brother who is involved in sexual perversion. These different levels of being 'out of fellowship' can be applied to the different level of separation there may be in practice between us and a false teacher, and those who perhaps in a misguided view of 'love' still tolerate him in fellowship. Even if we insist that <em><a href='B:470 18:7'>Mat 18:7</a></em> should be applied to someone, it must be noted that the Lord’s attitude to tax collectors and Gentiles was to mix with them, even share table fellowship with them, with a burning desire to win them for His cause (<em><a href='B:470 9:9'>Mat 9:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 10:3'>Mat 10:3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 11:19'>Mat 11:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). It is no accident that all these passages in Matthew have some reference to Matthew the tax collector being called and saved by the Lord. Matthew is effectively saying under inspiration that we should treat the person we decide to relate to as a tax collector and Gentile just as he had been treated by the Lord’s saving, calling grace.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:18'>Rom 16:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For they that are such serve not our Lord Christ-&nbsp;</em>Those who make divisions don't serve "our Lord Christ" (<em><a href='B:520 16:17-18'>Rom 16:17-18</a></em> RV); if they saw Christ's Lordship, they wouldn't be divisive, but be humbled into loving co-operation with His brethren. And yet those who make divisions in churches nearly all claim to be reluctantly doing so as part of their devotion to the Lord Christ. It was the same in the first century, and Paul clearly states that this is just so much flannel and excuse.</p><p><em>But their own belly-&nbsp;</em>It could be that there was some financial issue which further nuanced the question of obedience to the Law. Perhaps some were appealing to the Jewish law in order to demand tithes from other members.</p><p><em>And by their smooth and fair speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent</em>- The language of the serpent in Eden. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:19'>Rom 16:19</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For your obedience is known to all</em>- Obedience is a major theme in Romans; Paul liked to see the believers in Rome as a parade example of Gentile obedience to the Gospel (<em><a href='B:520 1:5'>Rom 1:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:16'>Rom 6:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 15:18'>Rom 15:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 16:26'>Rom 16:26</a></em>). He therefore feared that they would be led away by the Jewish false teachers, and this would negatively impact all those who had looked to them as an example of obedience. As noted in our study of Galatians, Titus and 1 Timothy, the legalism of Judaism was strangely attractive to the Gentile converts. To believe in salvation by pure grace is actually very demanding- for the wonder of it requires our all. The flesh finds it attractive to retain our acceptance that God and Jesus exist, but to slip back into a half-hearted attempt to keep a few laws in the hope that maybe we might be thereby accepted at the last day.</p><p><em>But I would have you to be wise regarding that which is good and simple concerning evil</em>- A reference to the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the need to not listen to the voice of the serpent. The true wisdom was in Christ, not in the serpent. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:20'>Rom 16:20</a></em>&nbsp;<em>And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you-&nbsp;</em>The ‘satan’ in view is I suggest the Jewish opposition, which was to be shortly destroyed in the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem elite in AD70. The Jewish system ceased to be a serious adversary or Satan to the Christians in the aftermath of its destruction in A:D. 70, as Paul prophesied here. A closer study of the context reveals more precisely the mentality of the Judaizer Satan. Satan being bruised underfoot alludes back to the seed of the serpent being bruised in <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em>. The Jews are therefore likened to the Satan-serpent in Genesis (as they are in <em><a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a></em>), in their causing “divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned” (<em><a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a></em>). Other details in Romans 16 now fall into the <em><a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a></em> context: “they that are such serve::. their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple” (:18). The fair speeches of the Judaizers were like those of the serpent. Instead of ‘Why not eat the fruit?’ it was ‘Why not keep the law?’. <em><a href='B:290 24:6'>Isa 24:6</a></em> had earlier made the point that because of the sin of the priesthood “therefore hath the curse devoured the earth / land”; “their poison is like the poison of a serpent” (<em><a href='B:230 59:4'>Psa 59:4</a></em>).</p><p>The tree of knowledge thus comes to represent the Law – because “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (<em><a href='B:520 3:20'>Rom 3:20</a></em>). The fig leaves which Adam and Eve covered themselves with also represented the Law, seeing they were replaced by the slain lamb. Their initially glossy appearance typifies well the apparent covering of sin by the Law, which faded in time. The fig tree is a symbol of Israel. It seems reasonable to speculate that having eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they made their aprons out of its leaves, thus making the tree of knowledge a fig tree. Both the tree and the leaves thus represent the Law and Jewish system; it is therefore fitting if the leaves were from the same tree. It is also noteworthy that when Christ described the Pharisees as appearing “beautiful” outwardly, he used a word which in the Septuagint was used concerning the tree of knowledge, as if they were somehow connected with it (<em><a href='B:470 23:27'>Mat 23:27</a></em>).</p><p>It was as if the Judaizers were saying: ‘Yea, hath God said you cannot keep the law? Why then has He put it there? It will do you good, it will give you greater spiritual knowledge’. <em><a href='B:580 2:3-4'>Col 2:3-4</a></em> shows this kind of reasoning was going on: “In (Christ) are hid&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words”. Here is another allusion to the serpent. Because all spiritual knowledge is in Christ, Paul says, don’t be beguiled by offers of deeper knowledge. Thus Adam and Eve’s relationship with God in Eden which the serpent envied and broke is parallel to us being “in Christ” with all the spiritual knowledge that is there. Hence Paul warned Corinth: “I fear, lest::. as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (<em><a href='B:540 11:3'>2Co 11:3</a></em>). The ‘simplicity in Christ’ was therefore the same as man’s relationship with God in Eden. So again we see the Judaist false teachers equated with the Satan-serpent of Genesis. <em><a href='B:630 1:10'>Tit 1:10</a></em> and <em><a href='B:680 2:1-3'>2Pe 2:1-3</a></em> specifically define these men who used an abundance of words and sophistry as “they of the circumcision”, i:e. Jewish false teachers. Those in 2 Peter 2 are described as speaking evil of Angels (:12 cp. <em><a href='B:720 1:8'>Jud 1:8</a></em>) – in the same way as the serpent spoke evil of the Angelic commands given in Eden. It’s been pointed out that there’s an Aramaic pun which connects the serpent&nbsp;<em>hewya</em>&nbsp;with the idea of instruction&nbsp;<em>hawa</em>&nbsp;and also Eve, the false teacher of Adam&nbsp;<em>Hawah</em>.</p><p>Back in Romans 16, the Judaizer Satans/ adversaries are spoken of as serving “their own belly” (:18) like the serpent did. Maybe the serpent liked the look of the fruit and wanted to justify his own eating of it; to do this he persuaded Eve to eat it. Because he served his belly, he had to crawl on it. Similarly the Judaizers wanted to be justified in their own keeping of the Law, and therefore persuaded Eve, the Christian bride of Christ (<em><a href='B:540 11:1-3'>2Co 11:1-3</a></em>), to do the same. “Yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple (AV mg. “harmless”) concerning evil” (<em><a href='B:520 16:19'>Rom 16:19</a></em>) – “be wise as serpents, (primarily referring to the Pharisees?) and harmless as doves”, Jesus had said (<em><a href='B:470 10:16'>Mat 10:16</a></em>).</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:21'>Rom 16:21</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Timothy my fellow-worker greets you, as do Lucius-&nbsp;</em>Luke the writer of the Gospel, who was often together with Paul and Timothy.</p><p><em>Jason-&nbsp;</em>The Jason of <em><a href='B:510 17:5'>Act 17:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:510 17:7'>Act 17:7</a></em>.</p><h4><em>And Sosipater, my kinsmen-&nbsp;</em>&nbsp;Perhaps the Sopater of <em><a href='B:510 20:4'>Act 20:4</a></em>, from where we learn he was Jewish. if these indications are correct, then Paul chosen to send greetings from Jewish brethren; having spoken of the Jewish element in Rome as "the weak":&nbsp;“Kinsmen” could mean they were Paul’s relatives, or that they were also Jews, perhaps also from Tarsus.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I Tertius, who write this epistle, greet you in the Lord-&nbsp;</em>See on :8.</p><p><em>"</em>Note Paul's exquisite courtesy in leaving Tertius to salute in his own name. To dictate to him his own salutation would be to treat him as a machine".</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:490 8:3'>Luk 8:3</a></em>.</p><p><em>Gaius my host (and of the whole church) greets you-&nbsp;</em>Gaius had a home big enough for the Corinth ecclesia to meet in (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>). The social mix amongst believers must have been startling. Excavations at Ostia near Rome have revealed how the spacious homes of the wealthy stood right next to the&nbsp;<em>insulae</em>, the blocks of squalid flats in which the poor lived. There was little differentiation of rich and poor according to which neighbourhoods they lived in. So when we read that the wealthy believer Gaius was ‘host of the whole church’ (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>), we are to imagine this wealthy man opening his spacious home to the urchins who lived in the neighbouring blocks who had come to Christ. This must have been startling for the surrounding populace. Such was the witness of true Christian unity.</p><p><em>Erastus the treasurer of the city greets you; and Quartus the brother</em>- The list of believers’ names in Romans 16 is there for a purpose: to show how all types had come together in the Rome ecclesia. Women are named and greeted uncommon in contemporary Jewish letters of the time; some names are common slave names: Phlegon, Hermes, Philologus; whereas tradition has it that the&nbsp;Narcissus mentioned was a famous and wealthy member of the court of Claudius. Greetings are given from two members at Corinth: “Erastus the treasurer of the city of Corinth salutes you, and Quartus, a brother” (<em><a href='B:520 16:23'>Rom 16:23</a></em>). There is an intended juxtaposition here: of the wealthy and powerful brother Erastus, and the unknown slave? Quartus, who all the same was “a brother”, on the same spiritual standing. Phoebe is described as the&nbsp;<em>prostates</em>&nbsp;of the Cenchreae ecclesia and Paul himself- a word translatable as “patroness” (<em><a href='B:520 16:1-2'>Rom 16:1-2</a></em>). It could be that she funded Paul’s activities at least in part. The same implication may be behind Paul’s description of the mother of Rufus as being his “mother” (<em><a href='B:520 16:13'>Rom 16:13</a></em>). This would have continued the example of wealthy women like Joanna supporting the ministry of Jesus (<em><a href='B:490 8:2'>Luk 8:2</a></em>). &nbsp;If one goes through the Acts and the New Testament letters and makes a list of all the individuals who are named, we have a list of about 78 people. About 30 of these people have some indication in the narrative as to their social status; and the majority of these are from above average social stations. For example, the way Achaicus, Fortunatus, Tertius and Lucius in Corinth and Clement in Philippi all have Latin names in Roman colonies could well indicate that they were from the original stock of colonists, who tended to be well ahead of the local population.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:24'>Rom 16:24</a></em>&nbsp;<em>The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all-&nbsp;</em>The stress is upon "all". Both weak and strong, Jew and Gentile, those who correctly understood and those who didn't or wouldn't, are all covered in the Lord's grace. Yet&nbsp;<em>charis</em>&nbsp;is used also of the gift- of the Spirit. Paul has argued that the experience of the Spirit's work is what binds believers together, and he wishes this to be with them all.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:25'>Rom 16:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now to him that is able to establish you-&nbsp;</em>Stability of faith involves the direct operation of God in the human mind; he writes in <em><a href='B:590 3:13'>1Th 3:13</a></em> of how the Lord can establish hearts. And this is exactly the work of the Spirit about which this epistle has had so much to say. "Is able" uses the word Paul has earlier employed to explain how the unassisted sinner is&nbsp;<em>not&nbsp;</em>able to please God or obey his law (<em><a href='B:520 8:7-8'>Rom 8:7-8</a></em>). But God is able through the Spirit to transform us towards salvation- if we are willing and believing. The word "establish" is exactly how Paul began the letter, wanting to give them "Some gift of the Spirit, to the end you may be established" (<em><a href='B:520 1:11'>Rom 1:11</a></em>). He clearly did not have in view the word of the Gospel, for they already knew that. There was a Spirit gift which God was willing to give them which would stabilize them in faith so that they didn't believe the false teachers. But surely Paul had somewhat justified his trip to Roman by saying that he wanted to come to them in order to impart that gift to them. God was willing to give that gift in any case and by any means. And he wishes that in whatever way, they may receive it.</p><p><em>According to the gospel I preach, which is the preaching of Jesus Christ-&nbsp;</em>As the Lord is the light of the world, so are we. We are Him to this world insofar as we preach Him. The message of salvation by faith alone and Holy Spirit strengthening was central to the good news Paul preached. But again the point is made to the Jews that Paul is not merely sharing his personal opinions about the law and salvation by faith- the Lord is preaching to them through his very words.</p><p><em>According to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept in silence through times eternal-&nbsp;</em>The mystery was of salvation by faith alone and not obedience to law, and of internal strengthening by the Spirit. Paul felt these things were indeed found in "the scriptures of the prophets" (:26)- once you start searching for them, looking back from a Christian perspective. But until the time of Christ, this great mystery was as it were kept secret.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:26'>Rom 16:26</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But now is manifested, and in accordance with the scriptures of the prophets,</em>&nbsp;<em>according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known to all the nations to obedience of faith-&nbsp;</em>This is surely an allusion to the great commission- a command to take the good news to all the nations, so that they might believe and be baptized. The act of baptism is therefore hinted at in the phrase "the obedience of faith". Paul has used the same word about how God has made known the riches of His grace to us (<em><a href='B:520 9:23'>Rom 9:23</a></em>); our response is to make it known to others. Preaching is therefore a response to His grace and initiative towards us.</p>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:520 16:27'>Rom 16:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever-&nbsp;</em>That God alone is wise may be a final parry against the way the false teachers claimed to be offering new wisdom unknown to others. But clearly Paul also is simply commenting upon the wisdom of God in doing things the way He has.</p>


text:
<p>Paul and Corinth</p><p>In the letters to Corinth we really come to learn something of the mind of Paul; and he asked us to follow him, so that we might follow our Lord the more closely. So we want to analyse the relationship between Paul and Corinth in some detail; for we are all in desperate need of learning how to relate to each other better. &nbsp;</p><p>Firstly, let's firmly place in our minds the supreme spirituality of Paul. He saw visions which were unlawful to be uttered, he could look back on a string of ecclesias worldwide which were a result of his work, his writings show that he reached higher into the mysteries of God than most other man have ever gone. Naturally speaking, it must have been so difficult for him to relate to immature or unspiritual brethren and sisters! And yet his sense of identity with his spiritual children comes through all the time. Note&nbsp;how he purposefully mixes his pronouns: “<em>We&nbsp;</em>know in part…&nbsp;<em>I&nbsp;</em>know in part…&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>see in a mirror…&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;spoke as a child” (1 Corinthians 13):&nbsp;</p><p>Now consider Corinth. Getting drunk at the breaking of bread, some members openly committing incest and other sexual perversions; and being justified by much of the ecclesia. Some had not the knowledge of God (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>). The basic truth of Christ's resurrection and the second coming were denied, and Paul was slandered unbelievably. There is fair emphasis on Corinth's willing belief of the vicious denigration of Paul's character, made by some of their elders (<em><a href='B:530 2:16'>1Co 2:16</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:10'>1Co 3:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:11-14'>1Co 4:11-14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:20-27'>1Co 9:20-27</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:18'>1Co 14:18</a></em>). The depths to which that ecclesia sunk are hard to plumb. And yet Paul believed that they abounded in love for him; he asks them to abound in their generosity to others as they abounded in their love for him (<em><a href='B:540 12:7'>2Co 12:7</a></em>). Truly Paul reflected his own experience of having righteousness imputed to him:&nbsp;</p><p>So the relationship between Paul and Corinth is fascinating, but above all it's instructive of not only how we should relate to each other, but how Christ relates to us. There is a strange paradox throughout the letters to Corinth. Paul uses the most exalted and positive language about them, enthusing about the certainty of their salvation, and yet he also accuses them of the most incredible spiritual weaknesses. There's a clear example in the chapter we've just&nbsp;read. In <em><a href='B:530 1:8-9'>1Co 1:8-9</a></em>, we read of Paul enthusiastically saying that God would "confirm&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;(note that) unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus". But then in v:12 he accuses every one of them of being guilty of factionism and division: "<em>Every one of you&nbsp;</em>(the same 'you' of v:8,9) says, I am of Paul::.(etc:)". Paul really believed what he says in v:4: " I thank my God always on your behalf (implying: 'You ought to be thanking Him, but I'm doing it for you'?), for the grace of God which is given you::.". This was the secret of how Paul managed to relate to them so positively; He deeply believed that they were in receipt of God's grace on account of their being in Christ. &nbsp;</p><p>The Love Of Paul</p><p>So let's just review the positive way in which Paul felt towards his Corinthian brethren. His love for them was "in (his) heart, known and read of all men" (<em><a href='B:540 3:2'>2Co 3:2</a></em>). He boasted to others of their "zeal" to give money to the poor, even though it seems they had just made empty promises (<em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). And in <em><a href='B:540 9:13'>2Co 9:13</a></em> he goes even further; he speaks as if they had already distributed money to other churches. He saw them as righteous, even though they hadn't performed the acts they vaguely spoke of. Paul was surely reflecting the spirit of the Father and Son here. It may even be that Paul mentioned his devotion to Corinth in his 'front-line' presentation of the Gospel to others: "We preach::. Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (<em><a href='B:540 4:5'>2Co 4:5</a></em>). His great wish was their "perfection" (<em><a href='B:540 13:9'>2Co 13:9</a></em>). Paul's deep-seated love for Corinth was absolutely evident to all who knew them; it was not an act of the will, which occurred just within Paul's mind. So often our 'love' for difficult members of the ecclesia is no more than a grimly made act of the will. Even in the midst of rebuking them, Paul uses the language of real endearment: "Wherefore,&nbsp;<em>my dearly beloved,</em>&nbsp;flee from idolatry" (<em><a href='B:530 10:14'>1Co 10:14</a></em>). The word "brethren" occurs as a refrain throughout the letters; it appears 19 times in the first letter alone, compared with 9 times in the letter to the Romans (a longer epistle). This is similar to the way in which Jeremiah repeatedly describes the Israel who rejected and betrayed him as “my people” (e:g. <em><a href='B:300 8:11'>Jer 8:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:19'>Jer 8:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:300 8:21-22'>Jer 8:21-22</a></em>). Despite all the cruel allegations made by them against Paul, he did not deal with them in the cagey, 'political' manner so common in our circles: "<em>O ye Corinthians,</em>&nbsp;our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged" (<em><a href='B:540 6:11'>2Co 6:11</a></em>). It is noteworthy that Paul is here alluding to <em><a href='B:230 119:32'>Psa 119:32</a></em>, which speaks of God's word enlarging a man's heart. It was through his application to the word that Paul came to this large-hearted attitude. A smaller man than Paul would have trod mighty carefully with Corinth, making no more than succinct, measured statements. But his deep love for them led Paul to be as open-hearted as can be. Indeed, his pouring forth of his innermost soul to them in the autobiographical sections of 2Cor. is evidence of how his heart and mouth were truly opened and enlarged unto them. There was no shrugging if the shoulders within Paul at the spiritual plight of Corinth: "Ye are in our hearts, to die and live with you" (<em><a href='B:540 7:3'>2Co 7:3</a></em>). And it was this basic love which was in Paul’s heart which led him to a wonderful spirit of hopefulness; so that even towards the end of his second letter he can speak of his “hope, that as your faith grows, we shall be magnified in you” (<em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em> RV). &nbsp;</p><p>Corinth's Response</p><p>This love of Paul found at least some response from Corinth. Titus told Paul of their feelings for him: "He told us your earnest desire (for Paul), your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more" (<em><a href='B:540 7:7'>2Co 7:7</a></em>). Here they were, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and Gentiles of the Gentiles; in a state of spiritual love with each other. The strange paradox of Paul's great love for them, yet also his repugnance at their evil ways, is perhaps explicable in terms of their spiritual 'in-loveness'. As a spiritual sister (cp. Abigail?) can marry an alcoholic (Nabal?) because she sees the good side in him, whilst not turning a blind eye to his drinking; as a father ever loves wayward children; so Paul felt towards his beloved sons, his attractive young bride (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>) of Corinth. That there was at least some love for Paul by Corinth is made tragically evident from <em><a href='B:540 12:15'>2Co 12:15</a></em>: "The more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved". This is surely the language of falling out of love. And Paul was the aggrieved party. As with so many a father and young husband, Paul had to go through the pain of sensing that the object of his love was keeping him at arm's length, was being partial in their response to the great love he was showing: "You have acknowledged us (our love)&nbsp;<em>in part</em>, that we are your rejoicing" (<em><a href='B:540 1:14'>2Co 1:14</a></em>). Yet Paul took great comfort from their albeit partial response: "Now I&nbsp;<em>praise you</em>&nbsp; brethren, that ye remember me in all things" (<em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em>); whilst struggling on to make them realize the intensity of his feelings towards them: "Out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears (picture the old boy sobbing as he moved his quill):::&nbsp;<em>that ye might know the love</em>&nbsp; which I have&nbsp;<em>more abundantly</em>&nbsp; unto you" (<em><a href='B:540 2:4'>2Co 2:4</a></em>). Despite the spiteful way in which they demanded Paul bring letters of recommendation with him (<em><a href='B:540 3:1'>2Co 3:1</a></em>), Paul jumped at their even partial spiritual response: "Great is my glorying of you! I am filled with comfort, I am exceedingly joyful in all our tribulation" because of their positive spiritual reaction to the visit of Titus (<em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>):&nbsp;</p><p>Hard Discipline</p><p>It is often implied that Paul was perfectly happy to put up with the mess at Corinth, and that therefore we should not be unduly concerned at the state of our latter day ecclesias. This could just not be further from the truth. Perhaps the greatest indication of Paul's love for Corinth is seen in his apparent severity towards them, his desire that they really should abide in Christ. Thus in <em><a href='B:530 4:21'>1Co 4:21</a></em> Paul parallels coming to them in love with coming "with a rod". The sarcasm of <em><a href='B:530 4:8-14'>1Co 4:8-14</a></em> (and many other places), his hard words of <em><a href='B:530 3:1-3'>1Co 3:1-3</a></em>, all indicate that he saw Corinth for the apostates which they were; and responded to this. "If I come again, I will not spare::. know you not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except you be reprobates?" (<em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:5'>2Co 13:5</a></em>). This was more than the externally strict schoolteacher with a soft heart, more than dad just laying the law down one evening. What Paul was threatening was radical; it may be that he would have used the power of the Holy Spirit to smite them with literal death. <em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em> would imply that either Paul or another apostle had done this to them on a previous visit. "I am jealous over you with Godly jealousy" (<em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em>) is one of a series of allusions in that chapter to the events of Numbers 25, where Phinehas was moved with jealousy to slay those who were "unequally yoked" with the things of Belial (cp. <em><a href='B:540 6:14'>2Co 6:14</a></em>). Paul had accused his Corinthians of just that; and he was quite willing to play the role of Phinehas. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>"I will bewail many that have sinned::. if I come again, I will not spare" (<em><a href='B:540 12:21'>2Co 12:21</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>) is actually an allusion to <em><a href='B:330 8:18'>Eze 8:18</a></em>: "Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here (in the natural and spiritual temple of Yahweh, cp. <em><a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a></em>)?::. therefore will I also deal in fury: my eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in my ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them". God's anger with Israel as expressed at the Babylonian invasion was going to be reflected in Paul's 'coming' to spiritual Israel in Corinth. Yet for all his high powered allusions, Paul mixed them with the most incredible expressions of true love and sympathy for Corinth. In this we see the giant spiritual stature of that man Paul:&nbsp;</p><p>No Blind Eye</p><p>Paul evidently did not turn a blind eye to his brethren's failures. He spoke of them in one breath as being spiritually complete, whilst in the next he showed that he was truly aware of their failures. There's a glaring example of this in <em><a href='B:530 5:6-7'>1Co 5:6-7</a></em>: "A little leaven (which they had in their bad attitude, and also in the presence of the incestuous brother) leavens the whole lump. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that you may be a new lump,&nbsp;<em>as you are unleavened</em>". They had leaven; otherwise Paul would not have told them to purge it out. But then he tells them that they are "unleavened". In other words, he saw them&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they were unleavened, but he recognized that they had the bad leaven among and within them. There's another blatant example of this in <em><a href='B:530 8:1'>1Co 8:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:4'>1Co 8:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>: "As touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge::. (v:4) we know that an idol is nothing in the world::. (v:7) howbeit there is not in every man (in the ecclesia) that knowledge". So Paul starts off by saying that they all knew about the correct attitude to meat offered to idols. But then he recognizes that in reality, not all of them did know, or at best, they did not appreciate what they knew. <em><a href='B:530 11:2'>1Co 11:2</a></em> has more of the same: "I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you"; but then Paul goes on to show how they had blatantly disobeyed the ordinance he delivered them concerning the breaking of bread. Again, Paul sees the Corinthians&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;they were perfect, but then goes on to point out their failures. This is surely a reflection of how the Lord Jesus sees each of us His people. <em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 3:18'>1Co 3:18</a></em> shows how the Corinthians thought they were wise, when actually Paul could only address them as carnal babes in Christ; they were not "wise". Yet in <em><a href='B:530 10:15'>1Co 10:15</a></em> Paul concludes a section with the words: "I speak&nbsp;<em>as</em>&nbsp;to wise men::.". He treated them&nbsp;<em>as if&nbsp;they</em>&nbsp;were wise, when he knew that they weren't in reality. He begins by rejoicing that “in every thing you are enriched by him…in all knowledge” (<em><a href='B:530 1:5'>1Co 1:5</a></em>), even though this was only potentially true- they had been given the knowledge, but had failed to turn it into true wisdom. Likewise Paul spells it out to them that their behaviour was likely to exclude them from the Kingdom; but in the same context he speaks as if it is taken as red that they will be in the Kingdom: "<em>The saints</em>&nbsp;shall judge the world. And if the world shall be judged by&nbsp;<em>you</em>:::&nbsp;<em>we</em>&nbsp;shall judge Angels" (<em><a href='B:530 6:2-3'>1Co 6:2-3</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 6:9'>1Co 6:9</a></em>). &nbsp;</p><p>It is so significant that Paul did not turn a blind eye to his brethren's faults. In seeking to be positive, we so often do this. But we are asked to relate to each other, as Christ does to us. And he certainly doesn't turn a blind eye to our failures. Yet our problem is that if we don't turn a blind eye, we find it so hard to relate to our brethren. So what is the secret of being able to look at both the good and bad sides of our brethren? I suggest the answer is something along these lines:&nbsp;</p><h4>At baptism, a new man was born inside us, personified in the New Testament&nbsp;as "the man Christ Jesus”, "the Spirit", etc. Yet there is still the devil within us, a personification of our sinfulness. We identify our&nbsp;<em>real</em>&nbsp;selves as our spiritual man (note how Paul refers to that side of him as "I myself" in <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>). God looks upon us&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;we are Christ Jesus, He sees us as justified in Him, He sees us as if we are as perfect as Christ; not that we are in ourselves, of course. This is how He wants us to view our brethren; if we see them as God sees us, we will see them as the spiritual man which they have within them. Yet like God, we will not turn a blind eye to their weaknesses. Paul looked ahead to the day when God would have confirmed Corinth "unto the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus" (<em><a href='B:530 1:8'>1Co 1:8</a></em>). We too need to try to live the Kingdom life now; we must live&nbsp;<em>as if</em>&nbsp;we are in the day of Christ's Kingdom (<em><a href='B:520 13:12-13'>Rom 13:12-13</a></em>). So in some ways we must see our brethren as they will be in the Kingdom. Thus in <em><a href='B:540 10:6'>2Co 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em> Paul speaks about the day when Corinth's "obedience is fulfilled:::&nbsp;<em>when</em>&nbsp;your faith is increased::. we shall be enlarged by you::. abundantly". "We are your rejoicing, even as you also are ours,&nbsp;<em>in the day of the Lord Jesus.</em>&nbsp;And in&nbsp;<em>this confidence</em>&nbsp;I was minded to come unto you::." (<em><a href='B:540 1:14'>2Co 1:14</a></em>). Paul's confidence in them was on account of the rejoicing he looked forward to having concerning them at the day of judgment. Some of his final words to them totally summarize his attitude: "This also we wish, even your perfection" (<em><a href='B:540 13:9'>2Co 13:9</a></em>). He looked earnestly towards the day when they would be spiritually matured. We too must recognize that we are all only children. We must look to what both we and our brethren&nbsp;<em>will be</em>&nbsp;one day, in spiritual terms. This certainly takes some spiritual vision. Yet Paul had just this: “:::having hope,&nbsp;<em>when&nbsp;</em>[not ‘if’] your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you” (<em><a href='B:540 10:15'>2Co 10:15</a></em>). He here recognizes that their faith is now weak, and must increase; but he also had written that they were to remain standing in the faith (<em><a href='B:530 16:13'>1Co 16:13</a></em>). They were weak in faith; this he recognized. But he recognized their&nbsp;<em>status</em>&nbsp;as being ‘in the faith’. So concerned was he with them that he says that if they were obedient to what he had asked them, then he would be ready to “revenge&nbsp;<em>all</em>&nbsp;disobedience” (<em><a href='B:540 10:6'>2Co 10:6</a></em>). It’s as if he was taking them one step at a time in bringing them to realize their errors; like the Lord, he spoke the word to men as&nbsp;<em>they</em>&nbsp;were able to hear it, not as&nbsp;<em>he was able</em>&nbsp;to expound it or expose their failures. We are seeking the salvation and betterment of our brethren, not simply to air our perceptions of their inadequacies:&nbsp;</h4><p>Corinth: Washed And Sanctified</p><p>He saw Corinth as truly saved in prospect, by reason of their being in Christ. He quotes the words of <em><a href='B:30 26:13'>Lev 26:13</a></em> “I will dwell in them and walk in them::. and they shall be my God” about Corinth (<em><a href='B:540 6:16'>2Co 6:16</a></em>)- even though those words were said to be describing a status conditional upon Israel’s obedience:&nbsp; "He which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and&nbsp;<em>shall</em>&nbsp;present us (not 'hopefully, if you get your act together!') with you" (<em><a href='B:540 4:14'>2Co 4:14</a></em>) sounds as if Paul fully expected the Corinthians to be there, and to be joined at the right hand side of the judgment seat by himself and Titus. <em><a href='B:530 15:51'>1Co 15:51</a></em> has the same certainty of their acceptance: "<em>We</em>&nbsp;shall be changed". "<em>We</em>&nbsp;(Paul and Corinth) know::. we have a building of God::. eternal in the heavens" (<em><a href='B:540 5:1'>2Co 5:1</a></em>), i:e. the spiritual man Christ Jesus within each man who is in Christ. Truly could Paul write: "Our&nbsp;<em>hope</em>&nbsp;of you is steadfast, knowing that, as you are partakers of the sufferings, so should you be also of the consolation" (<em><a href='B:540 1:7'>2Co 1:7</a></em>):&nbsp;<em>They</em>, woolly Corinth, would judge the world in the Kingdom age (<em><a href='B:530 6:2'>1Co 6:2</a></em>). "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit,&nbsp;<em>be with you all "</em>&nbsp;(<em><a href='B:540 13:14'>2Co 13:14</a></em>) must have taken some writing, even under inspiration. "Be with&nbsp;<em>you all</em>&nbsp;"would have included those Judaist-influenced brethren hell-bent on destroying Paul's work and image, those who had sinned grievously, and those whose doctrinal appreciation was starting to slip. Yet this was how Paul saw them; as being in Christ, and abiding in the love of God and fellowship of the Holy Spirit; thanks to their baptism into Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and abiding (at least for that present time) in that blessed relationship. <em><a href='B:540 11:2'>2Co 11:2</a></em> even shows Paul likening Corinth ecclesia to the guileless Eve in Eden, not yet having sinned, all innocence and uncorrupted beauty. And yet he saw himself as the Eve who had been deceived and punished by death (<em><a href='B:520 7:11'>Rom 7:11</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 7:13'>Rom 7:13</a></em> = <em><a href='B:10 2:17'>Gen 2:17</a></em>; <em><a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a></em>); but he saw them as the Even who had not yet sinned. This was no literary trick of the tail; he genuinely felt and saw them as better than himself to be- such was the depth of his appreciation of his own failures. Paul saw Corinth as abounding in knowledge and love (<em><a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a></em>), even though they had some who lacked the basic knowledge of God (<em><a href='B:530 15:34'>1Co 15:34</a></em>), and they needed exhortation to confirm their love to the disfellowshipped brother (<em><a href='B:540 2:6-8'>2Co 2:6-8</a></em>). Likewise, unfaithful Israel is still addressed as "the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing" (<em><a href='B:300 18:13'>Jer 18:13</a></em>); she was seen as a virgin right up until the Babylonian invasion, where she was as it were ‘raped’ (<em><a href='B:300 14:17'>Jer 14:17</a></em> Heb:). We reflect the same paradox in our efforts to see evidently weak brethren as still sanctified in Christ. &nbsp;</p><p>Having spoken of fornicators, idolaters, thieves etc:, all of whom were found within the Corinth ecclesia, Paul says: "But such&nbsp;<em>were</em>&nbsp;some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified 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>). The reference to washing, and the Father, Son and Spirit all points back to baptism for the remission of sins (<em><a href='B:470 28:19'>Mat 28:19</a></em>). The fact those people had been baptized meant so much to Paul. The significance of our brethren's baptisms should also make a deep impact on ourselves. By this act they became "in Christ". The Corinthians were committing idolatry, fornication etc. Paul was aware of that. But he was prepared to see them as being sanctified in Christ; he counted them as if this was not happening:&nbsp;<em>for the time being</em>. There was coming a time when he would no longer accept that they were in Christ, and when he would not spare them in any way (<em><a href='B:540 13:2'>2Co 13:2</a></em>). The repented of failures of our brethren, however severe they may seem to us, must be overlooked if there is real evidence that they are making effort to abide in Christ. Unrepentant fornication or idolatry is hardly proof of this. "We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (<em><a href='B:540 5:20'>2Co 5:20</a></em>) indicates that Paul did not see them as reconciled to God; yet he looked at the man Christ Jesus within them in order to be able to have all the positive feelings towards them which he did. So clear was Paul's vision of their spiritual man that he could actually boast about their 'good side' to other ecclesias (<em><a href='B:540 7:4'>2Co 7:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 7:14'>2Co 7:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 9:2'>2Co 9:2</a></em>). So enthusiastic was Paul about the great grace of God which Corinth basked in, that he actually made other ecclesias truly affectionate of Corinth: "which long after you for the exceeding grace (Paul knew just how exceeding it was to Corinth!) in you" (<em><a href='B:540 9:14'>2Co 9:14</a></em>):&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>And Paul showed this same spirit in all his dealings with his brethren. He could say in all honesty that “I am convinced, my brothers, that you are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another” (<em><a href='B:520 15:14'>Rom 15:14</a></em> NIV)- even though there must have been major problems in Rome, not least the Jew: Gentile division. He was so positive about them that he could write that he was sure that Corinth’s labour was “not in vain” (<em><a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a></em>)- and yet he knew that labour was in vain if converts fell away (<em><a href='B:590 3:5'>1Th 3:5</a></em>). Yet he acted towards them, and genuinely felt as if, they would not and had not fallen away. This was quite some psychological and spiritual achievement, given the depths of their apostasy. Corinth hated Paul, slandered him, despised him. And yet he can write that their love for him "abounded" (<em><a href='B:540 8:7'>2Co 8:7</a></em>). I take this not as sarcasm, but as a deep attempt by him to view them positively. We are challenged by Paul’s example to look at our brethren the same way. &nbsp;</p><p>"As God::. has forgiven"</p><p>We are told to forgive one another, "<em>as</em>&nbsp;God for Christ's sake&nbsp;<em>has forgiven</em>&nbsp; you" (<em><a href='B:560 4:32'>Eph 4:32</a></em>). All our sins were forgiven, in prospect, at baptism. All our irritating habits and attitudes, our secret sins, all these were forgiven then. And we must respond to this by counting our brethren to have received the same grace. Seeing we have received this grace, why do we find it so hard to see our brethren like this? Surely the answer rests in the fact that we don't fully believe or appreciate the degree to which God really does see us personally as being perfect in Christ. Paul was so super-assured of his own salvation, of the fact that God really did see him as a man in Christ, and therefore he found it easier to see his brethren in such a positive way. He was so conscious of how his many sins were just not counted against him. He knew that he was "chief of sinners", he didn't turn a blind eye to himself; because he could realistically face up to his own position before God, he found it easier to do the same for his weak brethren:&nbsp;</p><p>The fact that Paul saw the spiritual man in all his brethren means that to some degree he saw them all as equal. He seems to bring this point out in <em><a href='B:530 4:14'>1Co 4:14</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 4:17'>1Co 4:17</a></em>: "As my beloved sons I warn you (Corinth ecclesia)::. for this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son::.". Paul calls both Corinth and Timothy his beloved sons. The implication is that to some degree, he felt the same towards dodgy Corinth as he did towards the spiritually strong Timothy. Likewise Christ showed his love for the whole church when he died on the cross. This does not mean, of course, that Paul did not have deeper bonds with some than with others. But the fact is that in spiritual terms, he saw all his brethren as equal, in that they shared the same status of being justified in Christ. Whether one had 2% righteousness and another 5% was irrelevant; they both needed the massive imputation of God's righteousness through Christ. As Paul could call both Timothy and Corinth his "beloved sons", so God calls both Christ and ourselves by the same title (<em><a href='B:470 3:17'>Mat 3:17</a></em> cp. <em><a href='B:580 3:12'>Col 3:12</a></em>; <em><a href='B:690 3:2'>1Jn 3:2</a></em>; <em><a href='B:600 2:13'>2Th 2:13</a></em>) . The reason? Because "he has made us accepted (by being) in the beloved (son)" (<em><a href='B:560 1:6'>Eph 1:6</a></em>). &nbsp;&nbsp; <em><a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a></em></p><p><em><a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother</em>- Paul often begins his letters by saying this. But "the will of God" should not be understood by us as it is by Islam, where the will of God is understood as fulfilling anyway in a deterministic sense. The word carries the idea of the intention, the wish or pleasure of God. Paul could have turned down the call to be an apostle. He was not forced into obedience by an omnipotent Divine manipulator. All things were created for God's "pleasure" or will s:w. <em><a href='B:730 4:11'>Rev 4:11</a></em>, but clearly enough "all things" do not all perform God's wish. We pray for the Kingdom age when God's will shall be done on earth- for it is now generally not done. We are best therefore to understood the idea of God's wish, His desire, which of course He labours to see fulfilled. But He does not force or impose; He too deeply respects the freewill of His creatures. The art of Christian life is to willingly align ourselves with His will.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:8'>1Co 1:8</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em>.</p><h4><em>Who shall also confirm you to the end, unreproveable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ-&nbsp;</em>The gift of the Spirit given as a confirmation at baptism (see on :6) would continue to work with them, if they allowed it, to present them acceptable at the day of final judgment. We can only be without accusation (Gk:) before the day of judgment by having righteousness imputed to us; this is the great theme of Romans. This is made possible by our part in the Lord's representative death for us (s:w. <em><a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a></em>). But as Romans 8 explains, this is made true for us in practice by the Spirit working within us to lead us to that end in practice, and seeking to make us in reality what we are counted as by status.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:220 5:12-13'>Job 5:12-13</a></em>.</p><p><em>For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise-&nbsp;</em>The quotation from <em><a href='B:290 29:14'>Isa 29:14</a></em> refers to the false 'wisdom' of the unfaithful Jews in Jerusalem at Hezekiah's time. It was perhaps the attraction of the Jewish false teachers which Paul is alluding to. Judaism had a strange attraction for even hedonistic Gentiles; as pointed out throughout our commentary on Titus. See on :20.</p><h4><em>And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nothing-&nbsp;</em>There is an allusion here to the Lord's words: "You did hide these things from the wise and prudent, and did reveal them to babes" (<em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em>). Paul alludes to some parts of the Gospels more than to others. The record of John the Baptist, the sermon on the mount, the parables and the record of Christ in Gethsemane are all referred to far more than average. This surely would not be the case if&nbsp;the connections between Paul's writings and the Gospels were&nbsp;<em>only</em>&nbsp;the result of the Spirit irresistibly carrying Paul along. We have suggested that Paul's enthusiasm for the record of John the Baptist was because he had probably first heard the Gospel from John; i:e. there was a reason personal to Paul as to why he alludes to much to that particular part of the Gospels. And so with his sustained allusions to Gethsemane, far more than we would expect statistically. Presumably the picture of the Lord Jesus struggling against His own nature, driven to the brink of eternal failure, was an image which echoed in Paul's mind. Likewise the parables were intended to be memorized and meditated upon; Paul did just this, and that's why he alludes to them more than average. This sort of pattern is just what we too experience; there are parts of Scripture which stick in our minds, often for personal reasons. And so it was with Paul. <em><a href='B:470 11:25'>Mat 11:25</a></em> was a verse which was perhaps very much in his mind as he wrote to Corinth; it is alluded to in <em><a href='B:530 1:19'>1Co 1:19</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 2:8'>1Co 2:8</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em> - and nowhere else.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:25'>1Co 1:25</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men-&nbsp;</em>That Almighty all-wise God could inspire <em><a href='B:530 1:25'>1Co 1:25</a></em> is another example of God’s humility: “The foolishness of God… the weakness of God”. In <em><a href='B:300 14:21'>Jer 14:21</a></em> we find something likewise wonderful: “Do not abhor&nbsp;<em>us</em>… do not disgrace the throne of thy glory”:&nbsp;<em>We</em>, weak humans, are paralleled with the throne of God’s glory.</p><p><em>And the weakness of God is stronger than men-&nbsp;</em>The same word is used in :27 about the believers being "the weak things". Many times, this word is used about spiritual weakness, especially in 1Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 4:10'>1Co 4:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 12:22'>1Co 12:22</a></em>). The foolishness of God has been defined as the cross of Christ; but that is now made parallel to the way God calls spiritually weak persons to be His vehicle of operation. Such an observation was relevant to the Corinthian situation. Those weak believers were used by God on account of their association with the cross of Christ, "the foolishness of God".</p>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 1:27'>1Co 1:27</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Bit&nbsp;God chose the foolish things of the world-&nbsp;</em>The word&nbsp;<em>moros</em>&nbsp;is predominantly used about the spiritually foolish. This was so relevant to the spiritually weak Corinthians. They had been chosen so that in God's strength they could come to glory. Maybe this is why the Lord forbids us to call each other&nbsp;<em>moros,&nbsp;</em>"fool" (<em><a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a></em>). That is indeed how we are, spiritual blockheads. But we are not to see ourselves nor each other from that perspective- for we are called to be so much more, and it is through that weakness that God is to be glorified in His Son.</p><p><em>That He might put to shame those that are wise-&nbsp;</em>The 'wise' here are those who appear to be wise. The fools confounding the wise is an inverse allusion to the Lord's parables, where the wise are saved and the foolish are condemned e:g. in the parable of the two builders. But here, the foolish shame the wise. "Shame" is the language of condemnation at the last day- this 'shaming' will happen only then, when those who appeared to be so 'wise', so sorted out, so spiritually and worldly wise, shall be condemned and shamed by the salvation of the transformed 'fools'. This whole approach was very necessary in approaching a church as weak as Corinth. And it has enormous implications for us today.</p><p><em>And God chose the weak things of the world, that He might put to shame the things that are strong-&nbsp;</em>The word for "weak" is elsewhere used about the spiritually weak (<em><a href='B:470 26:41'>Mat 26:41</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 5:6'>Rom 5:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:7'>1Co 8:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 8:10'>1Co 8:10</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 9:22'>1Co 9:22</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 11:30'>1Co 11:30</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 5:14'>1Th 5:14</a></em>). The 'shame' is in the condemning of the apparently 'strong' at the last day by the apparently 'weak'. These terms effectively mean 'those who consider themselves weak / strong'. Rather like the Lord's statement that it is the sick and not the healthy who need a doctor- we must read in the ellipsis: 'those who consider themselves to be:::'. All this is an outworking of the principle that "the weakness of God in the crucified Christ is stronger than men" (:25).</p>


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:530 2:2'>1Co 2:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified-&nbsp;</em>See on :1. The "determined" reflects Paul's struggle with the temptation to make the message of Christ crucified somewhat respectable in secular terms.</h4><p>The letters to Corinth must have been very difficult to write. Paul was walking an absolute minefield. Therefore he&nbsp; says that his attitude to Corinth was that he wanted to know nothing among them, saving Jesus Christ and Him crucified (<em><a href='B:530 2:2'>1Co 2:2</a></em>); he wanted to keep his mind fixed upon the Lord Jesus and the intensity of His passion, rather than get sidetracked by personality issues and ecclesial politics. And his letters reveal this. They contain many unconscious allusions to the suffering and death of Christ. Paul refers to Christ as "Lord" throughout all his letters about once every 26 verses on average. And yet in Corinthians he does so once every 10 verses on average. The Lordship and suffering of Jesus were therefore very much in Paul's mind as he wrote. His Christ and cross-centred perspective is a real example to us, living as we do at a time when the body of Christ increasingly distracts us from the central object of our devotion: the Son of God who died for us, and was raised again for our justification.</p><p>When Paul faced Corinth, the ecclesia whom he had loved and brought into being with great labour pains, yet now riven with carnality, fabricating the most malicious rumours against him, bitter at his spirituality::. he determined to know nothing among them, saving Christ, and Him crucified. The antidote to ecclesial problems and selfishness is reflection upon the cross. By insisting on our rights, Paul says, we will make the weak brother stumble, "for whom Christ died". 'Think of His cross and sacrifice', Paul is saying, 'and the sacrifice of self restraint&nbsp;<em>you</em>&nbsp;are asked to make is nothing at all'.</p><p>Despite “the offence of the cross", Paul preached it. “I determined not to know i:e. ‘teach the knowledge of' any thing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified". Paul didn’t accommodate his message to the ears of his hearers. There are times when God’s revelation&nbsp;<em>is</em>&nbsp;accommodated to us, but not when it comes to the basic message of Christ and the demands which His cross makes upon us.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:730 2:17'>Rev 2:17</a></em>.</p><p><em>But he that is spiritual judges all things; and he is ultimately judged by no man-&nbsp;</em>Those who have believed in the crucified Lord will receive of His Spirit, and are thereby able to judge or discern the truth of the things Paul was preaching. Such persons will be mocked and despised by the wise of this world; but ultimately, they are not judged by those men. Indeed, they shall bring to nothing all such pretensions in the day of final judgment, as explained in <em><a href='B:530 1:27-28'>1Co 1:27-28</a></em> (see notes there).</p><h4>In the final analysis, we will meet Jesus alone. There will by God’s grace be a moment when we will even see the face of Almighty God- alone. This was the light at the end of Job’s tunnel- he would see his redeemer for himself “and not another”. Paul possibly expresses the same idea of an unenterable relationship in <em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em>: "He that is spiritual discerneth all things (about God), yet he himself is discerned of no man":&nbsp; Our real spiritual being is a "hidden man" (<em><a href='B:670 3:4'>1Pe 3:4</a></em>). The Spirit describes our final redemption as our "soul" and "spirit" being "saved" ; our innermost being, our essential spiritual personality, who we&nbsp;<em>really</em>&nbsp;are in spiritual terms, will as it were be immortalized (<em><a href='B:670 1:9'>1Pe 1:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 5:5'>1Co 5:5</a></em>). Notice that Paul styles the spiritual man "he himself" (<em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em> AV); as if the real, fundamental self of the true believer is the spiritual man, notwithstanding the existence of the man of the flesh within him. Likewise Paul calls his spiritual man "I myself" in <em><a href='B:520 7:25'>Rom 7:25</a></em>. He now felt that when he sinned, it was no longer “I", his real, personal self, who was doing so (<em><a href='B:520 7:17'>Rom 7:17</a></em>).</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 3:14'>1Co 3:14</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone's work shall endure which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward</em>- Our reward in the Kingdom will in some way be related to the work of upbuilding we have done with our brethren and sisters in this life. The "reward" which <em><a href='B:530 3:14'>1Co 3:14</a></em> speaks of is the "work" we have built in God's ecclesia in this life. In agreement with this, Paul describes those he had laboured for as the reward he would receive in the Kingdom (<em><a href='B:570 4:1'>Phi 4:1</a></em>; <em><a href='B:590 2:19'>1Th 2:19</a></em>). Paul has in mind that the Corinthians were his "work in the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 9:1'>1Co 9:1</a></em>). He encourages all the Corinthians to likewise abound in this "work of the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 15:58'>1Co 15:58</a></em>)- i:e. of building up each other. Paul has said in :8 that he is liable for "reward"- depending on the growth of the Corinthians.</p>


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:530 3:15'>1Co 3:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>If anyone's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet as having passed through fire-&nbsp;</em>There is the implication in the New Testament that whoever lives the life of Christ will convert others to the Way. 1 Corinthians 3 speaks of the converts a man builds on the foundation of Christ. They, like himself, must go through the fire of judgment, and if they are lost, then he himself will still be saved (if he has remained faithful). The implication is that all of us build up others, and our work is tried in the end.</h4><p>The accepted will be saved "yet so as by fire" (AV). The fire of condemnation will as it were burn at them and remove all their surface spirituality. And as through death comes life, so through condemnation of the flesh comes salvation of the spirit.</p><p>If we invest our lives in seeking to save others and they are burnt up at the day of judgment, then we will indeed experience loss. "Suffer loss" is a term elsewhere used about being "cast away" in rejection at the day of judgment, or 'losing' ones own soul there (<em><a href='B:470 16:26'>Mat 16:26</a></em>; <em><a href='B:490 9:25'>Luk 9:25</a></em>). This is not teaching that the preacher / teacher will be rejected, for we go on to read that he shall not be- "he himself shall be saved". It's that if we really care for people, then the loss of any man is my loss; we identify with those we love and care for. Hence the faithful of the Old Testament felt that they had sinned along with Israel, and Ezra blushed to lift up his face to God because of the sins of the Israel with whom he was associated (<em><a href='B:150 9:6'>Ezr 9:6</a></em>). As we see those they laboured for condemned and burnt up, we will feel it as if it were us. This is why Paul openly admits that he has a vested interest in the salvation of the Corinthians. We too cannot work with others in some dispassionate, at-a-distance manner, as if it were a mere 9-5 job we were doing. If those we served are indeed burnt up, it shall be as if we were, although we ourselves shall be saved. This I believe is the sense of the next sentence: "But he himself shall be saved, yet as having passed through fire".</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a></em> - see on <em><a href='B:550 6:4'>Gal 6:4</a></em>.</p><p><em>For I know nothing against myself in my own conscience. Yet hereby I am not justified; but he that judges me is the Lord-&nbsp;</em>As explained in the previous verses, Paul was under the Lordship of Jesus as his master. Only His judgment therefore was of any meaning; even if his own conscience were clear, this would not justify him. He parallels his justification with his judgment; the Lord's present and final judgment will be our justification by His imputed righteousness. And so a comparison related to time is also introduced; whether we feel justified by our own self assessment now is nothing compared to His justification of us then. This idea is continued in the next verse- "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come".<em><br/></em><br/>Paul says that although he does not feel he has done anything wrong, this does not of itself mean that he is justified in God's sight. We cannot, therefore, place too much importance on living according to our natural sense of right and wrong. "It's OK in my conscience" is the only justification for many. They give more credibility to what they perceive to be guidance coming from within them, than to God's word of Truth. The words of the Lord Jesus in <em><a href='B:490 11:35'>Luk 11:35</a></em> seem especially relevant: "Take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness. "It's OK in my conscience" is indeed dark light. Our conscience is not going to jump out of us and stand and judge us at the day of judgment. There is one thing that will judge us, the word of the Lord (<em><a href='B:500 12:48'>Joh 12:48</a></em>), not how far we have lived according to our conscience.<br/>“He that judges me is the Lord” alludes to “Yet surely my judgment is with the Lord” (<em><a href='B:290 49:4'>Isa 49:4</a></em>). This is one of a number of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to Paul in the context of his preaching Christ.</p><p><em><a href='B:530 4:3-5'>1Co 4:3-5</a></em> appeals to the reality of&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;future judgment as a basis for not paying too much attention to how&nbsp;<em>man&nbsp;</em>judges us. If it is&nbsp;<em>God's</em>&nbsp;judgment that means everything to us, what men say or think about us, or what we perceive they do, will not weigh so heavily with us. The ultimate reality of our lives is the sense of God's future judgment, not the awareness of man's present judgment. If we really grasp the simple fact that God alone is judge, that there is only One who&nbsp;<em>can</em>&nbsp;judge us, that Christ will come, then we will say with Paul from our hearts: “He that is spiritual… himself is judged of no man” (<em><a href='B:530 2:15'>1Co 2:15</a></em>). Of course, men&nbsp;<em>do</em>&nbsp;judge us; and it hurts. But we are to act and feel according to the fact that ultimately, they can&nbsp;<em>not</em>&nbsp;judge us. For there is only One judge, to whom we shall all soon give account.</p><h4>Paul, misrepresented and slandered more than most brethren, came to conclude: "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me right now is the Lord" (<em><a href='B:530 4:3-4'>1Co 4:3-4</a></em>). The judge is the justifier, according to this argument. Paul is not justified by himself or by other men, because they are not his judge. The fact that God alone is judge through Christ another first principle means that nobody can ultimately justify us or condemn us. "Many seek the favour of the ruler 'judge'; but every man's judgment cometh from the Lord" (<em><a href='B:240 29:26'>Pro 29:26</a></em>). The false claims of others can do nothing to ultimately damage us, and our own efforts at self-justification are in effect a denial of the fact that the Lord is the judge, not us, and therefore He alone can and will justify.</h4>


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come</em>- Any feeling OK in our own conscience&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;is irrelevant compared to the fact that the final judgment is not&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;but&nbsp;<em>then</em>&nbsp;when the Lord comes. The appeal to judge nothing before that time is directed very much at ourselves in our self judgment, rather than warning against judging others. We are not to judge, not simply because it is beyond our competence, but because&nbsp;<em>now</em>&nbsp;is not the time to judge.</p><p><em>Who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts</em>- Judgment of others is impossible because we cannot see the hearts of others, nor can we see in darkness. There is an element to which judgment will be public; and hidden things will be made manifest not only to those being judged, but to all of us. The real intentions of others will then be known by us all. And this is necessary to prepare us to live eternally together. The judgment process in that sense is for our benefit and education, rather than because God needs it in order to gather information. The same word for "bring to light" is used of how we can now live 'in the light', with our whole body as it were full of light and having no dark parts (<em><a href='B:490 11:36'>Luk 11:36</a></em>; <em><a href='B:500 1:9'>Joh 1:9</a></em>). This is the whole sense of our having been 'enlightened' (<em><a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a></em>; <em><a href='B:560 3:9'>Eph 3:9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 6:4'>Heb 6:4</a></em>; <em><a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a></em> s:w:).</p><p>We can live in the spirit of judgment day right now, if we allow the Lord's light to operate as intended. He will reveal the hidden things of darkness (the human heart), and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>). Of course He knows these anyway; but He will make them manifest&nbsp;<em>to us</em>. The judgment seat is for our benefit, not God's- He knows our lives and spiritual position already. The day of judgment is to purify us (<em><a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a></em>)- not ultimately, for that has been done by the Lord's blood and our lives of faithful acceptance of this. But the fire of judgment reveals the dross of our lives&nbsp;<em>to us</em>&nbsp;and in this sense purges us of those sins. Without the judgment, we would drift into the Kingdom with no real appreciation of our own sinfulness or the height of God's grace. The judgment will declare God's glory, His triumph over every secret sin of His people. The heathen will be judged "that the nations may know themselves to be but men" (<em><a href='B:230 9:20'>Psa 9:20</a></em>)- self knowledge is the aim, not extraction of information so that God can make a decision. And it was the same with Israel: "Judge the bloody city::. (i:e:) shew her all her abominations" (<em><a href='B:330 22:2'>Eze 22:2</a></em>).</p><p>At judgment God "shall bring forth thy righteousness (good deeds) as the light, and thy judgment as the noon day" (<em><a href='B:230 37:6'>Psa 37:6</a></em>). The sins of the rejected and the good deeds of the righteous will be publicly declared at the judgment, even if they are concealed from men in this life (<em><a href='B:610 5:24-25'>1Ti 5:24-25</a></em>). This is how men will receive "praise of God" (<em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>). The wicked will see the generous deeds of the righteous rehearsed before them; and will gnash their teeth and melt away into condemnation (<em><a href='B:230 112:9-10'>Psa 112:9-10</a></em>).</p><p><em>And then shall each man have his praise from God-&nbsp;</em>The praise, in the context, would be for the counsels of their hearts. This is exactly the sense of <em><a href='B:520 2:29'>Rom 2:29</a></em>, where the same word is used: "He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God". This is how critically important it is to be spiritually minded; this is the essence which the Father looks at. And yet "praise of God" at the judgment recalls the Lord's parable of how we shall be praised in that day for having fed, clothed and visited the suffering Lord Jesus in the form of the least of His brethren. With such an awesome prospect ahead, we will not be interested in being judged positively by men; and neither will their negative judgment of us mean anything much.</p><p>Whilst we ourselves will feel the need to "confess to God" (<em><a href='B:520 14:11-12'>Rom 14:11-12</a></em>) our failures and unworthiness, we have shown earlier how our Lord will not mention these to us, but instead joyfully catalogue to us those things which have so pleased him in our lives. This will be to our genuine amazement: "Lord, when::?". Keeping a subconscious inventory of our own good works now will surely prevent us from being in this category. <em><a href='B:530 4:5'>1Co 4:5</a></em> speaks of us as receiving "praise of God" at the judgment, presumably in the form of praise for the good works which we are not aware of, as outlined in the parable (cp. <em><a href='B:230 134:3'>Psa 134:3</a></em>). "Praise" suggests that our Lord will show quite some enthusiasm in this. Not he that commends himself will be approved cp. The listing of good deeds by the rejected, "but whom the Lord commendeth" in as it were listing the good deeds of the accepted (<em><a href='B:540 10:18'>2Co 10:18</a></em>).</p><p>There are some instructive parallels here:</p><table><tr><td></p><h4>"Bring to light"</td><td>"Make manifest"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"The hidden things of"</td><td>"The counsels of"</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>"Darkness"</td><td>"The hearts"</td><td></td></tr></table><p>The hidden man is therefore "the counsels" of the heart. How we speak and reason to ourselves in our self-talk, this is the indicator of the hidden man. This will be 'made manifest' to the owners of those hearts, the Greek implies. "All things are naked and opened" unto God anyway; the second coming will reveal nothing to Him. The making manifest of our hidden man will be to ourselves and to others. The purpose of the judgment seat is therefore more for our benefit than God's; it will be the ultimate self-revelation of ourselves. Then we will know ourselves, just as God knows us (<em><a href='B:530 13:12'>1Co 13:12</a></em>). Through a glass, darkly, we can now see the outline of our spiritual self (<em><a href='B:530 13:11-12'>1Co 13:11-12</a></em>), although all too often we see this picture in the spiritual mirror of self-examination, and then promptly forget about it (<em><a href='B:660 1:23-24'>Jas 1:23-24</a></em>).</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:530 4:18'>1Co 4:18</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Now some are inflated with pride, as though I were not going to come to you</em>- <em><a href='B:540 1:17-19'>2Co 1:17-19</a></em> suggests Paul was being slandered as an indecisive man whose word was not his bond. The implication of how Paul writes here is that his literal presence in Corinth would reveal the 'puffed up' ones as being indeed just inflated and having no substance. This situation would only be possible surely if Paul had some Spirit gift of discernment and even judgment or punishment which he was not afraid to use. James 5 seems to envisage a situation where the Spirit did smite some in the first century churches with disease, and the Lord's letters in Revelation 2, 3 imply likewise. We recall the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira.</h4>


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:1'>1Co 5:1</a></em> Note how Paul deals with ecclesial problems in places like Corinth. He doesn’t write to the elders and tell them to sort it out and clean up the ecclesia. He writes to every member of the ecclesia. He confronts the whole ecclesia with his concerns over pastoral issues- not just the pastors. He tells the whole ecclesia of his concern about how they have not dealt with flagrant sin amongst them (1 Corinthians 5; <em><a href='B:530 6:1-11'>1Co 6:1-11</a></em>). The Lord’s teaching in <em><a href='B:470 18:15-18'>Mat 18:15-18</a></em> doesn’t ask us to refer our concerns about others’ behaviour in the ecclesia to the elders. He asks us to personally take the matter up with the individual. His church was to be built on individuals who followed Him personally and closely.</p><p><em>It is actually reported-&nbsp;</em>The Greek implies it was widely being spread about. Some were boasting about their liberality, as some do today. They were "puffed up" about the matter (:2). It was not a case of quietly accommodating a non-standard moral situation, but of boasting in it and claiming it was quite acceptable and even commendable.</p><p><em>That there is sexual immorality among you, and such immorality as is not even among the Gentiles</em>- This alludes to Old Testament condemnations of Israel for being actually worse than the surrounding Gentiles. And Paul is writing to Corinth, a city famed for its sexual immorality. Why is it that believers at times act far worse than unbelievers? The Corinthians were not living by the Spirit but rather by legalism; and obedience to a few laws leads people to fail spectacularly in other areas, because they feel justified. And as Paul explains in Romans 7, the knowledge of God's law provokes within human nature a desire to disobey it. The only way forward, then, is to recognize God's law but live in the Spirit. The legalistic spirit of the Corinthians is reflected in the way that they treated the man too harshly- for in 2Cor. Paul has to urge them to receive him back lest he be psychologically and spiritually destroyed by their attitude. So, as legalists do, they went from one extreme to another rather than following the way of the Spirit.</p><p><em>That one of you has taken to himself his father's wife</em>- The woman may not necessarily have been the mother of the offender. This case involved a man suffering wrong (<em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>), so we can assume that the woman was already married to the man's father, and he took her away from him. Hence "taken to himself::.". The end of chapter 4 must be connected with chapter 5; Paul speaks of his choice of dealing with Corinth with a rod, or with the spirit of meekness, and he has in view the case he is now discussing.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:530 5:6'>1Co 5:6</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little yeast raises the whole lump of dough?-&nbsp;</em>Paul is cleverly alluding to a common Jewish maxim that sinners must be removed from the community because just a little yeast affects the whole lump. But he is saying that the attitudes of those who were boasting about this matter were in fact the yeast. He has said that they were "puffed up" (:2 Gk. and AV). And here he continues the analogy. Their boasting had to be purged out- and so he urges them to purge out that yeast so that they might be "a new lump" (:7). Their boasting was the yeast. Whilst indeed the immoral personal had to be removed, their attitudes were no better. This is a very telling play on the idea of yeast, and is so true of the wrong attitudes which have accompanied so much excommunication. Those attitudes were as bad and as damaging as the behaviour of the individual being disciplined. Paul makes his point specifically in :8, where he asks them to remove the yeast of "malice and wickedness" and instead be sincere and truthful. He uses the same word for "malice" in describing how things were amongst the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 10:6'>1Co 10:6</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 13:5'>1Co 13:5</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 15:33'>1Co 15:33</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 14:20'>1Co 14:20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:540 13:7'>2Co 13:7</a></em>). The Greek word for "wickedness" is that used of "that wicked person" (:13). Their wickedness, which they had to purge out, was no better than his wickedness. As noted earlier, the command to remove the individual was not simply for his sake (<em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>); there were far wider issues here. The essence of his sin was to be found in those who were boasting of him, and who would later over harshly condemn him.</h4>


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old yeast, neither with the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with the bread of sincerity and truth which has no yeast-&nbsp;</em>Paul's selfless relationship with Corinth was inspired by that of Moses with Israel. This is echoing Moses' command to keep the Passover feast without leaven, putting Moses' words in his own mouth (<em><a href='B:20 12:15'>Exo 12:15</a></em>; <em><a href='B:50 16:3'>Deu 16:3</a></em>). Paul saw himself as Moses in trying to save a generally unresponsive and ungrateful Israel.</p><p>In <em><a href='B:50 16:3'>Deu 16:3</a></em> the unleavened bread is called the "bread of affliction", whilst in <em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em> it is called the "unleavened bread of sincerity and Truth", as if being sincere and true and not having malice and bitterness in our hearts is a result of much mental affliction and exercising of the mind. So to keep the feast we have to search our houses, our lives, for anything like leaven- anything that puffs us up, that distorts us from the true smallness and humility we should have, that corrupts our sincerity. By nature we have so much pride in us, so much that puffs us up. We should always find some leaven in us every time we examine ourselves. The Jews used to search their houses with candles, looking for any sign of leaven. So we too must look into every corner of our lives with the candle of the word. Similarly before the great Passovers of Hezekiah and Josiah there was a searching for idols which were then thrown down. Note how Paul calls on the Corinthians to keep the feast “with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,” which he contrasts with “malice and evil” (<em><a href='B:530 5:8'>1Co 5:8</a></em>). Truth is set up against evil- not against wrong interpretations of Bible passages.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 5:13'>1Co 5:13</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But them that are without God judges. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves</em>- As noted on :6, their "wickedness" is described with the same word as used for the "wicked man". They were in essence no better, and the command to remove him was not so much for his sake as for other reasons (<em><a href='B:540 7:12'>2Co 7:12</a></em>). It was not that wicked people must be removed from the church; for as noted on :6, they too were "wicked". There was a wider agenda here, as noted throughout this chapter.</p>


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a></em>&nbsp;<em>I say this to move you to shame</em>- See on <em><a href='B:530 4:14'>1Co 4:14</a></em>.</p><h4><em>What Is there not among you even one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brothers?-&nbsp;</em>This is a reference back to <em><a href='B:530 1:19-20'>1Co 1:19-20</a></em>; <em><a href='B:530 1:25-27'>1Co 1:25-27</a></em>. The gift of wisdom was given to those "not esteemed" (<em><a href='B:530 1:28'>1Co 1:28</a></em>). Paul laments that despite having been given the Spirit, they were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>) and therefore lacked wisdom. Paul had the Spirit, and he judged the situation about the immoral brother in chapter 5. But here he laments that there seems not one who has made use of the gift of spiritual wisdom. Christ had been made wisdom to the Corinthians (<em><a href='B:530 1:30'>1Co 1:30</a></em>), but there was not a wise man amongst them. Just as they had been richly blessed with the Spirit, according to chapter 1, but were not spiritual (<em><a href='B:530 3:1'>1Co 3:1</a></em>). The Greek translated "decide" is used again in <em><a href='B:530 11:29'>1Co 11:29</a></em> about not discerning the Lord's body, which is His church.</h4>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<p><em><a href='B:530 6:15'>1Co 6:15</a></em>&nbsp;<em>Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?</em>- We noted on :11 and :14 that baptism is in view here; for we are baptized into the mystical body of Christ. Paul in <em><a href='B:520 6:13'>Rom 6:13</a></em>; <em><a href='B:520 6:19'>Rom 6:19</a></em> likewise warns against the misuse of our "members" in immorality; because we are baptized into Christ, our members are His and not our own. In chapter 12 Paul will explain that our membership of the Lord's body calls us to practical service within that body- rather than using our members for our own gratification.</p><h4>Therefore, Paul says, smashing through all Corinth's rationalizations of their sin, "know you not" (isn't it obvious to you?) that we should not become one body with a prostitute. This isn't just because&nbsp;<em>we&nbsp;</em>belong to the body of Christ and manifest Him; it is also because we are representative of us all who are in that body, and we wouldn't wish to bring His body, i:e. all the other believers, into such an inappropriate position. What you do, we all do. And the Lord Jesus has delegated His reputation in the eyes of this world to us, who are His body to them. The wonder of being baptized into His Name, entering the body of Christ (<em><a href='B:530 6:14'>1Co 6:14</a></em> matches our resurrection with that of the Lord) means that like our early brethren, we will rejoice to suffer shame for the sake of carrying that Name (<em><a href='B:470 10:24-25'>Mat 10:24-25</a></em>). It will be "enough" for us that we know something of our Lord's sufferings. The more we reflectively read the Gospels, the more we will know the nature and extent of His sufferings, and the more we will see in our own something of his.</h4><p>Pause for a moment to reflect that the Lord’s resurrection is a pattern for our own. This is the whole meaning of baptism. “God has both raised the Lord and will raise us up through his power” (<em><a href='B:530 6:13-14'>1Co 6:13-14</a></em>). Yet there were evident continuities between the Jesus who lived mortal life, and the Jesus who rose again. His mannerisms, body language, turns of phrase, were so human- even after His resurrection. And so who we are now, as persons, is who we will eternally be. Because of the resurrection, our personalities in the sum of all their relationships and nuances,&nbsp;<em>have an eternal future</em>. But from whence do we acquire those nuances, body languages, etc? They arise partly from our parents, from our inter-relations with others etc; we are the sum of our relationships. And this is in fact a tremendous encouragement to us in our efforts for others; for the result of our parenting, our patient effort and grace towards others, will have an eternal effect upon others. Who we help them become is, in part, who they will eternally be. &nbsp;Job reflected that if a tree is cut down, it sprouts (Heb:&nbsp;<em>yaliph</em>) again as the same tree; and he believed that after his death he would likewise sprout again (<em>yaliph</em>) at the resurrection (<em><a href='B:220 14:7-9'>Job 14:7-9</a></em>; <em><a href='B:220 14:14-15'>Job 14:14-15</a></em>). There will be a continuity between who we were in mortal life, and who we will eternally be- just as there is between the pruned tree and the new tree which grows again out of its stump.</p><p>Because He rose,&nbsp;<em>therefore&nbsp;</em>we stop committing sin (<em><a href='B:530 6:14'>1Co 6:14</a></em>). We can't willfully sin if we believe in the forgiveness His resurrection has enabled. Men should repent not only because judgment day is coming, but because God has commended repentance to us, He has offered / inspired faith in His forgiveness&nbsp;<em>by the resurrection of Christ&nbsp;</em>(<em><a href='B:510 17:30-31'>Act 17:30-31</a></em> AV mg:). The empty tomb and all the Lord's glorification means for us should therefore inspire personal repentance; as well as of itself being an imperative to go and share this good news with a sinful world, appealing for them to repent and be baptized so that they too might share in the forgiveness enabled for them by the resurrection. Because the Lord was our representative, in His resurrection we see our own. We are therefore born again unto a living and abounding hope, by our identification with the resurrection of Jesus Christ (<em><a href='B:670 1:3'>1Pe 1:3</a></em>). The Ethiopian eunuch read of his representative Saviour as also being childless, and being as he was, in the midst of a wilderness; and realizing this, he desired to be baptized into Him. Grasping the representational nature of the Lord's death inspires response in baptism, and yet the motivational power of this fact continues afterwards.</p><p><em>Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? God forbid</em>- We need to read this carefully. Paul is not accusing them of simply using prostitutes. He is saying that they were the body members of Christ by baptism, but they were acting as the body members of a prostitute. They are therefore accused not of&nbsp;<em>using</em>&nbsp;prostitutes, but&nbsp;<em>being</em>&nbsp;prostitutes. And this connects with our earlier thoughts in this chapter, that the cult of prostitution as practiced in the surrounding religions had been imported into the church at Corinth. They had 'taken' parts of Christ's body and used them in that way; the suggestion is surely that they had appointed some of their number to be ecclesial prostitutes. And this was likely what was going on at the breaking of bread. For this reason I have some sympathy with the reading of the sexual sins in :11 as specifically referring to prostitution of various kinds. Paul was not going to 'take' Christ's body parts, the believers, and use them as the body parts of a prostitute. Perhaps he had been invited to do so and was turning it down. It could be that Paul has in view a symbolic prostitute such as 'Babylon' but the context here is surely of literal sexual misbehaviour.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:530 7:2'>1Co 7:2</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But because there is so much immorality</em>- The Greek&nbsp;<em>porneia</em>&nbsp;refers to the use of prostitution, and in chapter 6 we saw that this sort of thing was going on within the Corinthian church. The context is not speaking about young couples 'going too far' and being advised to marry in order to avoid that temptation. Prostitution was common in religious practices in Corinth, and it seems likely there were some who wanted to justify practicing it in the church. An argument was being made that seeing human passions could be satisfied as much as physical desires for food (<em><a href='B:530 6:13'>1Co 6:13</a></em>), the Christian should commit himself to the Lord's service as a single person, even breaking up marriage to do so, and use church prostitutes to satisfy sexual urges.</h4><p><em>Let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband-&nbsp;</em>I suggest this not an appeal for single people to get married, but rather an encouragement to 'have' sexual relations with their&nbsp;<em>own</em>&nbsp;partners- rather than making use of the church prostitutes. This would be the force of the word "own". The next verses speak in this same context. I would doubt the reference is to getting married rather than being single because the majority of people in first century society were married. Singleness was not anywhere near as common as it is today, indeed New Testament Greek refers to either an underage girl, or a married woman. If my approach is correct, then we would need to note that women were also tempted to use male prostitutes in the church, and this would explain the usage of words relating to male prostitution in chapter 6.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:530 7:12'>1Co 7:12</a></em>&nbsp;<em>But to the rest speak I, not the Lord-&nbsp;</em>See on :10. There are several indications that Paul expected his readers to understand that the majority of what he was saying was basically a reflection of the words of the Lord Jesus. He hasn't earlier said: 'Now I'm going to remind you of the words of the Lord Jesus'. He takes it as understood that as usual, his reasoning has been a reflection of the words of Jesus (in the context, <em><a href='B:530 7:11'>1Co 7:11</a></em> = <em><a href='B:470 5:32'>Mat 5:32</a></em>; <em><a href='B:480 10:9'>Mar 10:9</a></em>; "put asunder" is s:w. "depart"). But now he says that he is going to go beyond Christ's words (as in <em><a href='B:530 7:25'>1Co 7:25</a></em>). This doesn't mean he wasn't inspired; it means that he is drawing their attention to the fact that he is doing something unusual for him, i:e. to give teaching which is not an allusion or repetition of that of the Lord Jesus. My point is that the implication of this is that he expected his readers to take as read that he normally was only repeating the thinking of Christ. Likewise in <em><a href='B:540 11:17'>2Co 11:17</a></em>: “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord” (i:e. as I normally would). Every few verses, even according to our limited analysis, he was making a noticeable allusion to the Gospels. When he says that he is speaking to the Thessalonians "by (in) the word of the Lord" Jesus (<em><a href='B:590 4:15'>1Th 4:15</a></em>), this doesn't mean that what he was about to say was more inspired than anything else. What he meant was that he was specifically repeating the teaching of Christ (which he does through a series of extended allusions to Matthew 24, 25). "To the rest" would be appropriate language to use if Paul were sitting down replying to a letter from Corinth which lists various categories and asks his opinion about them.</h4><p><em>If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her-&nbsp;</em>It is probably true that in every marriage, the thought arises as to what life would be like if it were to end. The problem was that believers in their low moments were justifying breaking up their relationships in the name of higher spiritual service. And Paul is most clearly arguing against all such reasoning. Most women in first century society automatically followed the religion of their husbands; but we see here an indication of the deeply personal nature of Christian commitment. It was far from automatic that marital partners would also accept the faith of their partners. "Leave her" translates a different Greek term to that used about the believing woman not 'leaving' her unbelieving partner in :13. Here in :12 we have a formal term for divorce. It would have been harder for a woman to divorce her husband, but she could leave or run away from him- and that is the term used in :13. Not being 'together', leaving each other, is therefore parallel to divorce. Documentary evidence for marital status is a concept only of recent times. And in any case, the essence of marriage is being together, not leaving each other but cleaving to each other.</p>


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


text:
<h4><em><a href='B:530 7:23'>1Co 7:23</a></em>&nbsp;<em>You were bought with a price. Become not slaves of men</em>- The price paid to buy us out of slavery was the blood of the Lord Jesus. To become slaves again afterwards is therefore an awful ingratitude to Him. We can become slaves by entering into relationships or employment situations which effectively rob us of our mental freedom to serve Him. The metaphor suggests we were bought out of one slavery in order to become freewill slaves of Him who bought us out of our hopeless situation. Paul surely had this metaphor in view earlier in the chapter when he speaks of a believer not being 'in bondage' (:15), not remaining with an unbelieving partner who wants to end the relationship just because they may provide financial security etc. The same argument was deployed in <em><a href='B:530 6:20'>1Co 6:20</a></em>: "For you were bought with a price. Glorify God therefore in your body and spirit, for they are God's". Here in chapter 7 Paul is demonstrating some practical outworkings of this- in not becoming slaves of men, and managing our personal relationships in a way that enables us to remain God's slaves.</h4>


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


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


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


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


